The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

no. no. no. We do NOT discuss the second lynch today, because if we do, we give scum the chance to co-ordinate and overturn our decision. Unless you think we can get a nearly unanimous verdict, we are best off just going with our instincts, and assuming that scum will be clueless anyway, and probably cancel each other out. I advise keeping an eye out for anyone trying to communicate like this.

Your gamebreaking idea looks nice, but won't work in practice.

also, who are you replacing? lol

BM

It isn't a gamebreaking idea, and I never said it was.

Haha, i dont care if you acknowledged it or not, i state it as it is. It is a gamebreaking idea. Not that that makes it a bad thing.

But without discussion it is not a pro-town event. How do you expect the scum to cancel each other out if they only vote for town players? Basically you have two groups, one group who will vote for anyone and one group who will vote only town players. The results of those two groups get combined and it seems that if there is no town attempt at knowing whats going on then we are just going to lose someone who is town.

Thats absolutely ridiculous logic. For starters, scum are in the minority, so we're probs only up against a few, lets say 4 for this example. If there are 9 townies, the likelyhood is, that with no communication, no townie will get more than 1 vote from scum. But, with 9 townies, the odds of someone getting 2 votes is higher. Thats a shite example, but you get the idea?
Scum voting protown players is not a big deal, because we are numerous enough for it to not matter, if they cant co-ordinate. Effectively, their votes will means very little, and the likelyhood is, we can actually take back some power. Ofc, this is all on the proviso that we dont lynch scum today.

Either way, the replacement's idea of trying to trap scum seems very unlikely to work.

It isn't an idea to trap scum (though it potentially can if the scum are dumb enough). It's a plan to take the day's event out of the inherent advantage of scum and let the town know what's happening. I don't see how the town having more information in this case would be a bad thing. What does the town lose by everyone making their second lynch choice public?

But don't you see? By discussing it publically, you only allow scum ample opportunity to co-ordinate. I think we'd be better off not talking about it, and watching to see if scum want to out themselves of their own accord.
I really don't think you've thought this through objectively. If scum know who everyone protown is voting, they make a greater knowledge gain than we do, and most importantly, they can ensure that we dont lynch scum.

BM

[The Replacement]

How does the town benefit from a secret ballot in which no one can be held accountable for their own vote?

If ignored, I predict that this event is not going to end well for the town.

[MikeSC6]

I will then publicly post the vote count and lynch whoever has the most votes.

The votecount for this second lynch would be public, if we wanted we could easily enforce a second lynch on whoever we want, with any deviation from the town's choice leading to a lynch the next day.

But I don't think we should all decide on a lynch- we should let people vote for who they want to vote for, because they'd have to justify it the next day. We should be making it so that scum can't predict how the town will act, should this second lynch happen.

[Yosarian2]

dingoatemybaby was entirely on the correct side of that argument, which seems pretty damn obvious if you actually read the thread

Um...no. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Dr. Pepper was obviously town there, anyone reading the thread should have been able to tell that, and Dingo focused on him for terrible reasons.

I don’t think Mufasa was the correct lynch. I fail to see how his claim would be more likely made as scum than it would be as.

Because he was obviously lying? IF you catch someone lying about their claim, if they keep talking themselves farther and farther into a corner trying to lie themselves out of a hole they dug for themselves, then 99% of the time, the right play is to lynch them.

People who unvoted Mufasa on day two just to vote him on day three are very suspicious for doing so, especially since this allows them to effectively ignore half of the players for two consecutive days.

Did you miss the part where Mufasa said on day 2 "the town should lynch me tommorow"? You'd better not say something like that without having a damn good explination the next day, and he did not.

Yosarian2, as a veteran player, who I do not take as a poor player, you should know better than to let all that bad play happen on day two, and you even jumped in with them on the poor playing. You've said you would be using your vote as mayor also, I have hardly seen any evidence of you doing any scumhunting on your own.

