Newbie #840 (Game Over!)

[Netopalis]

Haldo.


I really detest the random voting stuff, but it seems to be customary here....But since I've got to randomly vote, I might as well vote for nobody...

Random Vote: Snow_Bunny

Blast! I meant nobody! Ah, well, anyway....

Policy on lynching lurkers: Yes and no. I think that people not showing up are better prodded than lynched. Conversely, people who are posting but not saying anything while they post are suspicious in my opinion and deserve scrutiny.

Is there a specific reason that you're looking for us to all state policies, Geekalicious?

[Netopalis]

Geek - the random vote was a joke. Snow_bunny sounds like nobody....Ok, I thought it was funny, at least. Anyway....Ok, if you think that statement was putting words in your mouth, fine. Why do you want us to discuss our lurker lynch policies right now?

[Netopalis]

Fair enough, I suppose. Better than nothing....

[Netopalis]

It's a pun...if you say it fast...Snowbunny.....Ok, nevermind, it wasn't that great of a joke, I guess.

(mumbles)

[Netopalis]

Unvote: Snow_bunny

We don't want to put two votes on someone for a mere random vote. Especially when nobody got the joke.

FOS: Cooldog

I refuse to respect your ridiculous capitalization scheme and question your logic. Care to explain your vote, aside from the OMGUS angle? You seem to think SnowBunny is lurking, when clearly she has posted more than many other players here.

[Netopalis]

In re: the earlier question - two votes are bad if they are random because it makes it easier for someone to be lynched at random. I should think that this is fairly self-evident.

CooLDoG - if not for inactivity, why your vote for SnowBunny when she already had one on her?

No time to post the rest of my thoughts - I'll be back after class.

[Netopalis]

Ok....Sorry about that. Turns out that I have a few moments before my next class. My FoS on you was not a joke, Cooldog. I'm honestly having a bit of trouble getting to exactly what you're talking about....I just find you to be rather suspicious, nervous and generally odd. Call it a gut feeling.

[Netopalis]

You never said why you voted for her - all that you gave for reasons for voting was a lurker policy - why did you vote? Was it random? OMGUS? Why did you vote for snow_bunny?

[Netopalis]

Snow_Bunny, with all due respect, I'd rather hear from him....

[Netopalis]

Ok...After a reread of the original post by cool, and I think that I made a bit of a mistake....Here's the post again:

lynching a lurker is the best idea, they do nothing, and they don't really contribute to the game.

Don't mess with the family, Vote: Snowbunny

I know that sounded sooo cheesy

I took the quote without the "Don't mess with the family", counting that as a slip of the tongue to mean that he was setting Snowbunny up for a vote as she hadn't said a great deal. Looking at it again, I see that yeah, it's setting up the OMGUS. I wish he'd be a bit more clear about the intent of his posts...My apologies, but I find him to be nearly incoherent.


*shakes head* Sposh, I'm sure that she is, but why is this scummy in the first place and deserving of a vote? I'm not sure exactly why this is considered a scumtell in your opinion....

[Netopalis]

Not voting means not voting or having unvoted.

Voting no lynch is a vote in and of itself.

[Netopalis]

*sigh* Just unvote. Don't vote no lynch unless you

actually want the town to waive their lynch for today.

Spoiler alert: You don't want to go no lynch!

[Netopalis]

I never said I wanted no lynch, I said that there is no good reason to put two votes on someone randomly without any real reason. Big difference. Major difference. We need to lynch somebody today....


I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Cooldog

, as he seems a bit too reactionary for my tastes. He seems rather nervous and is acting as I would expect a newbie scum to do after a small amount of suspicion was placed on them. Note that I am not wanting a bandwagon on him....yet.

[Netopalis]

Don't jump to such conclusions, Cooldog, two players haven't even posted yet. And no, we are not asking for a roleclaim. You don't need to have a concrete vote against someone yet...but surely you have *some* suspicion about somebody? I have reasons to suspect *every* player in this game other than myself, but so far yours is the only one that I feel particularly strongly about. We're not going to lynch you on page 3, though.

That being said, I do worry that this might be making it too easy on a non-cooldog mafia to jump in on heavy suspicions this early....Just a side note. If we were to lynch him, I fear that on day two we would have very little to go on should he turn up innocent.

