Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

I do not believe this qualifies as a "fast wagon" at this point. 7 pages of Day One in a mini setup isn't fast, at least by my memory of typical game flow.

Long days = good for Town, and the longer the better

The first quote is from earlier in the day regarding the Panzer wagon. The 2nd quote is from your recent post. Can you explain the discrepancy here? In the first quote you are arguing that ending the day with a Panzer lynch at page 7 isn't a fast wagon, but now you argue that subgenius is scummy for suggesting that we end the day at 18 pages?

[Dourgrim]

I don't see those two statements as contradictory, and frankly I'm confused how you would. The first quote was in reference to the original Panzer wagon, and I was saying I didn't think it had happened too fast considering it had developed over 7 pages worth of Day One. The second post says that I think long days benefit the Town (YMMV on that theory, but that's not relevant to your specific question here). To my mind, they're more

similar

than anything: 7 pages isn't too fast, and neither is 18, because I don't think there

is

such a thing as "too fast" when it comes to Days in a game.

[ting =)]

I'm sorry for the long no post guys, I've been busy. I know it's not an excuse. I'm reading the game now. Post soon-ish.

[Dourgrim]

I was rereading the above point and what you're seeing suddenly clicked in my head. I said that all kinds of backwards in my earlier explanation post because I wasn't reading your question clearly. That's what I get for trying to post immediately after waking up. Let me try to clarify.

In the first quote, I was saying that I didn't believe the wagon on Panzer was too fast after 7 days, and I stand by that because, as I've said before, I think bandwagons are a good source of information and conversation. However, I did

not

say that I would've been happy with the Day

ending

with a Panzer lynch at that point. There is a difference... unless you think every bandwagon should end with that person being lynched, in which case I think we'll have to respectfully disagree. Long days are good for the Town, but bandwagons don't necessarily have to progress slowly in order for them to create useful discussion.

Sorry for the confusion in the above post.

[Dourgrim]

I am going to re read and carefully consider all arguments put forward (I appreciate your efforts to get simplified versions Dour) and choose where to place my vote. I have been said to be avoiding a firm stance on the game and it's main arguments and being an active lurker. I am activley trying to correct this perception to by adopting a stance. I shall be back tommorow...

I'm sorry for the long no post guys, I've been busy. I know it's not an excuse. I'm reading the game now. Post soon-ish.

At this point I'm seriously considering a "lynch all lurkers" strategy in this game. There are WAY too many people who aren't contributing to this game, instead watching from the sidelines while big conversations go on and attract all the attention. From this point forward, every time someone gets prodded on a Tuesday through Friday (because I don't expect anyone to post much on weekends), I'm giving them a . Every time I see a "oops, sorry I'm not being helpful" or "sorry, I'm here, I'll contribute some other time" post like the ones above, they get a . When someone compiles enough 's, I'm going to vote for them. A player may cancel a with a when they contribute to the game at large with three posts without a . It may sound simplistic, but I'm really getting irritated with this crap, and this way everyone can see exactly how mad I'm getting.

[ting =)]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

I didn't like this post because ting is effectively voting Panzejager for creating and stimulating discussion. To start to discussion you have to make a case and it would be hard to start if you only ever focused on the huge mistakes a player might make. By focusing on any possible mistake it gets discussion going and as Panzerjager said he was "propelling us out of random voting" which I see as good in a way. Bad in another way though...

You don't need to blow things out of proportion to create discussion. I point to the fact that panzer himself later withdrew his initial attack on myko that it was indeed a small thing, and that that was a more than valid reason for a vote.

[quote="militant]

Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

I dislike the way you so openly advocate a bandwagon so early in the day. I'm not defending djekha's actions but merely commenting on SL's actions. [/quote]
I disagee. Wagons are a good source of info, especially early in the day.

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.

You don't know who the town are in the group of people playing now unless of course your mafia. A minor slip perhaps.

??? It's pretty clear SL was refering to all the players in this game. You're reading scuminess where there's absolutely none at all. This is even worse than GIEFF's.

Then Ting, read my post, and ask does that apply to you.

She is saying that Goatrevolt is delibrately cutting of new information by not giving a SUMMARY of PAST events. Would you vote a player refusing to give you a summary based on him not giving you new information.