Excuse me? "Let" the bad play happen? I was doing everything I could to try to prevent Dr. Pepper from being lynched, since there was absolutly no good reason to lynch him. I tried to *prevent* the bad play from happening, and it's frustrating that peple were unwilling to listen, and instead followed people like Zwet who wanted to lynch Dr. Pepper while giving either no reasons or at best no good reasons.

[Yosarian2]

If scum know who everyone protown is voting, they make a greater knowledge gain than we do, and most importantly, they can ensure that we dont lynch scum.

BM

Actually, the best way to avoid this would be to do an informal poll of everyone in the town before the lynch (something along the lines of "if X turnes up town and we get a second lynch, who would you vote for then?") and then we all agree to follow that poll for the secret ballots, even if we don't personally agree with it. If everyone who's pro-town in the game votes the same way, then it dosn't really matter what the scum do.

[Battle Mage]

if the vote results are revealed the next day, that does put a slightly different slant on things. But you can bet ur ass that some townies will lie.

BM

[Yosarian2]

if the vote results are revealed the next day, that does put a slightly different slant on things. But you can bet ur ass that some townies will lie.

BM

Eh. In that situation, they shouldn't.

If everyone agrees to go with the majority here, then if you break your promise and place your secret ballot somewhere else, the only thing that might do is it might help the mafia avoid getting one of their own lynched.

[The Replacement]

dingoatemybaby was entirely on the correct side of that argument, which seems pretty damn obvious if you actually read the thread

Um...no. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Dr. Pepper was obviously town there, anyone reading the thread should have been able to tell that, and Dingo focused on him for terrible reasons.

Dingo was more obviously town. Dr Pepper invented his own reasons for focusing on Dingoatemybaby, Dingoatemybaby's reasons initially weren't even relating to Dr Pepper until Dr Pepper misconstrued his position numerous times. Misrepresentation and defending other players unprovoked are not terrible reasons for focusing on someone.

If you don't think Dr Pepper was misrepresenting Dingoatemybaby, then I will extend Dingoatemybaby's challenge to Dr Pepper to you. Go and find where Dingoatemybaby says what Dr Pepper claims of his stance.

They were both at each others' throats for the wrong reasons, but Dr Pepper was the first one in the wrong by stepping in when should have waited for Percy to respond first.

I don’t think Mufasa was the correct lynch. I fail to see how his claim would be more likely made as scum than it would be as town.

Because he was obviously lying? IF you catch someone lying about their claim, if they keep talking themselves farther and farther into a corner trying to lie themselves out of a hole they dug for themselves, then 99% of the time, the right play is to lynch them.

Town is perfectly capable of lying. Your response doesn't actually address the point I made of why scum would be more likely to make HIS claim than town. People dig themselves into lies because they believe coming out of the lie will be worse than trying to stay in it. And don't respond with "Oh I told him it would be better if he came out and told the truth" because you said nothing to actually make him believe that it would be a better idea. Pointing to Xtoxm's lynch isn't very convincing. You simply saying that something is better if done a certain way does not make it true.

By your logic, asking someone to come out of a lie would just further give you reason to lynch them based upon catching them in a lie.

People who unvoted Mufasa on day two just to vote him on day three are very suspicious for doing so, especially since this allows them to effectively ignore half of the players for two consecutive days.

Did you miss the part where Mufasa said on day 2 "the town should lynch me tommorow"? You'd better not say something like that without having a damn good explination the next day, and he did not.

The town should never be aiming to lynch a town player. That's not only dumb, but not playing to our win condition. I don't care if you are a Hunter or have some if-lynched triggered ability. The town doesn't need to lynch those kinds of players to win. In fact, lynching those players doesn't actually give us an advantage, it merely softens the blow. We would be better off lynching scum. We win by eliminating the werewolves, not seeing the cool effects that town players have when they get lynched.

If you don't like partial claims then where was that insistence to get a full claim from him on day two instead of leaving it hanging?

Once again you fail to actually address the point I make, which is that of it allowing you to essentially ignore half of the players in the game for two days straight.