Also, flattery will get you nowhere, cooldog.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, after some reflection, I think that there's a better way to examine the question of no lynch instead of percentages. Given that the town will lynch every day and the mafia every night, and assuming that neither ever hits mafia, we have the following scenario:

Day 1 - 9
Day 2 - 7
Day 3 - 5
Day 4 - 3 - LYLO and game, either way

However, if we go with town no-lynching for the first 3 days, we have the following:
Day 1 - 9
Day 2 - 8
Day 3 - 7
Day 4 - 6 - LYLO because mafia will get a kill. If town kills town, then that brings it down to 3 town and 2 mafia, mafia kills town, making it even and a mafia win.

Therefore, the town does not get any additional days of discussion, they just lose the opportunity to make a potentially good kill.

Furthermore, the information gained from a night session to the town is minimal at best - for a cop to be useful, he has to claim, something that most cops are hesitant to do until the final day. It is also possible that we don't even have a cop. Trying to guess the mafia based on the lynches can be useful, but often turns into WIFOM (would X kill Y if they were mafia, or would Z kill Y if they were mafia and wanted to incriminate X? Or what if X only wanted us to think that Z was incriminating them? This line of reasoning goes on forever if you let it.)

Ergo, the question is not one of percentages, as the town will never gain a significant statistical advantage through town deaths - it is merely one of the number of opportunities to kill that each side has.

[Netopalis]

Double post to fix some problems....The first scenario would end on day 3 for the same reasons as the second scenario. The second scenario could be extended to day 5 by another no-lynch, but that wouldn't really help matters much.

Basically, in summation, all that voting No Lynch does is to vote to give the mafia a day kill.

[Netopalis]

SB, I'd say that's just speculation as an example of a best case scenario...I don't think he was implying that he knew that there was one.

[Netopalis]

Absence of a vote from whom?

[Netopalis]

Well, from my perspective, I'm looking at it from the context in which the post was made - it was made in a game theory context, and therefore I considered it to be more of a question of possibilities...Personally, I suspect that even if you are mafia and if there is a RB, you're probably not a RB for that very comment - a real RB would most likely be less specific in that post. However, that delves into murky WIFOM territory, and is best left alone. Long story short, I didn't think it was that much of a tell.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* I'm a law student, I tend to be a bit more conservative in my predictions.

[Netopalis]

Sposh, you seem to be avoiding cognitively tackling the issue of cooldog as possible scum. As a side note, if CD does come up guilty, Sposh might be a worthwhile lynch.

[Netopalis]

Sorry, I guess I should clarify....He had a vote on CD, but only for the family quote...I'd like to hear more about his thoughts on everything else that CD has said.

[Netopalis]

I still maintain that Spyre's actions are best viewed as a theoretical discussion and NOT a freudian slip...Mainly because I'd probably say the same thing when discussing it and I know that I'm not a mafia RB (or mafia at all, actually). That being said, nobody's really taking it seriously...


Right now, I'm really seeing no downside to voting to lynch CD. Even if he is town (which I feel is ridiculously unlikely), he would be a huge liability in an endgame situation and I feel relatively certain that the scum would never kill him. Therefore, even if we DO lynch incorrectly on him, there's still something of a benefit. Note that I am not advocating lynching a townie, just advocating lynching a scummy player who, even as town, is a serious problem to a town victory.

[Netopalis]

Darklight: Oh, please, I'm scum because I'm engaged? I'd think that it would be a positive, pro-town approach...Unless you want to lynch all active players and just leave the lurkers. Then again, lurking is in and of itself a tell.

Furthermore, my questions HAVE been substantive. Questioning is a method by which one can debate AND get more information from others. Wikipedia the Socratic Method for more information on this topic. I am not a Socratic player, but I do think that the method has merit.


Cooldog: That's a rather self-centered analysis of the players - you seem to mainly be focused on who is and isn't a threat to your survival in the game. What is the mafia's only win condition? What's that, Timmy? Is it survival to endgame? Ding ding ding!

Confirm vote: Cooldog

Sposh: I agree, Darklight does seem lightly scummy, especially with his attacks on me about not posting content when he himself has not posted a great deal of content until today. That being said, I still think cooldog is scummier...