For Zilla and Ting's benefit, I'm going to post the definition of Summary

1. a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

I was refering to the act of

asking for a summary

as a null-tell. In no way was I refering to her vote on goat, or her case. Heck, I explicitly said:

I really don't think goatrevolt warranted a vote.

Did you miss that or is there something to your question that I'm missing? And yes, I understand what a summary means. Just because I'd ask for a 'brief abstract of previously stated..' doesn't mean that I wouldn't bother reading all the previous posts in the game - I'd still read everything. Like I said, when I read a game, I like to read the old stuff in the context of the current situation. Is there something wrong with that?

I honestly feel that he is playing kind safe, but it might be his non agression in a lot of brazen personalities. (Spring, Dour, GIEFF, Goat even. The rest seem considerably more aggressive than Ting.

Of the whole bunch I would vote Macavity as he bothers me the most, but he hasn’t posted in so long I don’t really see the point. Oh well, I’ll just wait to next time. The next scummiest person might be Ting in my book, but I need a bit more discussion to really decide. (And the return of cavity with his thoughts will also help.)

Why am I next scummiest? Because I'm 'playing kind of safe'? How is that a reason? Aggresion != scum hunting. I fail to see the point of aggression besides to generate reactions, and there are other ways of doing that that work just fine.

Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.

Argument from consequences. Just because your actions had 'good' consequences doesn't mean that their reasons were valid to begin with. And I'd disagree on Goat flying under the radar, he's easily among the active players.

Case in point. You try to throw every little accusation back at the accuser. I also thought it was entirely obvious why scum are more likely to do it. Town may be suspicious of people who argue them, but scum are the paranoid ones that want to shut down any possibility they could ever possibly be scum, and tend to react very strongly against any and all arguments against them.

? Town and scum both have perfectly valid incentives to make sure they don't get lynched. Acting 'strongly against any and all arguments against them' is in no way indictive of scuminess. There's no reason any player should want to let an argument on them stand unless they're a jester.

You voted me because I told you "no, read the thread". That was the entire reason behind your vote.

Again, welcome to the party.

I still don't think goat warranted a vote for this. There are a lot of other players who didn't bother to give you a summary. I fail to see why that's scummy at all unless you think everyone is scum for it. His reaction was perfectly valid, it's a null-tell.

It's not emotion driven; your answers to my accusation that it stops information show you're not seeing my point on the issue. I'll say it again that I've never had so much trouble getting accountability from somebody. If accountability isn't valuable information, I have nothing more to discuss with you on that.

This, I'll agree on, as a fellow summary asker. But I still think how he reacted was a null-tell. You're both making the whole 'give-don't-give-summary' into a bigger deal than it should be.

I'm not scummy because you are unwilling to read my posts.

You're scummy because you're clearly expending more energy trying to get me to read your already carefully crafted posts, and are paranoid that you'll screw something up if you so much as summarize and get some of your contrived facts wrong.

Whoa. Where do you get

this

from? This is just baseless.

why don't you enlighten us all by explaining exactly why I am wrong.

I addressed this stupid logic earlier, though I may comment on the stupid psychological benefit you're trying to earn by using "us" instead of "me," trying to subliminally pair you with town and create an "us vs Zilla" mentality.

Again, whoa. People need to stop reading so much into the usage of particular words.

---
I'm going to ignore the rest of goat's and zilla's page 12 posts. I'm sorry guys, but I honestly think you both just took the little things way too far.
---

For now, Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

Seriously? You ranted a while back about how the cases so far are all over little things, and you go and vote him for being the first to say serial killer? This is the first scummy thing I've actually seen you do. I was fine with the stuff before this. And yes, I read your reply to panzer, that's not what makes me iffy. It's the fact that you're voting him for something so small 13 pages into the game.

Panzer lied. He did not lie about something minor; he lied about the reasons for a vote. Not a random vote, a VOTE-vote. The next person who mis-classifies Panzerjager's vote for mykonian as a random-vote will get a policy-FOS from me for obscuring the past. Both have admitted the votes were not random, so stop misleading the town by calling them random.

In case this was addressed to me - I was calling panzer's vote and subsequent reasoning a mistake, like he said it was. Again, I'm not seeing how it's unreasonable to consider that panzer, like myko, was in no way intending to lie. I asked you a bunch of questions a while back about this. I'm not going to push them, they're too far back for me to see any point in raising a hassle over them.

But you said that "one word does not a concrete case make", implying that the word was my entire case. It was just a part of my overall case, which IS concrete.