Yosarian2, as a veteran player, who I do not take as a poor player, you should know better than to let all that bad play happen on day two, and you even jumped in with them on the poor playing. You've said you would be using your vote as mayor also, I have hardly seen any evidence of you doing any scumhunting on your own.

Excuse me? "Let" the bad play happen? I was doing everything I could to try to prevent Dr. Pepper from being lynched, since there was absolutly no good reason to lynch him. I tried to *prevent* the bad play from happening, and it's frustrating that peple were unwilling to listen, and instead followed people like Zwet who wanted to lynch Dr. Pepper while giving either no reasons or at best no good reasons.

Then what you should have done was to tell him to back the hell off and wait for Percy to actually come and respond to the points brought up against him first. What Dr Pepper did was deprive the town of Percy's response, you further contributed to that by jumping into the argument yourself.

If Dr Pepper truly thought that was Dingoatemybaby's stance then he should have waited first to see how Percy would handle it. You did very little to prevent the situation, if anything, you augmented it.

[The Replacement]

Barrylocke – He active lurked the entirety of the first two days before replacing out. He had no unique contribution to the game, always following along with the opinion of someone else and had either no suspicions, or only suspicions following someone else's. NabakovNabakov has been playing better though in my opinion.

DizzyIzzyB13 – Day one she claimed that she would be holding on to her mayor vote. This was brought up in the game already and is a good way for scum to sit back and see what unfolds before making their own decision or wait for something to unfold that they approve of. Despite her frequency of posting, she really contributed no content day one at all (which is really true of almost every player, sadly)

MikeSC6 – He is wishy-washy on pretty much everything, always leaving himself a way to back up his steps if he needs to. Asks questions but almost never does anything with the answers. Not ONCE at the end of any day has he had a vote placed at the time of lynch. He has had his votes on the eventual lynch of the day, but has always unvoted in those cases prior to that player being lynched and flipping town.

I'll have more to add later, I need to get back to work.

[The Replacement]

dingoatemybaby was entirely on the correct side of that argument, which seems pretty damn obvious if you actually read the thread

Um...no. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Dr. Pepper was obviously town there, anyone reading the thread should have been able to tell that, and Dingo focused on him for terrible reasons.

Also, just because someone is obviously town, does not make the person arguing against him in the wrong.

[NabakovNabakov]

I agree that rolefishing is anti-town, but no way should it cause someone to be insta-lynched.

I agree, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pressured. (Because I also agree with the Replacement that the quantity and depth of lurking in this game has been shameful).

On that note:

honestly, right now I have no clue >< [who is scum]

Seriously? What exactly were you thinking about as you read 45 pages of gameplay if it wasn't finding the scum?

Even given that there is common-knowledge information about possible roles in this game, I'm still not comfortable with your comment. How would a knowledge of possible roles in the game help with scumhunting?

@The Replacement:
-Yes, DingoPepper was a distracting and time waisting disaster... Why are you ressurecting it?

-"Town is perfectly capable of lying" is a pretty lackluster defense of Mufasa. Town is perfectly capable of doing a lot of anti-town things, and I tend to be quite sympathetic to those tendencies. However, after a player has avered to an obviously fake claim specifically designed to be dangerous to lynch and difficult to confirm, I tend to draw the line. As to why scum would be more likely to make that claim, it's basic LAL theory. Fake-claims are confusing and misleading no matter who makes them, and this plays well to the scum.

[zwetschenwasser]

BM, you seem conveniently biased.

[The Replacement]

It seems to have become a trend in some of my more recent games for the town to jump on anti-town behavior coming from players who appear obvious to me as innocents who just play poorly. People are too quick to lynch for the reason "what that player is doing is anti-town" and they don't even consider whether or not the play is scummy (they just call it scummy and no one questions it). Anti-town does not always equate to scummy, and calling an anti-town action scummy without backing up with reasons why it is scummy rather than just poor town play is hurtful to the town.

