Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[Looker]

If person A flip scum, I will probably shoot Fishy.

If person A flips town, I won't shoot anyone.

If we lynch fishy, and he's scum, I may/may not shoot pending on what the town asks.

This is subject to change, but based on Fishy's play...I want him lynched. Also, if we lynch fishy and he's scum, I recommend shooting DtF, but that isn't a requirement for Fishy scum.

And Person A can be substituted with

any

individual or are there particular ones?

This looks scummy.

And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right?

The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself. That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

I can't imagine a possible motive for you being this wishy-washy about this except that you are not a part of the town.

He's trying to save himself not only today but tomorrow is what I'm thinking

And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad - the dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had..

DraketheFake - 1 (FishytheFish)
Looker - 1 (HowardRoark)
JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 1 (Light-kun)
Light-kun - 1 (DraketheFake)

Not Voting - 4 (Jazzmyn, Nuwen, JereIC, Looker)

9 alive, 5 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 534)

[Light-kun]

This looks scummy.

And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right?

The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself.

That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

I can't imagine a possible motive for you being this wishy-washy about this except that you are not a part of the town.

More important, not anti town line in italics. Bolded part is proving the stupidity of having a vigilante say I will do X, when there is no way to actually ensure X will happen.

[Light-kun]

EBWOP: It means anyone. If it were a particular person A, then I would have named person A.

[Netlava]

Sorry for my grumpy post in response to people calling my case weak... that is, if you happened to interpret it that way, in which case that's your problem, not mine.

But essentially, I've committed to calling JereIC scum, so I need to follow through and lynch him, am I right?

Why did my comment to Mizz seem insincere?

To me, I don't see myself posting such a long post so nicely to what I felt was a hopeless cause. So it seemed like you were padding your posts.

Why isn't "LK is a troll" a satisfactory conclusion to my observation about his post?

It's not satisfactory because I would accompany such a conclusion with some sort of conclusion about scumminess. Trolling for the sake of trolling would be a strange occurrence in mafia.

How is the present tense more suspicious than the past tense?

Because it's more dramatic, whereas the past tense is more accurate. The present tense suggests that whatever is being referred to is a continuing repeat occurrence. Past tense is like calling it like it is. This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw.

Why are you uncertain about whether me calling BS on Light is histrionics or not, and what do you mean "[e]specially in context"?

I was suggesting that the rest of your post does not follow. You posted that Light's post is pure BS, an emphatic statement. The rest of your post was drawn up rather weakly. I was expecting a more emphatic follow-up to accompany such an emphatic accusation.

Why wouldn't town weight and consider flaws with that plan (or reject it outright if there's a flaw that's obvious to everyone besides me)? Just in general, huh?

Suggesting yourself as a possible lynch target just seems counterintuitive.

- Netlava thinks L-k is likely SK/scum now, whereas before likely SK. If you think there is more than a very outside chance of L-k being scum, you should say why, because that is a very different thing from him being SK, and it is scummy that you are happy with not lynching him. If I thought L-k was probable SK with a non-negligible chance of mafia, I'd be pressing hard for a lynch.

I think we should wait a day for reasons concerning the town's disadvantaged position atm.

Anyways, I haven't read all the new posts yet. That will occur, possibly tomorrow.

[Looker]

EBWOP: It means anyone. If it were a particular person A, then I would have named person A.

cool

[Jazzmyn]

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

I thought that he was, but looking back in the thread, it could be that I misinterpreted his earlier posts in which he said he would shoot himself if we wanted him to, to mean that he would also follow our instructions with respect to other kills besides himself. (Posts 388 and 468)

Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders?

Where do you get from my posts that I think that?

The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill.

Is there some reason why you didn't post your rationale at the time?

OK, you may think my position was totally wrong, I'm not too bothered about that. But how could a loose cannon of a vig/SK benefit the scum?

I don’t imagine it would, any more than a loose cannon LK here will benefit the town. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point or why you’re asking me the question.

If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK.

Makes sense. Wouldn't you also want to know if you were town?

I'd just love him to get lynched.

And? Again, it isn’t clear to me what point you’re trying to make.

Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.

Makes sense, but the tradeoff is that as town, we need to be able to test his claim and control his kill or no-kill.

there had been no suggestion that I was scum for my position, though many disagreed with it, apart from a very minor point from Howard. Why would I feel the need to backtrack?