You're taking me out of context again. My post for context:

The whole

case on him about the slip

hinges on the fact that he used the word 'townie.' I'm not sure yet if it means anything, but I agree with myko that it seems rather blown out of proportion. The use of one word does not a concrete case make.

Emphasis

about the slip.

I made it pretty clear I was talking about the whole bit with the slip, not about your whole case. And I don't think your panzer case was concrete at all. For reasons I've already said. A chunk of it is nitpicking over little things which could be read in a number of ways. I've said this before. A number of posts from the others would indicate they concur.

You hide behind LAL, while you orchestrate a mislynch.

You sure about that, champ?

Oh,

come on

. It's clear he thinks you're scum, and given that assumption, you'd be attempting a mislynch. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to read another slew of posts over the usage of a single word.

add-on: I do.

Firstly number one. A mislynch is when you lynch a town member. You don't know who the town are unless your mafia so you have no concrete knowledge that Panzer is town unless you are mafia.

Secondly I disagree. As explained above this is about who you attack because you don't know the alignment of Panzer so you cannot in theory definitively say if his lynch would be a mislynch and this whole argument is about a mislynch:

See above. I don't like this post.

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points.

Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE.

That was not what Mykonian said.

I don't think the case I'm pushing is weak. Which of the following 4 points do you disagree with?

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.


And don't give me the "early-game" thing; Panzer lied about this continuously throughout the thread, as recently as just a few pages ago.

I know this was addressed to mykonian, but I'd like to give my take.

I agree with only premise two. Premise one is incomplete. Premise three is based on premise one. Mafia isn't a logic game. It'd be no more than a maths puzzle if it was. It's about reading people. Badly playing townie, scum, people making mistakes, would all have lapses in logic. A lapse in logic in no way indicates that a person is deliberately being untruthful. Even in real life a lot of people believe things which are illogical; if they tell someone about those things, that doesn't mean that they deliberately intend to lie to that person. You can't rely solely on lapses of logic to find scum. Which is why I don't agree with your conclusion (4).

Panzer lying would definately make him anti-town, and anti-town behavior is beneficial to scum, therefore, if they are lying, and there is no benefit to the town in the dishonesty, it is a valid reason to suspect them of being scum.

I still see nothing that definitively indicates panzer didn't just make a mistake, like he admitted he did. Granted, we're supposed to be suspicious of others in this game, but I can't see any reason to see the whole thing as panzer lying over him making a mistake.

Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.

I've said it myself before, but I really just want to agree with it again. This is one of the more painful games I've ever played in.

Panzer is scum because he lied about his reasoning for a vote. That's the catalyst for the wagon, and that's the point I have been hammering ever since, and that I will continue to hammer until somebody convinces me it's wrong.

Please don't. There's no way either of us will prove whether panzer just made a mistake or was lying. Neither of us will be able to bring up anything that conclusively proves the other is wrong. Ditto for dourgrim bringing up the whole 'dourscum' thing actually. There won't be any logical proof for either side whether or not gieff made a mistake or was lying about him making a mistake. I don't see much point in either of these two points being brought up over and over.

but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Was he lying intentionally, or was he giving inconsistent reports out of confusion/change in heart, etc.?

Thank you. That's a more succint question to gieff than what I've been asking since previous posts till now.

Faking the reason for his initial mykonian vote was intentional. The later lies and inconsistencies were not intentional. I suppose it is possible he was just genuinely confused, but he was so adamant for so long over so many posts that he knew it was a joke that I find that hard to believe. We can rule a change of heart out entirely; he didn't admit it was a serious vote until it was practically proven.

And thank you for the answer I was asking for since a while back.

All of this is hypothetical. I point to the 'I suppose' and 'I find.' I think he was confused throughout and maintain that it still reads like he made a mistake.

First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum."

I disagree with the first sentence. A townie's job is to make sure the town wins. If a townie dies, the town is one step closer to losing. It's well within a townie's job to do what he can to make sure he doesn't get lynched.

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

NO. That would mean that tunneling is perfectly okay. By this logic, if panzer had stuck to his original myko vote all the way till now (which I think we've all established was not a good vote), then you'd still see him as town. This would also indicate that people who flip flop a lot are scum. I change my mind every once in a while in games, as do others. In no way does this indicate scuminess.

