Newbie 848 - The Bunny Mafia Family - over finally!

[MichelSableheart]

Hello everyone, hope we have a fun game.

I'm your IC for this game, which means I'm here to play along while helping you with questions about game theory, mafia in general, and mafiascum traditions.

One of those traditions is the random voting stage. It is generally accepted that in the beginning of a game, when there isn't much to work with, players vote each other randomly and joke around a bit, in the hope to get reactions, use those to get a read on players, and use the information gained in that way to really start the game.

Personally, I don't agree with that. It is my belief that, if you want to get the game started, the best way to do that is to take actions that actually help the game move forward. That may mean pushing small scumtells you have found. That may mean asking people game relevant questions in order to get people discussing something useful. It definately means that you should actively be looking for scum, rather then fooling around.

Nachomamma, your answer of 'I don't need good reasons, this is the random voting stage' only stifles discussion. It completely takes the sting out of your vote, places no pressure whatsoever, and encourages people to fool around.

Sposh, how does your post 13 contribute to finding the scum?

[MichelSableheart]

But what actions do you take? In fooling around and drawing reactions from people such as you, you can get a general idea of who wishes to get the lynch first. For example, townies can spam for pages and pages without regret, but usually, the scum is the first to step in and accuse, just for the sake of getting the game started. And if no one is fooling around, what scumtells do you have to draw from? Absolutely nothing.

Towntells and scumtells can be found when players react to others, not when everyone is acting virtually random. Therefore, the actions that you should take are actions that are likely to draw reactions. Fooling around only draws reactions from players who are actually interested in getting the game on the road. By accusing someone of being scum for being eager to start (interesting role, therefore likely scum), for being the last to confirm (wanted more time to speak to scumbuddies) etcetera, you are actually going to get a response from the player you are accusing.

I very strongly disagree with your statement that townies can spam for pages and pages whereas scum will step in to get the game started. If nobody does anything but fool around till deadline hit, the lynch will effectively be random. Scum would be perfectly happy with that, because it basically means that the town is not using it's main weapon: lynching. Town, on the other hand, needs all information they can get. They won't get significant info if everybody is fooling around. Therefore, town should be the one strifing to get significant discussion started, whereas scum would be perfectly happy if the RVS continues.

---

Secondly, I feel asking game relevant questions is much more beneficial to scum. By asking innocent-seeming questions that will ultimately result in an advantage to scum, scum can rolefish with minimalistic risk. The newer players who are unsure what questions to ask, however, are crucified because of what questions they end up asking in the end, and any old scum can cause a mislynch immediately. It's much harder for scum to decide what to do/how to act in the RVS than in a questions game, and I prefer to give Mafiosos the minimal of breathing room.

I can't follow your reasoning here. Scum have information that they want to hide. They know of two roles which they want to keep secret at all costs. If hidden roles are more likely to be revealed by questions being asked, it seems to me that town is the faction that benefits most.

---

Please explain why game relevant questions benefit the town more than the RVS does.

Because the random voting stage is mostly random, it results in very little information becoming available to the town. However, if you ask game relevant questions (for example about lurking, quickhammering or the like), you can compare the answers they give in the beginning of the game to actions they take later. Town needs info in order to lynch correctly, whereas scum already knows who is and isn't on their faction. Info becoming available is therefore far more benificial for town. Besides, by asking game relevant questions, players won't be able to cop out with the completely useless "it's only the random voting stage, it doesn't matter what I do".

---

How about my answer to that question, hmm? How is THAT going to start discussion any more than random joke posts?

Your answer to my question is a complete cop out. This question shows that you are aware of that. Basically, you are intentionally acting anti-town.

Vote: Sposh

---

Although you make a point, why didn't you do what you believe in? I see no scumhunting. This post only offers your personal opinion and practical advice. I find your introduction a little fishy.

Please take a good look at the last two paragraphs of the post you quoted. I stated that pushing small scumtells and asking game related questions are the best way to move the game forward at this point. I believe that the last two paragraphs are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

---

That isn't true. Bronco made a case against Sable, you could add to it or give your opinion on it. He hasn't made any attempt to move the game forward after his first post.

That is a bit of a misleading accusation, Jase. I didn't find the time to post at all yesterday. The way you word that accusation however, implies that I have been posting without actually contributing.