I think it’s more accurate to say that

everyone

who was active in the game at the time disagreed with your position, and I seem to recall that there was also some suggestion that your position was scummy. In addition to Howard’s post to which you refer, Nuwen FoS’ed you for it in her post 392 and Drake’s 399 sounds pretty accusatory as well.

Do you think my voting pattern is more scummy than the other two players?

Yes.

Regards,
Jazz

[Light-kun]

Jaz, what prevents you from voting for the Fish?

Netlava: What do you think of Fish and DtF who are distinctly connected to Jere by Jere himself? If Jere is scum, what of these two?

[Jazzmyn]

Jaz, what prevents you from voting for the Fish?

I just want to figure out the vote count first. I intend to vote for him once I do that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Ahh, it looks like there is just one vote on Fishy at the moment, but I see that he is away until Tuesday, so I am going to hold off on my vote until he returns.

Regards,
Jazz

[Light-kun]

To waste a post proving I was here:

Ok

[JereIC]

To me, I don't see myself posting such a long post so nicely to what I felt was a hopeless cause. So it seemed like you were padding your posts.

Maybe she looked hopeless in hindsight, but at the time I made those posts I thought she was a quick study who just needed some help on how to play effectively.

It's not satisfactory because I would accompany such a conclusion with some sort of conclusion about scumminess. Trolling for the sake of trolling would be a strange occurrence in mafia.

Trolling is anti-town, but not necessarily scummy. Calling it out is the same thing as calling out somebody for lurking or posting conclusions without rationale.

Because it's more dramatic, whereas the past tense is more accurate. The present tense suggests that whatever is being referred to is a continuing repeat occurrence. Past tense is like calling it like it is. This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw.

I don't mean to be a jackass, but you wrote this paragraph all in the present tense.

I was suggesting that the rest of your post does not follow. You posted that Light's post is pure BS, an emphatic statement. The rest of your post was drawn up rather weakly. I was expecting a more emphatic follow-up to accompany such an emphatic accusation.

Well, if you think my case against LK was weak that's your problem, not mine.

Out of jackass mode, I caught a number of inconsistencies in LK's story, which indicated he was lying, which indicated he was scum. If you think that was a weak case, then you should explain why those inconsistencies weren't such a big deal.

Suggesting yourself as a possible lynch target just seems counterintuitive.

Meaning you were suspicious of the paragraph where I was describing the advantages of plan. That would be where most people could reasonably believe that I was suggesting myself as a lynch target. However, you didn't quote that part. You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this." Your current explanation doesn't match your previous behavior, so either you were lying then or are lying now.

[Light-kun]

Jere: Do comment again on Fishy. Do you think he is more or less scummy than the last time you posted on him.

[DraketheFake]

You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this."

Which... makes it odd that you were considering it.

[Looker]

slightly kerflumpled...::gears whirring::...

[Jazzmyn]

You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this."

Which... makes it odd that you were considering it.

It was Netlava who said a townie wouldn't consider "this", not Jere who said that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Netlava]

Netlava: What do you think of Fish and DtF who are distinctly connected to Jere by Jere himself? If Jere is scum, what of these two?

I don't consider this a connection. As for what I think of them, it is a mystery...!

But actually, this could be construed as an attempt on Jere's part to link himself to other players, which would also be scummy.

Trolling is anti-town, but not necessarily scummy. Calling it out is the same thing as calling out somebody for lurking or posting conclusions without rationale.

Well, I don't agree here. I think trolling usually has some intent behind it.

I don't mean to be a jackass, but you wrote this paragraph all in the present tense.

The line, "This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw," defends against such a comeback.

Well, if you think my case against LK was weak that's your problem, not mine.

The difference here is that you announced that LK's post was pure BS. So it was more so that the rest of your post was out of place in comparison to the pure BS accusation.

Your current explanation doesn't match your previous behavior, so either you were lying then or are lying now.

Huh? Are you calling me a liar??

The part of your post where you outlined the pros of your plan isn't really relevant to my accusation.

[JereIC]

Net - I owe you an apology for being a jackass yesterday. However, your case against me still needs some fleshing out before I'm going to put a lot of effort into defending myself again. I'm honestly just not sure what you said in your last post.