I see your point perfectly fine. I'm not disputing the logic of your panzer vote. Our only disagreement is on whether or not panzer was deliberately lying, on which a large part of your vote rests on.

Woe be to the person who wants to know where everyone stands, but fear them not, for they may be shunned if you merely tell them to "read the thread." You can go unaccountable as long as you wish.

False. We're all accountable since we can't edit anything we've said. Anyone who "reads the thread" can find inconsistancies in our posts. We're accountable to anything we've said already. Just because someone doesn't want to bother giving a summary doesn't mean they don't buy their opinions and cases, which unless I'm mistaken is what you're implying in:

Lord, what a sin it is to attack someone reluctant to provide their own opinions.

Now, you are saying the attacks bore no fruit, suggesting that you don't think GIEFF and Panzer's back and forth produced anything useful. And you're voting on GIEFF's logic, despite saying his back and forth bore no fruit? And then, you even go so far to say Panzer looked like a victimized townie. Interesting how your vote was on the victimized townie.

You've taken his posts out of context. He didn't call panzer the victimized townie when he voted. He was suspicous of panzer, then changed his mind. The last two sentences imply that BB voted for someone he believed to be a 'victimized townie.' This is the first thing from you I don't really like. I otherwise agree that your points on BB as clarified at the end of 345 are valid though.

-----

Done till page 14. I'll finish catching up by the weekend.

[ting =)]

Ooops, messed up quote tag.

@dour.
I really, honestly, am sorry. I'm not normally this lurky in my games. I'll do pages 15,16 tomorrow; 17,18 on saturday, finish off by sunday. I'm free-ish this weekend, so I don't see any reason why I won't be able to.

[Dourgrim]

@dour.
I really, honestly, am sorry. I'm not normally this lurky in my games. I'll do pages 15,16 tomorrow; 17,18 on saturday, finish off by sunday. I'm free-ish this weekend, so I don't see any reason why I won't be able to.

Thank you. Self-imposed deadlines make me happy, as long as they're held to. Fair warning, though: if you fail to meet these deadlines, I'm likely to become more annoyed. Also, one weekend of awesomeness does not excuse you from further lurky crappiness... just sayin'. I'm not entirely sure if you're all that worried about my level of annoyance, but there it is.

Now, to actual game stuff:

but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all. However, Panzer and myko pretty clearly linked themselves early on in this game, agreed? And, although I don't think links are foolproof ways of finding scum, they can be crucial at times and should be pursued when the case against the lynched and the link are both strong enough. In this case I believe both of those criteria to be applicable. Make sense?

And, just to be clear, I don't think it's just the other of that duo that we'll learn quite a bit about. GIEFF, BB, and others also weighed in heavily on this, and it could very well speak volumes to their intentions as well...

especially

GIEFF and his uber-focused case on Panzer.

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

That's because you've taken this out of context. The passage you quoted was part of a larger post analyzing GIEFF's case against the possible Panzer/myko link. As my vote (up until recently) indicated, I also believe BB to be a good lynch choice for today... just not the

best

choice. Therefore, obviously I'm not fixated on a dichotomy here.

[Zilla]

I'm going to clarify that it IS a serious vote. When someone asks you to vote them, I can't see any town motivation behind it. Scum, on the other hand, may want to ask for people to vote them to try to control that person's vote, maybe even as a defense tactic to disperse votes, or a bluffing WIFOM. You're trying to show that you're perfectly fine with a vote on you, so we should have less reason to vote you, and I don't see why town would do that.

While you were attacking me, your vote didn't follow. I reacted to your aggressiveness by saying something like, "vote me, if you are so sure", so we don't get the attacks from you until the bandwagon is filled enough that there is no risk for you anymore.

I am totally oblivious to what you're trying to sell here. There was very, VERY little change in the vote count between when you asked me to vote you and when I actually did. Goat voted Birthday. I'm sorry that it's possible I suspect more than one person at a time and I only have one vote, rest assured if I had more votes, I would have voted you then.

It was for a random vote, nothing serious. Just wait what happens night 1 before we get serious talk about a SK. I never intended to get big talks about it, but other people are making something out of my words that they were not.

Regardless of it being random or not, and faulty logic aside, you brought up an SK, and that in itself affects the perception of the game. Subsequently, you debate the validity of searching for an SK when we don't even know if one exists. Those two things together, in an atmosphere where we don't even know if there is an SK, are inherently scummy, as it provides a distraction from a given scum faction; the mafia. This logic applies to MacavityLock as well.