Yes, the anti-town players are confusing and misleading regardless of their alignment. But these players still have scum tells of their own that can be determined and other players ignore trying to find these tells and take the easy way out of just lynching any anti-town player as opposed to actually trying to figure out who the werewolves are.

[Yosarian2]

If you don't think Dr Pepper was misrepresenting Dingoatemybaby, then I will extend Dingoatemybaby's challenge to Dr Pepper to you. Go and find where Dingoatemybaby says what Dr Pepper claims of his stance.

I don't really feel like going through this all again, but I did already explain all of this. Dr Pepper's interpretation of Dingo's posts were a plausable interpretation, a reasonable attempt to scumhunt and to figure out a possible scum motive for dingo's posts. That's kind of how you're supposed to scumhunt, is you read people's posts and try to figure out if they might have a scum motivation or a town motivation, and that's all Dr Pepper was doing. Dingo's reaction to some perfectly reasonable scumhunting on Dr Peppers part was to flip out, call him a liar, and vote him.

They were both at each others' throats for the wrong reasons

Dr Pepper turned out to be wrong, but there realy weren't anything wrong with his reasons.

Anyway, I'm going out now, I'll finish this response later.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Replacement: Believe me man, I coined "VI" for just the very situation you described, players so out of it that they act anti-town without even realizing it. Check my meta; I am highly sympathetic to out-and-out dumb play, but Mufasa's blatant fakeclaim crossed the line in my book. Most VI play I have observed is passive: making infrequent/contentless commentary on the game, voting with the majority but without explanation, being unable or unwilling to form cases/defenses. No matter how you slice it, Mufasa's fakeclaim was an intentional attempt to deceive the town and protect himself that he put forward under minimal pressure. That is actively anti-town behavior. That is scummy.

Oh, and this isn't a trend. Lynch All Liars was around before I got here, and it will still be around if I ever get gone.

[Yosarian2]

Because he was obviously lying? IF you catch someone lying about their claim, if they keep talking themselves farther and farther into a corner trying to lie themselves out of a hole they dug for themselves, then 99% of the time, the right play is to lynch them.

Town is perfectly capable of lying. Your response doesn't actually address the point I made of why scum would be more likely to make HIS claim than town.

Town shouldn't lie about their role, because when they do, it generally really hurts their side badly. (As this game proves, by the way). On the other hand, scum quite commonly lie about their role, and it's often the right move for them. So when you see someone lie about their role, it really increases the chances that they're scum; it's probably the single most reliable scumtell there has ever been, and by a big margin too. There's a good reason that lynch all liars is a good rule of thumb.

It's even more true when someone is clearly trying to lie their way out of another lie.

In this case, the reason a scum would make his claim is obvious; because the way he made that claim convinced the town to delay lynching him. For a mafia member, "getting lynched tommorow" is usually much better then "getting lynched today".

People dig themselves into lies because they believe coming out of the lie will be worse than trying to stay in it.

Right. ESPECALLY SCUM. Because scum can't ever tell the whole truth, and their main goal is to not get lynched, so they tend to pile one lie onto another.

And don't respond with "Oh I told him it would be better if he came out and told the truth" because you said nothing to actually make him believe that it would be a better idea. Pointing to Xtoxm's lynch isn't very convincing. You simply saying that something is better if done a certain way does not make it true.

TOWN SHOULD NOT LIE. SCUM DO LIE. So if we catch someone lying, then lynching them is the right move 95% of the time. And I'm more moderate on this then a lot of people, because I say 95% instead of 100%.

I mean, how do you suggest catching scum, if you refuse to accept that "proving someone was trying to lie about their role claim in order to avoid a lynch" is a reasonable reason to think someone is scum?

By your logic, asking someone to come out of a lie would just further give you reason to lynch them based upon catching them in a lie.

(shrug) The thing is, I already knew he was almost certanly lying, because his claim made no sense. If he was town and confessed to lying, and explained why he had done it, he might not have been lynched. You are right, he still would have looked suspicious as hell (becuase, again, *HE HAD LIED*), but I personally would have listend to him and then made a judmenet based on what he said.