LK - I think Fishy is becoming more scummy by default. He hasn't said anything to hang himself, but his defense hasn't been good, and he had done a poor job explaining why he changed his mind from being against ordering your kills to being for it. I want to see how he responds to Nuwen's post that I pointed out before deciding whether or not to vote for him. On a related note, I think DtF is acting oddly. Sometimes he's saying that the three of us are townies caught up in a flawed voting pattern analysis, other times he seems to be building cases against me and Fishy.

Re: the plan I talked about - the reason I brought it up is I anticipated somebody suggesting it, and was actually putting a bit of effort into coming up with counter arguments. When no one did, I really was surprised and confused.

[Netlava]

Well, if there's any specific part that's confusing, then I'll be sure to clarify. But I don't think the whole post was confusing.

Well, I don't agree here. I think trolling usually has some intent behind it.

Just stating my opinion that trolling without intent is unusual, which is why I find your comment about Light trolling strange.

As a side note, I think that it would make sense for Light to troll as an SK, if he were trolling. That way he could get into a heated argument and look active and possibly lessen the chance of getting NK'd.

The line, "This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw," defends against such a comeback.

The line I was referring to in this quote was made in anticipation of the comment that you made about my post being written in the present tense.

The difference here is that you announced that LK's post was pure BS. So it was more so that the rest of your post was out of place in comparison to the pure BS accusation.

Here, I was was commenting on the tone of your "LK's post was pure BS" post. Going back to the post:

> Light's 372 is pure BS.
> This is badgering, trying to make somebody who has made a good point doubt their own arguments because you claim it's crap and scummy. (Sort of like this.)
> As Fishy said, intentional provocation is a convenient defense for scum. Additionally, your story doesn't make sense because Nuwen and freeko hadn't said anything about you until you
> posted your percentages, but their percentages are fairly low. Finally, you ignore the fact that Amished was a townie, perhaps indicating that reacting to your percentages isn't a great
> scumtell?
> Another paragraph of badgering and "intentional provocation" claim, with a touch of trying to shift suspicion. I'm just not buying it.

I just noticed that you mentioned something about intentional provocation. I'll have to look through that stuff again later (note to self).

Anyways, my problem with this post is that the "Light's post is pure BS" part looks out of place from the rest of the post. Imo, the "pure BS" comment's tone is a lot stronger than the rest of the post. Which means that I suspect the "pure BS" comment to possibly be an instance of overplayed suspicions.

Huh? Are you calling me a liar??

I think this is the most important part. Accusing someone of lying is a pretty hefty accusation, something that would definitely be accompanied by a vote or at least some sort of comment about alignment.

Mod: Prod Nuwen

[HowardRoark]

Fishy - post 243 on page 10.

What? Post 243 is Nuwen discussing policy lynching.

Based on a better job of discussion:

unvote Looker

Due to the fact that we are down to 9 players, assuming three scum, and our uncertainty about Light-kun's loyalties to this town . . . I vote that he

does not

shoot tonight. If he does, he has played against the town's interest and should be highly considered for tomorrow's lynch. (See previous discussion on our current situation and how it could play out.)

_______________
Let's go Pens!

[Light-kun]

Fishy - post 243 on page 10.

What? Post 243 is Nuwen discussing policy lynching.

Based on a better job of discussion:

unvote Looker

Due to the fact that we are down to 9 players, assuming three scum, and our uncertainty about Light-kun's loyalties to this town . . . I vote that he

does not

shoot tonight. If he does, he has played against the town's interest and should be highly considered for tomorrow's lynch. (See previous discussion on our current situation and how it could play out.)

_______________
Let's go Pens!

If we lynch mafia, I think that mathematically, I should shoot.

6 v 3->6 v 2

4 v 2
OR
5 v 1
Mathematically, it's good to me.

[HowardRoark]

Assuming: M M M V T T T T T
DISCLAIMER: Not accounting for protective roles, role blocking, etc.