We still don't even know if there is an SK, but there's no reason for a townie to introduce that possibility, even as a joke. It changes the paradigm of the game in a way that is only helpful to town if there IS an SK, and the only way you would know that is if you WERE the SK.

no reason for you to take a random vote reason serious.

This is beyond the random vote reason and into the paradigm behind joking about GIEFF being an SK and why he should be lynched.

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

when you listen to it as were it serious.

Au contraire, I'm well aware it was made in jest; however, the method is suspect.

On general character during the game, you've basically been defensive of the person who was initially attacking you, to the point that it doesn't even really make sense. I really think that town is susceptible to OMGUS, and for good reason; if someone suspects you, and you're town, you're going to wonder if they're scum trying to frame you for a mislynch. Now, tunneling on someone who votes you is scummy as well, because any sensible townie would understand that they could be being framed on faulty-but-town logic.

I put in a logical error in my random vote, I expect people to vote me. Someone goes even further and attacks me for the SK business: I didn't expect that. But anyway, nothing unnatural there.

The defense of Panzer beyond his vote for you is still unnatural. I'll ask you the same thing I asked goat: what is your current view of panzer, all things considered?

In general, you've been dancing at the edge of the spotlight and constantly trying to push attention onto anyone else (GIEFF, Panzer, myself). You've also tried to discredit my case numerous times without actually addressing my points.

First time I read this. Sorry. But don't expect from me that I put myself in the spotlight. Attention on me is not usefull and antitown. So asking for it would be foolish.

By which I mean you never actually attack anybody, but play devil's advocate, and worse, you're actually playing "angel's advocate" by being defensive of others rather than offensive. It's a common day 1 scum tactic, it builds trust.



--------------

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.

[Zilla]

I may have changed my mind about the entire SK debate; it's quite telling, and will definitely be even more useful after night 1. The argument has aged well. Perhaps just reading it all in one sitting and trying to keep it in mind while still taking in all the other crazy page 3-7 debates made it seem just as trivial. Now that I can actually read those pages and know who is talking about who, the debate over the SK allegations may be the strongest thing we have from early game.

It was a lot worse when everyone was a faceless entity with a shaky trail. It really helps now that I know the players (except qwints/MacavityLock and Spring Lulliby, they have been conspicuously absent most of the game).

[mykonian]

The defense of Panzer beyond his vote for you is still unnatural. I'll ask you the same thing I asked goat: what is your current view of panzer, all things considered?

I don't know anymore. I can see GIEFF's points, I can see why I also could not believe GIEFF.

By which I mean you never actually attack anybody, but play devil's advocate, and worse, you're actually playing "angel's advocate" by being defensive of others rather than offensive. It's a common day 1 scum tactic, it builds trust.

must explain why people don't find me as scum, it is part of my early game town play too. I don't think early cases good soon. Till I see that the game is getting inactive, I most times don't like the cases on people, as I can see flaws in them, and as I can see people going to easily with it.

I know this is not the completely right play, but I can't see myself playing like you, or panzer. Acting very aggressively right from the start, just to see what stays, who believes them. Hope someone makes a mistake under the pressure you bring.



--------------

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.[/quote]

[mykonian]

sorry, all under the line is zilla's

rest from me:

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

this is what I reacted on. You were so sure, but left the vote away from me. If I'm campaigning for it, you should show that.

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

This is where I said we should lynch the SK,

if we know him!

People argued that an SK shouldn't be lynched. I think theory proves that it gives town more mislynches, and I told that. But the fact that we don't know if there is a SK, we shouldn't lynch based on that. Lets wait for a few nights before we bring this subject up again...

But most of this has already been gone over before, and it was debated (at length) over whether your post was serious or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was serious or a joke, it's harmful to town either way.

when you listen to it as were it serious.

Au contraire, I'm well aware it was made in jest; however, the method is suspect.

explain the method of a joke please...

[kloud1516]

MOD: can we please see prods in the thread whenever they're required?

My apologies, I have already distributed the prods (as evident with thread contribution), but my power went out last night before I could notify all players in the main thread.

[kloud1516]

Prodding springlullaby.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, I will ask one more time: Please restate (actually retype, no linking or referencing) your view on panzer.