[Netopalis]

I've posted plenty of content. Which posts are you saying have no content in them?

[Netopalis]

So, to recap:

You attack an active player for some sort of "lack of content", when you yourself haven't been posting.
Your posts consist of:
1) a random vote
2) a very vague principle about lynching people with short posts
3) a post informing us that you enjoy fast-paced games
4) a post clarifying that you mean games which post quickly
5) a post telling us that you don't like random voting
6) an attack on me for not posting content
7) a restatement of this attack with little additional information
8) an OMGUS attack on SB for attacking you.


Hypocritical by any standard.


Please, give me a reason not to vote for you. Anything.

[Netopalis]

DL, are you *honestly* expecting me to roleclaim with only a single vote that the rest of the town seems against?

Confirm vote: DarklightA

Planned future confirm vote: Coolguy

More analysis of hypocritical claims after the break.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog,
Are you just saying that me and SB could be scum because Darklight said it and it sounded reasonable to you? If we follow the same logic, then Spyre and Geekalicious are ALSO mafia for disagreeing with Darklight. It really makes no sense to set up one post on a pedestal and say that anyone disagreeing with it is mafia.

[Netopalis]

Mod, can we get prods for the inactive players?

[Netopalis]

Due to the weird vibe between Darklight and Cooldog, I think that the following situation may have transpired (based on my suspicion of them being a scum pair):

Darklight didn't quite read the whole thread, he only read the page that he was on, in which I do have a number of shorter posts. They do have content, I would maintain, but it makes his comment make a lot more sense. He then proceeded to attack me, so as to be contributing and not seen as a lurker.

Cooldog, who is Darklight's partner, had never played the game before, but knew that he was in a joint win condition with Darklight. He decided that he should stick with and back up everything that Darklight said.

When Darklight attacked Cooldog, he was rather taken aback and backed off of most of the attacks.

Later on, as Darklight gained more and more suspicion, Cooldog decided that a bussing was in order and decided to try to disavow any alliance between himself and Darklight, in hopes of surviving to the end based on his sudden non-association with Cooldog.

This seems like a fairly plausible scenario and would explain the odd play on the part of both Darklight and Cooldog. Of course, it is just suspicion and nothing more...

[Netopalis]

Sorry, typo in the 5th paragraph. It should read:


Later on, as Darklight gained more and more suspicion, Cooldog decided that a bussing was in order and decided to try to disavow any alliance between himself and Darklight, in hopes of surviving to the end based on his sudden non-association should Darklight turn up as scum.

[Netopalis]

SB and NET are scum, if one of them is scum then the other will be most likely, but if net is scum then SB will not be.

Also, this sentence is logically inconsistent. You are giving the following scenarios:

If SB is scum, then I am scum.
If I am scum, SB is scum.
If I am scum, SB is not scum.


Which 2 of the 3 did you mean?

[Netopalis]

Can we get a consensus on the need for Darklight to claim once the other two players show up? I don't want him to unless the other players agree...but I think it's a fairly important move.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and by the way, Cooldog, what exactly was it that you wanted me to answer for? I'm afraid that I wasn't able to really extract your need from the weird post you made previously. Please, state it in as clear terms as you are capable of.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, cooldog, cooldog.....

Roleclaiming gives us much information. Let's say that the person claims cop or doc rather than town - if that's the case, the real cop or doc can counterclaim. Sure, we lose the power role, but in exchange for a mafia - more than a fair trade. As for DL not having posted in a while, it's only been a number of hours, and we don't expect every single player to check this site every hour on the hour. And yes, you are most certainly next on my list. You're lucky that Darklight made such ridiculous claims today, or it would be your head on the chopping block, most likely. As for other players that we should be concerned about, I'm not convinced that we really need to dig down that far just yet - we have two excellent suspects - should we exhaust those, then I would be more than willing to state my other, far lesser suspicions. I guess I could anyway, if you folks want, but they're really rather tenuous....

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, I didn't think it was possible, but you did it - you convinced me even further that you're mafia. Good job, kiddo! Your hastiness to lynch is a bit over the top. What did your partner ever do to deserve such a harsh bussing?

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, we don't want to force a claim until Muh and Santos both evaluate his play and give their opinions. We also don't want to lynch without a roleclaim. If you're not willing to understand the reasonings behind these actions, then I don't know what to tell you - we've tried to explain these several times.