[MichelSableheart]

On my Sposh vote: I'm not voting Sposh because he is voting randomly during the RVS. I'm voting Sposh because

• He made a post containing nothing but a joke, which is unlikely to draw any relevant reactions,
• He was aware that his joke post didn't help the town, and
• his response shows he has no problems with the fact that his actions weren't helping the town.

Is that scumtell small? Definately. But even pressuring a small and mostly useless scumtell is better then voting completely arbitrary, IMO.

---

I see, I assumed we were all mostly around. Was your post from the day before then?

I try to post daily, but am not succeeding at the moment. Living in Europe, I see my posts coming from wednesday evening, friday morning, and now sunday morning.

---

But when players act "virtually" random, they offer something for others to respond to. And fooling around can also draw accusations from plenty of people, such as a person who found a part of fooling around they thought was scummy, no? These accusations at the beginning of the game have no more water than "you have a funny name", and more often than not, these are simply brushed off, and blatant OMGUS reccurs from both townie and scum. You will get responses from people no matter what you do, so it is generally better to take the RVS stage for what it is; making a ton of no-water accusations will only make you look worse.

The problem though, is that you are relying on other to do the responding. An accusation of "you have a funny name" can be ignored, as it doesn't imply mafia in any way, so it can indeed simply be brushed of. An accusation along the lines of "you were eager to start, bet you are exited about receiving the mafia role" is a valid accusation, and therefore requires a defense. It forces people to respond to you, rather then just giving them the option.

But how often do you see people fool around until deadline hits? In all the games you've been in/read, has this EVER happened? Eventually, someone's going to lurk, or someone will lose their patience... The RVS gives a lot of information to the town; not necessarily at first, but during later games. With a longer RVS and a few confirmed roles, scum might have quite the time hiding. The RVS is usually when scum choose to relax, which is when they make mistakes the most often.

I admit, I haven't seen people fool around till the deadline hits. But I also can't remember ever seeing anyone use the RVS to nail scum. In my experience, if players are voting randomly for three days, that's basically three days less to find the scum.

Questions about what players find scummy is practically giving the scum advice. If they see most of the town hates lurkers, guess what they know not to do? If they see that the town believes quickhammering is alright under the right circumstances, guess what they're going to do? Game relevant questions provides plenty of information, sure, but most of that information usually goes to the mafia.

Pro-town players should answer these questions in a pro-town way. If scum are acting according to the responses given, they will be acting in a way that is advanteous to town, and therefore will make it more likely that they'll be exposed. I prefer to make it perfectly clear to all players that quickhammering won't be accepted, rather then seeing a player quickhammer on day 1, and then spending day 2 discussing the lynch of what is possibly a clueless newbie.

---

So, I'm not sure who scum is but I think TheBeanBurrito is quite suspicious because he keeps making arguments.

I really don't understand what you are saying here, Star. Where has he been making arguments? And why is scum more likely to make arguments then town?

[MichelSableheart]

I'm not sure why scum would make more arguments. Remember this is my first game.... Ever.

You said that you believed TBB was suspicious because he "keeps making arguments". To me, that means that you believe someone who keeps making arguments is more likely to be scum then someone who doesn't, and therefore that scum are more likely to make arguments then town. Am I mistaken in this reasoning? Why did you believe that someone who keeps making arguments is more likely to be scum?

---
@Nachomamma: It seems to me that you are using two standards. You have no problems with the fact that completely unbased accusations during a RVS can be brushed away, but you seem to believe that an accusation on very slim evidence being brushed away is a problem. It is my belief that a based accusation, no matter how slim the evidence, will do more to get the game started then a completely unbased vote. In the same vein, I also belief that game related questions are a better way to start discussion then basically random behaviour, even thoughI agree with you thatthey don't do a whole lot for exposing the scum.

The connections you are talking about are, in my experience at least, not very helpful. Especially without a meta available, it is virtually impossible to reliable predict how someone is going to act given a particular role during a RVS. It is simply impossible to say "A is town, because a confirmed scum voted for him during RVS".

---
@sxizzor: There is a very serious problem with you being passive and reactive. If you don't think for yourself, you are at serious risk of being manipulated by the scum to vote the way they want you to. Besides that, it also makes it extremely difficult for the other players to get a good read on you. You would be hampering the scumhunting of all pro-town players.

---

Michel, do you think you'd support my lynch today, or are you just voting me to get a reaction?

Given the information I currently have available, I would support your lynch. No lynch is not an option, because the lynch is the town's only weapon to kill scum. And you are at this point in time the most likely to be mafia. It is likely though that this will change as more info becomes available throughout this day, though.