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel). I don't feel confident enough either way to either vote for him or stick up for him.

Right now, I'd say Panzer is about 3rd/4th on my suspicion list, behind BB and Macavity (qwints), and roughly equal to the lurkers.

One thing I will say, though, is that I think "lynching for information" is a terrible idea. Every lynch gives information. When people end up being town, it really doesn't mean much in terms of linking players. For example, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, do we really know more about GIEFF and Mykonian? Isn't it plausible GIEFF was attacking Panzer town on town? Isn't it possible Mykonian was defending Panzer town on town? If Panzer were to end up scum, then yes, we'd learn a lot about both Mykonian and GIEFF. However, that's because he was scum. We got lucky that our lynch for info hit scum.

We should be lynching to hit scum. Regardless of who we lynch today, we will have information for tomorrow. Panzer only gives us a wealth of information if he's scum. In that case, we should be lynching him because we suspect he's scum, not because we want information from his carcass.

I will also say that we need to lay this SK stuff to rest. Wait until tomorrow. If it looks like we have a SK, then have at it. Mykonian bringing up a SK as means for a random vote really isn't cause to get suspicious, and the only reason it has affected the game like it has is because of how others have reacted to it.

[PJ.]

I agree with Goat, I don't think lynching the person with the most ties is a good thing for 2 reasons.

1) That person is clearly me and nobody wants to be lynched.

2) How many ties I have does not make me more or less scummy by itself. It has 0 impact on what role I have.

Although, I do disagree, You do get info if I'm town. Not just if I'm scum. I actually think you get more info if I'm town.

[Dourgrim]

(I'm breaking one post into three separate quotes for ease of reference later in this post. Not that they have been left in chronological order to prevent accidental removal of context.)

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset.

On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel). I don't feel confident enough either way to either vote for him or stick up for him.

Right now, I'd say Panzer is about 3rd/4th on my suspicion list, behind BB and Macavity (qwints), and roughly equal to the lurkers.

One thing I will say, though, is that I think "lynching for information" is a terrible idea. Every lynch gives information. When people end up being town, it really doesn't mean much in terms of linking players. For example, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, do we really know more about GIEFF and Mykonian? Isn't it plausible GIEFF was attacking Panzer town on town? Isn't it possible Mykonian was defending Panzer town on town? If Panzer were to end up scum, then yes, we'd learn a lot about both Mykonian and GIEFF. However, that's because he was scum. We got lucky that our lynch for info hit scum.

We should be lynching to hit scum. Regardless of who we lynch today, we will have information for tomorrow. Panzer only gives us a wealth of information if he's scum. In that case, we should be lynching him because we suspect he's scum, not because we want information from his carcass.

While you don't come right out and name me in it, I get the impression that Part 4 is aimed at my theory of learning from a Panzer lynch. This is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding, I'm not entirely sure which.

I happen to believe that Panzer is one of the two scummiest-looking players in the game at this point (BB is the other), based in part on your excellent summary of his behavior in Part 1. I have said this before in the thread fairly recently, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Part 2 indicates you disagree, but Part 3 says you don't think he's completely above suspicion. All of this is fine; we certainly can disagree about the amount of suspicion we have on a particular suspect. BUT, Part 5 says we should try to lynch scum. SO, if you combine

my

read on Panzer (scum) with my desire to lynch scum, what do you get? The "lynching for info" angle is only the thing that tips the scales in Panzer's favor vs. lynching BB. It is certainly not my main motivation here, and implying it is is most definitely misleading.

And Panzer agreeing with you is unsurprising at best.

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: the first sentence should read "

five

separate quotes" instead. I wrote the rest of the post, then wrote the first sentence, then went back and rewrote the rest of the post for completeness. Oops.

[mykonian]

I agree with Goat, I don't think lynching the person with the most ties is a good thing for 2 reasons.

1) That person is clearly me and nobody wants to be lynched.

2) How many ties I have does not make me more or less scummy by itself. It has 0 impact on what role I have.

Although, I do disagree, You do get info if I'm town. Not just if I'm scum. I actually think you get more info if I'm town.

3) lynching someone gives ties to that person, if we don't let people hop on for no reason, if there is some kind of criticism. It simply is not a usable argument.