[Netopalis]

DO WHAT?!?! WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO, COOLDOG?!?! LYNCH!?!! FORCE A CLAIM?!?!! HAVE YOU NOT BEEN READING THESE LAST POSTS EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS STUFF?!?!?!

I'm taking a break before I say something I really shouldn't say...

[Netopalis]

Muh - I would recommend a complete reread of the game from page 1 - if you're still confused, feel free to pose questions in the thread and I'll do my best to answer them.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, you have a very simplistic view of the game and seem very rushed. Take some time for a reread and a reexamination of the issues.

[Netopalis]

DL, you responded to none of the allegations against you. Are you unaware of the gravity of your situation? Barring unforseen circumstances, you WILL be lynched today. Make your case.

[Netopalis]

Ok, looking at your post, I see what you're saying....When he typed the @sposh, I thought he was making an attack, not referencing his earlier post. Guess I need to pay more attention. I agree, Sposh did vote and unvote early on, and perhaps Sposh is a good candidate as well...That being said, I don't feel that the DL wagon acted with undue haste - his statements have been hypocritical at best. That being said, I do want to hear from Muh some more, as well as Santos, once he finishes the reread.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, a claim when 2 people strongly suspect you is not merited. A claim when at least 5 people strongly suspect you IS merited.

[Netopalis]

Are you just saying that because someone else said it, Muh, or do you actually find it suspicious?

[Netopalis]

Muh, Cooldog couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag He MIGHT just be the worst player here...There may be some growing competition for that title, though.

[Netopalis]

Sorry, should be:

Muh, Cooldog couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. He MIGHT just be the worst player here...There may be some growing competition for that title, though.

I know, I know, just a period..but it's going to bother me if I don't fix it.

[Netopalis]

Upon further reflection, I think that was a bit uncalled for...I apologize, Cooldog. My point stands that I feel that you need to work on understanding things a bit more but I shouldn't have said you were the worst player here. I'd recommend some time with the Wiki...Learn about some strategy, vote patterns, etc. You might also want to look at other previous games....and also perhaps learn to emulate the style of English that other posters use. (Your tendency to use run-on sentences can be difficult to read and many times you make assertions without backing them up logically.)

[Netopalis]

SpyreX has been plenty active, Muh. Read the bloody game from page 1, it's obvious that you haven't.

Santos does need to finish his reread soon, though.

[Netopalis]

Muh, the game is not that simplistic. Basically, you have to realize that it's not just about finding who the scum are - it's ALSO about them attempting to subvert whoever is trying to out them. This can take a lot of forms, from bussing (the intentional killing of another mafia member to appear more innocent) to simple petty fights to overly chummy behavior that appears too over-the-top to be mafia. You can't just say that "all we gotta do is find the mafia" - that's like saying that all one has to do to climb Mount Everest is to get to the top.

[Netopalis]

This is getting nowhere fast. We need a claim, Darklight....

[Netopalis]

I find the vague power-role claim to be scum hedging its bets. Its possible that Darklight knows that there is a roleblocker in this game, and thus there is a 50% chance that neither doc nor cop exists. Therefore, he's claiming a vague power role in hopes that, even if there IS a doc and cop, both will be reluctant to counterclaim thinking that he is probably the opposing role.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and I forgot to mention....Cooldog, the only people we told to reread the thread were you and Muh because you both seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of the state of the game. It's more likely that you do know what we are talking about, though, and that your posts are just terribly unclear. See if you can clarify your writing; your run-on sentences make it rather difficult to decipher exactly what you mean.

[Netopalis]

Cooldog, I want to thank you for taking the time to reread. Your last post is also much more coherent. Try to keep this up for the rest of the game, and you'll be OK.

[Netopalis]

Well, yeah, Muh, the game can take a bit of time...but that being said, I'm in law school. I do roughly 10-12 hours of work per day and have 30-100 pages of reading per night. No offense, but if you want to talk about someone being busy....

[Netopalis]

Darklight, my implication was that you *were* scum, and therefore would know since, if I read the PMs right on the front page, both scums get to know whether there is a roleblocker or not.

[Netopalis]

Upon further reflection, let me expand on this a bit.