[MichelSableheart]

WTF is an L-1?
L1-3 for that matter.

L-1 is shorthand for Lynch -1, also known as 1 vote away from being lynched. In the current situation, we have 9 players alive. It therefore takes 5 votes to lynch. If someone is being voted by 4 people, he would need one more vote to be lynched, and therefore he is at L-1.

Bronco, I don't see the contradictions you are mentioning at all, though I'll have to take a close look at Jase' posts to make sure. When he says "I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions." he correctly represents his previous posts, IMO. The same goes for "three votes is entirely too much" vs "one more vote would mean a quicklynch". That is further explanation, not a contradiction.

I'll take a thorough look at the posts thus far when I have more time available tomorrow.

[MichelSableheart]

A quick post to let you all know that I made a beginning with the promised analysis, but didn't find the time to finish it, and won't be able to finish it today.

[MichelSableheart]

I have to apologize. Appearantly I have much less time available then I thought I had, and am having a bit of trouble motivating myself.

After my post last friday, I haven't looked at the thread at all till now, and even now I only have very limited time available. I will scan the last couple of pages, looking mainly to things adressed to me. I hope to be able to make a better post tomorrow, but unfortunately, I can't make promises. It will probably be wednesday before I have time to look at the thread thoroughly.

MichelSableheart, Nachomamma8, Tehstefan, mind explaining your votes for my sake?

My vote is based on rather poor reasons, as it was made during the beginning part of the game. I explained those reasons at the beginning of post #64. I haven't seen anything more suspicious though, and haven't yet finished my analysis. Therefore, I haven't seen any reason for unvoting or changing my vote yet.

On Bronco #148: I'm not at all convinced by his explanations. I believe this post

Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase

Please answer all questions addressed to you.

is clearly voting Jase because Jase didn't answer questions. Bronco's remark that Nacho didn't say anything of the sort feels extremely strange to me.

Unfortunately that's all I have time for, for now

[MichelSableheart]

OK, I've finished my analysis. I'll give my opinions on each player, in order of the first post.

---
Sposh

During the random voting stage, he was joking around a bit, and wasn't too concerned about scumhunting or getting serious discussion started. That's slightly anti-town, but unfortunately it's behaviour that's generally common for both town and scum.

His vote on Bronco in post #107 is potentially pressuring newbie mistakes in order to get an easy mislynch.

His defense against the accusation "you added nothing original to your Bronco vote, but made it appear like you did" is a mess. In particular, the contradiction between "to say I added NOTHING new is a bit harsh" in post #160 and "But... based on what I saw, there was nothing more to add on" in post #162 is striking.

Overall, I can see myself voting for Sposh today. However, he didn't make any large scumtells IMO. I believe there also are players around who are more likely scum then he is.

---
TehStefan

Post #28 by Tsf struck me as very weird. Why would Tsf give an easy explanation for TBB's unexplained vote? There is a possible connection there.

Post #33 by Tsf is weird too. He's asking other players for reads, when he hasn't contributed anything whatsoever himself. Does he want to know the general opinions of the town before making comments that can draw attention to himself?

I don't like how, in post #104, Tsf accuses Jase of being overdefensive when all Jase is doing IMO is giving and explaining a clear, logical explanation for why he didn't answer Nacho's question immediately and answering to the discussion that follows from that.

His vote of Bronco in that same post is also bad, especially considering his later opinions. His accusation that Bronco is tunnelvisioning doesn't really hold water, because Bronco pressured Tsf earlier in the game too. It is potentially trying to take advantage of simple newbie mistakes. But later, when Bronco has made a post that only confuses me and doesn't clear anything, Tsf unvotes because "Bronco gave a decent reason for what he's doing". And even later, in post #156, he has changed his opinion on Bronco completely when Bronco's posts still haven't been very clear IMO. Stefan, can you explain why you originally suspected Bronco, what in his explanation you found convincing, and why you changed your mind on him?

Tsf's vote on Sposh is just as much following Nacho's reasoning as Sposh vote on Bronco was following the reasoning of Tsf. Nacho accused Sposh of piggybacking and not bringing in original content, Tsf accused Sposh of the same. For the other two accusations ("bandwagoning", "voting without reason" and "lurking"), no support whatsoever was given. It feels like Tsf is simply throwing some scummy words around.

In the rest of the discussion with Sposh, Tsf is making reasonable comments.