• D2
  Lynch Scum: 3/9 (33%) => M M V T T T T T
  • N2
    Vig Scum: 2/7 (28%) => 5:1
    
  • N2
    Vig Town: 5/7 (72%) => 4:2 (LyLo)
    
  • N2
    No Vig => 5:2
• D2
  Lynch Town: 5/9 (56%) => M M M V T T T T
  • N2
    Vig Scum: 3/7 (43%) => 4:2 (LyLo)
    
  • N2
    Vig Town: 4/7 (57%) => 3:3 (Town loses)
    
  • N2
    No Vig => 4:3 (LyLo)
• D2
  Lynch Vig: 1/9 (11%) => M M M T T T T T
  • N2
    => 4:3 (LyLo)
• D2
  No Lynch => M M M V T T T T T
  • N2
    Vig Scum: 3/8 (38%) => 4:2 (LyLo)
    
  • N2
    Vig Town: 5/8 (62%) => 3:3 (Town loses)
    
  • N2
    No Vig => 4:3 (LyLo)

I was going to plot out all of the outcomes, but that was becoming quite tedious. (And probably a bit overwhelming for some.) If we lynch scum, then it's mathematically more dangerous for you to shoot tonight: higher probability of you hitting town. If we lynch town, you shooting could result in the town's loss. If we lynch you, then we are definitely going into LyLo. Not lynching is just not an option I am willing to consider. Therefore, this is the night for you to

not shoot

. (This is also the day we need to start lynching scum!)

[JereIC]

Fishy - post 243 on page 10.

What? Post 243 is Nuwen discussing policy lynching.[/b]

I dont like this. This implies that on a different game day [DDD] would potentially be the right lynch? If you are the incorrect lynch one day, how could you not be the correct lynch another day?

Yes. If there are limited vanilla roles in a game (and the first day's lynch hit town), lynching claimed vanillas on day 2 and/or 3 and then massclaiming can out some, if not all, scum buddies. If the only remaining players are power roles, scum, or have third party alignments, scum are left with few options to claim - most scum will have spoiled their claim options at this point too.

Net - I really do find your whole post confusing. You've done a good job of explaining the troll thing, but here's what I'm still confused about:
- Just saying something "specifically applies" isn't a defense. Your argument is that the present tense is "more dramatic, whereas the past tense is more accurate." If that's the argument you're making, then everyone should write in the present tense whenever possible because it's more accurate. Therefore, when you wrote that argument in the present tense, I went back and realized that it could have been written in the past tense and still made sense, like this: "Because it made your post more dramatic, whereas the past tense would have been more accurate." Therefore it seemed hypocritical to attack me for using the present tense in my posts.
- I just don't see the problem with my tone. I accused the guy of poorly fabricating his story - that is, his story was pure BS.
- And no, the lying thing was part of me being a jackass yesterday. But I may go back to it later if you can't explain your comments. You quoted the part of my post where I was saying the kill-em-all plan had a big flaw and said that you didn't see a townie considering that. Then when I asked you to explain it, you said you thought it was counter intuitive for a townie to suggest himself as a lynch. But that's exactly what I wasn't doing in the sentence you quoted. So, right now it looks like you're completely reversing your rationale and not being upfront about it, which looks less than truthful.

HR, I think you're not acknowledging the basic point - LK is basically a second lynch (assuming he actually does what we tell him to do) so saying we shouldn't use him is like saying we should vote no lynch. Also, your math isn't quite right. If we lynch town today, and LK vigs scum tonight, it's not exactly LyLo. On Day 3 we could lynch town, and if LK manages to vig scum Night 3, we go into Day 4 with two townies and one scum. If LK has survived to that point, it's actually guaranteed draw or town win (assuming he's not an SK).

[HowardRoark]

Yes, 4:2 isn't quite LyLo. My mistake.

[Light-kun]

Jere:

As described before:

1 SK V 1 Town V 1 scum
=town win unless SK really likes scum or scum really likes sk OR they decide to go for a happily ever after ending, which is kind of cool, actually.
So, if lylo with a kill ability other than mafia, town wins/draws always.

Also, we lynch scum, I don't really see the harm in shooting since the benefit outweighs the risk, but whatever.

[HowardRoark]

saying we shouldn't use him is like saying we should vote no lynch. {snip} (assuming he's not an SK)

I strongly disagree; this is a lot different than a no lynch. SKs are required to attempt to kill. By having him not kill tonight, we know if he is SK or Vig. That's why I believe having him not shoot tonight is the optimal play. I will have to complete my scenario tree and see something major for me to change my point of view. (I won't post it unless I find something of major interest or someone requests it.)