Please don't use it, it only increases mislynches. I don't believe that two people can be even likely to be scum. Saying that means you have not thought over everything, as there are always differences. Resorting to this kinds of arguments means you are not looking closely enough at the facts (arguments against people are always different, so the chance that people are just as scummy is neglectible), and still prefering one lynch over the other. I think you all can see a scum-tactic.

[GIEFF]

I don't want to get into more quote wars about the panzer case, so I'll try to respond briefly, ting.

gieff wrote:
1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

NO. That would mean that tunneling is perfectly okay. By this logic, if panzer had stuck to his original myko vote all the way till now (which I think we've all established was not a good vote), then you'd still see him as town.

This is wrong. This argument has been used before (I think by mykonian), so I'll respond to it.

Not believing your reasons for a vote

is scummy. However, this is hard to see (how do I know what another really believes?), so you have to look for clues

Inconsistency about the reasoning behind a vote is just one possible clue, and the one I used to conclude that Panzer didn't believe his reasoning for his mykonian vote. Similarly, continuing to tunnel in on a case that has been proved to be ridiculous (as Panzer's initial vote of mykonian was proved) is another possible clue. "Could Panzer REALLY believe that mykonian is the serial killer?" Therefore, continuing to tunnel is NOT a viable strategy to protect the fact that the reasons your case is based on are bullshit.

Yes, tunneling avoids the "inconsistent reasoning" clue, but you are assuming that this is the only possibly way to find fake reasoning, which is not true.

Mafia isn't a logic game. It'd be no more than a maths puzzle if it was.

When I use the word "logic," I really mean "the things townies do to try to figure out who is town and who is scum." These are things that townies MUST do to figure out who is scum, and things that scum do NOT need to do at all, as they already know. Sorry if the use of the word "logic" was confusing; I will try to use the word reasons from now on.

OK, mykonian, so you are voting me because you can't believe that a townie wouldn't see the weak points. Or, in other words, you are voting me because you don't think I believe the logic I presented for my vote.

That is exactly why I voted for Panzer. Do you see that? You vote me for pointing out that Panzer was being untruthful about his reasons for the vote, and justify this vote BY SAYING THAT I AM BEING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT MY REASONS FOR A VOTE.

That was not what Mykonian said.

Yes, it was. Just

in other words.

, as I said.

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?

----------


@Dourgrim;

First off, I noticed you never responded to my Post 224, which I feel disproves your claim in Post 219 that I am blatantly misrepresenting your case, which was your reason for voting me.

Secondly, your Zilla-WIFOM post is mind-boggling. You make a lot of faulty arguments and come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense even if your arguments weren't faulty.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

"if we blindly followed, it would be Bad Town play." Agreed, but that hardly is enough to argue against a B_B lynch. IF B_B fips town, and IF Zilla is also town and IF the town blindly follows a town-B_B lynch with a Zilla lynch, then lynching B_B will have been a bad idea. What do you think the odds are of all three of those things being true? I put it at well below 5%.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. What does scummy players suspecting Zilla have to do with a B_B lynch? Are you still talking about the nested possibility of lynching B_B, B_B coming up town, and then the town focusing in on Zilla? Why? Doesn't this seem very unlikely? Even if they are both town, why do you think we' would just blindly lynch Zilla? Because an over-emotional dead townie asked us to?

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch?

What does Zilla have anything to do with B_B's scumminess or his inability to defend himself? Here is your vote for B_B. Explain to me exactly which parts of this post are invalidated by B_B's Zilla-WIFOM.

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

As Goat and I have both said, this is NOT the reason for lynching B_B. This is NOT the reasoning you presented at the time of your B_B vote, so why are you focusing only on this now?

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

So in your mind, all a scum has to do to avoid a lynch is to say "well, if I come up town, be sure to lynch Player Y tomorrow?" Because that's what it looks like.


Furthermore, immediately after this post, you say this:

EBWOP: I'm not trying to lead the Town here, I'm just presenting my opinion on what I think optimal play is here. Do what you want.

What? You most certainly ARE trying to lead the Town. There is nothing scummy about it; if you feel a certain strategy is best for the town, of course you will try to lead the town to follow it. What IS scummy is leading the town while pretending not to, as if you are trying to distance yourself from whatever results from your actions. "Hey, that was your guys' choice, not mine."

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Agreed. It is a false dilemma, trying to get the town to think they must choose between one or the other: a Panzer lynch or a mykonian lynch.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all.