Overall, Tsf did some scummy things, particulary in the beginning of the game. I could see myself voting for him. But again, there are more suspicious players around.

---
Sxizzor/foilist

Sxizzor was inactive, which is completely different from lurking and not much of a tell either way IMO. Foilist's analysis is well thought out, and he is contributing greatly. The only thing I disagree with him on is his Bronco stance. He feels pro-town.

---
TheBeanBurrito

As far as I can see, TBB has not made any contribution that is relevant for finding the scum in any way. He has been completely unhelpful, even though he's posted regulary and posted more then me. His behaviour is, in my opinion, a good example of (active) lurking. I believe it is very well possible that he is avoiding commenting to stay out of the picture. The fact that his general behaviour is anti-town and his lynch therefore won't hurt the town much makes him the best lynch for today. I much rather lynch him then Sposh, Tsf, or Nachomamma, who are all contributing and hunting scum.

Unvote: Sposh

Vote: TheBeanBurrito

---
staroftheshow/Haylen

staroftheshow's posts gave me mostly newbie vibes, which isn't much of a tell either way. Haylen has simply been inactive. Overall, neutral read.

Haylen, I really hope your unexplained Nachomamma vote is not what you had in mind when you said "you would post something proper tomorrow". I really would like to hear your opinions on all players in the game.

---
Jase

Even though Jase is one of the most active posters around, I haven't got much scumtells listed for him. The only problem I have with him is that, in the beginning of the game, he tended to express suspicion without giving reasons why (posts #35 and #55 are examples of this.

I like his defense against Nachomamma's accusation of not answering questions. He gives a good reason ("I didn't post at all"), and though he is getting annoyed, he makes good attempts to keep the discussion that follows clear and civil.

I like his comments on Nachomamma's reasoning in the last couple of pages too.

---
Nachomamma

Nachomamma feels scummy to me. He makes very little comments that make me think "good point!". He takes strategic stances that are in my opinion antitown ("RVS is good", "the other town players don't need to get a read on me", "the point of anything you say should be to misrepresent it", "town players should behave scummy"). Furthermore he tend to argue a lot, seemingly more interested in being right then in comprehending the point of the other player.

In his attacks against Jase, he looked pretty badly. Jase gave understable, clear explanations, but Nachomamma kept pressing the point. The case he makes against Jase in post #113 doesn't make sense to me at all.

Nachomamma was also the only player who ignored foilist's request for explanation of the Sposh votes (#133).

On the plus side, Nachomamma is active and contributing. We need players like that. I would prefer not to lynch him today.

---
Bronco

Bronco is mainly giving me newbie vibes. I'm not getting a read on him at all. His accusations against Jase were strange and incomprehensible, but I don't see how that would be to his advantage if he's scum. The main thing it does is draw attention to him.

Bronco, can you please explain clearly where you originally believed Jase lied? You said you read the post wrong. What did you believe he said?

A positive tell is his post #37, where he pressures Tsf when Tsf asked for reads without giving any himself.

Overall, I have a neutral read on him.
---
MichelSableheart
I have problems with his activity level. He regulary is away for days on end, though he didn't need to be prodded yet. IC's are supposed to give a good example, and his inactivity is simply unacceptable. I really hope he finds motivation and time again.

I've seen his rolepm though, and I know he isn't scum.

---
Conclusions:
TheBeanBurrito is the best lynch for today, but I will support a Sposh or Tsf lynch too.

[MichelSableheart]

@Bronco: I want to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Is the following a correct representation of your reasoning at the time?

"In post #80, Jase was suspicious of Nachomamma because Nachomamma voted him for not answering questions".

"In post #85, Jase tried to change that to being suspicious of Nachomamma because Nachomamma didn't wait for a reply before voting."

"Jase is trying to change his claims based on the responses he gets. This is scummy."

---

@Michel: I missed his question at the beginning, but I certainly articulated the answer to it: [SNIP quote]

I stand corrected. Apologies.

---
I consider the opinion "RVS is good" antitown because, even though Random Voting is an acceptable way to get the game started, I believe it is far from the ideal way to start a game. Besides, for a lot of people, the RVS seems to mean a stage in the game where you can act like you want, without being concerned how your actions are going to help find scum.