The mafia have the luxury of being able to narrow down the setup a bit. The opening PM tells the mafia if there is a mafia roleblocker amongst them. If there is, then it narrows the setup down to the following 2:

7 townies, 1 Mafia RB, 1 Mafia Goon
5 townies, 1 Cop, 1 Doc, 1 Mafia Goon

Likewise, if the mafia know that there is *no* roleblocker amongst them, then the setup must be one of the following 2:
6 townies, 1 Cop, 2 Goons
6 townies, 1 Doc, 2 Goons

Therefore, if Darklight was mafia AND he knew that there was a roleblocker in play, he would also know that there was a 50% chance that nobody could counterclaim him.

The same actually holds true, now that I examine it, if there are only goons in play - in fact, it would make his generic claim to be very effective.

[Netopalis]

Yes and no. DLA claimed Doc, Muh hammered without any explanation.

[Netopalis]

That was pretty bad.....Really bad. Not that Muh is a great player to begin with.....

I also want to apologize to the town for my actions on day 1. I was positive that DLA was scum....his actions seemed to scream it at me from all angles. I'll try to be a bit more careful today.

Muh, before I vote for you, do you have anything to say in your defense?

[Netopalis]

EBWODP: I'm not up for a quicklynch on Muh. We all saw where that got us day 1. We should also keep in mind that his actions might not have been the result of scumminess - just the result of idiotic play.

[Netopalis]

I dont like the apology. DLA was playing scummy - however after he DOES claim doc finally how in the zeus do you come in and hammer?

I want that explained, asap.

Spyre, that was me posting, and not Muh.



And I agree, Muh, you need to give some more evidence for your actions...They look really nasty right now.

[Netopalis]

Alright...Since we seem to have stalled out, I'm going to post a question for each of you to respond to. Hopefully, this can restart discussion.

To Muh: Can you give us any more details about why you thought it would be a good idea to hammer? Do you realize why this may have been a bad idea?

CooLDog: Your actions day 1 are rather odd. You first align yourself closely with Darklight, then back off and completely go the other direction. What is your explanation for this? Is it because he started garnering suspicion? It seems that you are rather survivalist - this is generally anti-town. Care to respond to this?

Sposh: Your posts have been rather sparse. Who do you feel the strongest about right now and why?

SpyreX and Geekalicious: Who is your biggest suspect right now and why?

Snow_bunny: You don't seem too concerned over the loss of the doc. Why? Also, who do you suspect most right now and why?

[Netopalis]

I'm afraid not, Snow_bunny - I'm the actual cop. I investigated Spyre and received an innocent. Die, scum, die.

Vote: Snow_bunny

[Netopalis]

No, I didn't breadcrumb for the precise purpose of the fact that there may have been a Mafia Roleblocker. I didn't want to give them any more information than what they had. I have nothing else to say in my defense - you can evaluate my play all you want, but I'm sticking to my story. When I turn up innocent, though, please go ahead and vote for S_B.[/quote]

[Netopalis]

Well, bah. Congrats, scum, for making this day end early....Good luck with the rest of the game, everybody.

[Netopalis]

W00t! Thanks for a good game, guys! Any suggestions for improvement to my play?

[Netopalis]

lol, it was a pun! Come on, people!

[Netopalis]

CD....Your play was scummy, even though you were town. Lynching you wasn't entirely the incorrect play....

[Netopalis]

Meh, it wasn't really that brilliant of a play - it was my only choice. Scum wouldn't claim cop like that, so there was very little chance that I could turn it against you...and me claiming town would have done nothing to solve my predicament. Therefore, I really had to counterclaim - knowing they'd still lynch me - and perhaps cast some doubt on someone else.

That being said, Spyre was actually a really bad choice for that. I should have used it on Sposh, someone who was borderline anyway, in hopes that he'd be lynched and then letting Geek deal with Spyre.

Awesome job on the investigation, by the way! That really was an excellent play.

[Netopalis]

Sposh: You did have a few problems, but overall you were excellent for a new player. My only criticisms about your play were your inactivity and the fact that most of your posts seemed to go with the flow of the game rather than trying to draw it into a new direction. While this can be a good quality, it allows for scum to lead you on, and makes you appear somewhat scummy.