You seem quite conscious of the need to not look like you lead the town when we look back on today after a lynch. It is also quite clear that you ARE trying to lead the town. Why do you think that leading the town is bad, if you are really so certain that Panzer is the best lynch for today?

-----


Beyond_Birthday - is your role serial killer?

[Goatrevolt]

Dour: It was mostly aimed at you, although I recall others supporting the idea of lynching for information (or at least saying Panzer was a good lynch specifically because of the information angle), which is why I didn't directly call you out.

I can understand your point of view, using information to decide between two players you consider to be roughly equal in scumminess. I simply don't feel that information as itself should be used as a point of suspicion.

I agree with what Panzer said. The amount of connections he has is irrelevant to his role. Saying he has connections with players doesn't actually affect the likelihood of him being scum. However, I fully disagree with his statement about town v. scum information. I feel the information you get from a mislynch can be useful but the information you get from a successful scum lynch is game changing.

[Zilla]

finally, after two pages of asking, Goat delivers.

Dour splits his post up very nicely for reference.

I don't agree with part 4 and 5, and panzer similarly disagrees (though he wants to save himself anyway). This is the soft defense of Panzer I had been talking about. Parts 1 and 3 say he legitimately suspects Panzer, behind BB and MacavityLock/qwints. BB has been quite adequately explained and not much has changed on Macavity/qwints. The thing worth noting is how parts 2, 4, and 5 seem to take the stance that he's town on completely subjective guesswork.

We'll disagree on this also (cue tape to "don't pair living people"), but it looks indicative of scum trying to cover for a partner without justification. At the very least, figuring out panzer's alignment would either validate or invalidate that theory.

Mykonian has been giving 50% satisfying answers. I'll have to give him that a lot of the evidene of the SK thing is speculative, though I happen to agree with a lot of the speculation involved. I still believe it's sound reasoning to think that the mafia benefits from introducing an SK, and starting a witchhunt for a serial killer. It's impossible to prove this is what he was doing with that first post or not.

Seeing his playstyle, I'm also going to have to concede the "he asked me to" point, as it looks like he's not a very serious player to begin with... *sigh.*

There still is the "chainsaw defense" he has for panzer, and his "angel's advocate" stance though. The problem is that these, too, are speculation, and disagreements in playstyle. I consider them to be scummy, but it's still possible to come from town.

I'm thinking Mykonian just isn't going to be a valid lynch today. Day 1, where we have no solid information on anybody, is hard to establish a working framework for.

That being said, I'm pretty sure Panzer will establish that framework, and I am suspicious of him. However, I am more directly suspicious of Beyond Birthday.

I think we still need to hear from lurkers, but my course of action is no longer clear. I'm keeping my vote on Mykonian as I still suspect him, if only on speculative reasons, while I reconsider who I suspect the most.

I will say, though it may be dangerous to assume such, that GIEFF and Dour are pretty pro-town right now. Both are last on my suspect list.

[mykonian]

I find it hard to believe you can't see the weak points in your case, even after they have been pointed out.

He is saying that he thinks I DO see the weak points in my case, yet continue to push it anyway; i.e. I don't believe the case I am pushing, i.e. he doesn't think I believe the logic I am presenting for my Panzer vote. Capiche?

almost. I thought you shouldn't believe in it. But now I can see how you could... Maybe the weekend will give me the time to get out of this.

[Goatrevolt]

finally, after two pages of asking, Goat delivers.

It's all I can do to hold myself back from going off on this. Grrrrr

The thing worth noting is how parts 2, 4, and 5 seem to take the stance that he's town on completely subjective guesswork.

That's not true. Number two is not based on subjective guesswork, but on my own personal feelings about Panzer's play being genuine. Along those lines, why do YOU think Panzer is town? I have a feeling your answer here is not so different than my number 2. Restating to it, OR linking me to a previous post where you describe this are both perfectly accepted answers .

Number 4 and 5 explain how it's a bad idea if he is town, and how it's a meaningless gesture if he's scum. If he's town, it's bad. If he's scum, then we would be equally as good off if we lynch for scum. It's my way of saying how lynching for information is strictly a poor idea. Nowhere do I assume he's town. I'm only defending him so far as defending against bad ideas that happen to relate to him. If someone suggests we lynch BB because his name is annoying to type out, I would defend him against that accusation, despite still thinking BB is scum.

[Dourgrim]

Post coming later tonight.