In any case, you trying to attack me because I've twice now correctly figured out someone was lying about their role is insane.

People who unvoted Mufasa on day two just to vote him on day three are very suspicious for doing so, especially since this allows them to effectively ignore half of the players for two consecutive days.

Did you miss the part where Mufasa said on day 2 "the town should lynch me tommorow"? You'd better not say something like that without having a damn good explination the next day, and he did not.

The town should never be aiming to lynch a town player.

Well, duh. What made you think we were aiming to lynch a town player?

He made such an extrodinary claim, I was willing to give him enough rope and give him that extra day he asked for; I was even willing to wait until the next day to finish the claim. HOWEVER, that always comes with a price; if you make an outlandish claim like that, you NEED to be able to back it up when we call you on your bluff, or else we have to assume that you are lying scum.

Often, in a situation like that, the best way to figure out if someone is lying scum or not is just to give them enough rope and see if they hang themselves with it. Which was exactally what I did.

I don't care if you are a Hunter or have some if-lynched triggered ability. The town doesn't need to lynch those kinds of players to win.

Well, yes. Which was actually how we figured out he was lying, if you remember, was because his actual claim on day 3 didn't at all fit the "it's good for the town for me to be lynched tommorow instead of today" claim he made on day 2.

We would be better off lynching scum. We win by eliminating the werewolves, not seeing the cool effects that town players have when they get lynched.

Right. We want to lynch scum. And a big part of how you figure out who the scum, especally in a setup with a lot of unique roles like this, is partly by figuring out who is telling the truth and who is making up fake claims to try and not get lynched, because the scum make up fake claims to try and not get lynched, and town never should.

If you don't like partial claims then where was that insistence to get a full claim from him on day two instead of leaving it hanging?

Eh? I never said there was anything wrong with partial claims. In fact, I specifically said on day 2 that if we were not going to lynch Mufasa that day, that we did not WANT him to claim fully that day, because it would only help the scum figure out if they should kill him or not.

Again, I gave him that leeway, because the situation was such that if he was lying scum, there was very little chance of him getting away with it, and if he was town telling the truth, then it's better for the town to wait until day 3. Perhaps I should have also considered the "what if he's a vanillia townie making up a stupid fake claim for some stupid reason", BUT I DON'T, BECAUSE TOWNIES SHOULD NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER DO THAT in that kind of situatiion.

Once again you fail to actually address the point I make, which is that of it allowing you to essentially ignore half of the players in the game for two days straight.

Because I have no idea what you're talking about or what that has to do with Mufasa. I don't think I ignored anyone.

Excuse me? "Let" the bad play happen? I was doing everything I could to try to prevent Dr. Pepper from being lynched, since there was absolutly no good reason to lynch him. I tried to *prevent* the bad play from happening, and it's frustrating that peple were unwilling to listen, and instead followed people like Zwet who wanted to lynch Dr. Pepper while giving either no reasons or at best no good reasons.

Then what you should have done was to tell him to back the hell off and wait for Percy to actually come and respond to the points brought up against him first. What Dr Pepper did was deprive the town of Percy's response, you further contributed to that by jumping into the argument yourself.

Um...no. Just no. If a person makes a bad argument, I'll point out that it's a bad argument. That's the pro-town thing to do. If you think person A's attack on person B makes person A look scummy, you should say so.

Why would you want to limit discussion like that, by telling people what they can and can't respond to? When person A attacks person B, it's actually other people's reaction to the wagon that's especally useful in gathering information, more often then not.

If Dr Pepper truly thought that was Dingoatemybaby's stance then he should have waited first to see how Percy would handle it.

Well, I don't at all agree; if you see something worth commenting on that you think is scummy, you should point it out. Also, I don't understand the double standard here. Percy wanted to pressure someone. Dingo attaked Percy for that, before the guy who Percy wanted to pressure responded. Dr Pepper attacked Dingo for that. Why do you have a problem with Pepper's play and not Dingo's?

Pepper thought Dingo was trying to protect the lurker by attacking Percy's attack on it. That was a completly reasoable suspicion, considering the circumstances. If he had that suspicion, then saying so was absolutly the right thing for him to do; there's no need for him to wait to Percy to respond, because Percy's response is really irrelelevent to Pepper's suspicion at that point.

You did very little to prevent the situation, if anything, you augmented it.

Why should I have tried to prevent Dr Pepper from trying to hunt scum? Right or wrong, Pepper was playing in a very pro-town and helpful way there, and he should have gotten more support from the rest of the town then he did.

[MikeSC6]

Not to mention that Mufasa decided to claim on day 2 to avoid answering a lot of questions- or it seemed like it at least. We had what I thought was a pretty good case, and Mufasa claimed rather than fully address that case. The full claim yesterday made me unvote because I wanted to see if he keep jailkeep a dancer- which the other dancing players would have been able to see and report, or if he could vig someone or some way to test his claim.


@Zwet: I'm just wondering, what made you change your mind about Mufasa? You were keen to defend him yesterday I seem to remember, while the case was building up and Mufasa was dodging questions- around the time I was most keen to lynch him.


@The Replacement: It's true I haven't had a vote placed at the end yet- but there are reasons for why that is. I would have been prepared to hammer yesterday once we'd decided who Mufasa's kill would be if he happened to tell the truth. On day 2 Dr Pepper hammered himself all of a sudden while I felt there was still discussion to be had over whether we should go along with Mufasa's plan for a day 3 lynch or lynch him then and there.

[MikeSC6]

"I wanted to see if he could jailkeep a dancer", that should be.

[zwetschenwasser]

His flip, of course. I wanted to lynch him to get the superpowers he claimed to have for the town.

[dramonic]

I might be V/LA for a few days, so just in case...

[Gorrad]

Dramonic, one question: How could asking what power roles are left help the town in any way, shape, or form?

[The Replacement]

Also, I don't understand the double standard here. Percy wanted to pressure someone. Dingo attaked Percy for that, before the guy who Percy wanted to pressure responded. Dr Pepper attacked Dingo for that. Why do you have a problem with Pepper's play and not Dingo's?

Wrong. There is no double standard here. That is NOT what Dingo attacked Percy for. Dingo attacked Percy for having an unreasonable condition by which Percy's vote might ever be removed and had nothing to do with it being specifically on Zoneace or Percy's reason for putting his vote onto Zeonace. In fact Dingo specifically said that he didn't have a problem with the reason for the vote or with who the vote was placed on. Where does Dingo specifically defend Zoneace? Dr Pepper explicitly defends Percy. Hence there is no double standard in what I have a problem with.

Why should I have tried to prevent Dr Pepper from trying to hunt scum?

Because what Dr Pepper was doing was actively interfereing and distracting with other players' hunting of scum.

If I directed a question or a case at someone, and somebody else stepped in to defend the points directed at a player other than himself, when is this ever a protown thing to do?

[Battle Mage]

BM, you seem conveniently biased.

feel free to elaborate. :S

BM

[zwetschenwasser]

No, scouam.

[Yosarian2]

Why should I have tried to prevent Dr Pepper from trying to hunt scum?

Because what Dr Pepper was doing was actively interfereing and distracting with other players' hunting of scum.

No, it really wasn't. Especally since Dingo didn't really appear to be hunting scum there.

If I directed a question or a case at someone, and somebody else stepped in to defend the points directed at a player other than himself, when is this ever a protown thing to do?

Um, in this very example, it was a pro-town thing to do, especally since Pepper's main point wasn't to defend Percy; it was to raise a logical suspicion against Dingo. Dingo's "case"(if you even want to call it that) was irrelevent. The kind of "no one is ever allowed to attack anyone in X situstion" rules you're trying to set up here are very bad for the town, because they restrict discussion and make it harder to find scum.

On the other hand, illogical OMGUS attacks, like the one Dingo did, really are anti-town.