---
On game relevant questions being more helpful to scum: I believe we already had this discussion. It is my belief that by asking questions on, for example, lurking, you can identify

• who are defending the antitown standpoints, and are therefore more likely scum, and
• educate all players that lurking is bad for town. This means that you won't catch lurking scum, but it also means that all players are very aware they shouldn't lurk, avoiding mislynches on lurking town and leading to a more active game where it is easier to find the scum.

---
Nachomamma, I may be reading you wrong. Are you claiming that your antitown posts from post #166 and onwards were intended to see if I would agree with them? When just 5 posts before that, post #161, you noticed that I wasn't very active at the time? Or am I mistaken in what your saying? If so, what did you intend to achieve with your behaviour in those posts?

---
On you daring us to lynch you: it seems bad play regardless of your alignement. If you are pro-town, you should be more interested in getting a lynch on someone you don't know the alignement of rather then someone who you know for certain is a mislynch. And if you're scum, you want to get a lynch on someone who isn't of your alignement too. I admit, being lynched is slightly less worse for town then for scum, but you as scum would be aware of that. Overall, you daring us to lynch you doesn't tell me much about your alignement.

---
@Tsf: seems a reasonable reasoning.

[MichelSableheart]

If you think what I'm saying is unreasonable, then go replace out and find something else to do.

I have to disagree with this. Replacing out very seriously hurts the game, and shouldn't be done unless there is no way you can continue playing. That fact that foilist believes TBB's playstyle is bad play is definately NOT a reason for TBB to replace out.

---
That being said...

@Michel's post 192.
I'm kinda busy between Real life, and other games. On top of that, you guys are just crazy with all of your 'read' stuff. I like to just watch, and decide (lurking, you call it. I call it assessing the situation) I have only played this game once before, and the way it was done was so completely different that I am a bit overwhelmed with how you guys do stuff here. Only Teh and I have not completed a game here, which puts us at a disadvantage. You all are doing wonderfully at making each other seem scummy. You all are also good at asking the questions I would have asked. I have nothing else to add to that. I'm reading everything posted, and I completely agree that I'm not being as helpful as everyone else. It's not something that I could help. Heck, if lynching me helps you guys along then do it.

There is a very serious problem for us if you only watch, and never seriously comment though. If you don't say anything, it becomes virtually impossible for the other players to determine your alignement. We can't use what you say to determine if you are town or mafia. We can't look at your voting pattern, because you almost never vote.

Assume you are pro-town for a moment. Besides you, there are 6 other players in the game who share your alignement. Of the seven pro-town players, 5 need to be voting for the same mafiamember to lynch him. If those other players can't determine your alignement, that is one more player who is potentially mafia for them. Which means a mislynch becomes much more likely.

If you are scum, on the other hand, it is an advantage for you if other players have trouble determining your alignement, If you don't make any scumtells, it's far less likely that you'll be lynched.

I can't imagine you agree with everything everybody has said thus far. Even if you won't be as helpful as others, please try to think for yourself. If two players disagree on something, tell us with who you agree, and why. If someone is making a case you find very convincing, let us know.

And please try to answer questions directed to you. Nachomamma's #200 contains a number of them.

You are not breaking any game rules, but you are behaving in a way that is very advantegeous to scum. Which makes me believe you are likely scum, which is why I'm currently voting you.

[MichelSableheart]

Where are you getting anti-town posts from #166 on? I'm talking about antitown posts from the very beginning. And I, being a player who has played extremely scummy, don't think that I should be around in LyLo if everyone still believes that I'm that scummy because it will make the scum's job FAR too easy in LyLo. As for the game related discussion, we'll just have to disagree. I understand your points; they are valid. I simply don't agree with them...

I was talking about your antitown stances in general. Examples I mentioned included "the point of anything you say should be to misrepresent it" (free interpretation of post #166) and "town players should behave scummy" (free interpretation of #171 and #184). Your defense read that you were taking antitown stances in order to see if I would agree with you. I wanted to know if that was also the case for the antitown stances in the posts after post #166. And if that wasn't the reason for you taking those positions, I wanted to know why you took them.

---
The deadline is next tuesday. And if there isn't a majority at that point in time, there will be no lynch. Because of this, I am willing to switch to Nachomamma if it guarantees a lynch, but I would prefer to lynch TheBeanBurrito today.

@everyone: please make sure you are voting someone you actually want lynched.

[MichelSableheart]

Haylen, you do realize that there is a deadline tomorrow? And that there won't be a lynch unless there is a clear majority on someone?

[MichelSableheart]

2.5 hours till deadline.

Nachomamma is at L-2,
TBB is at L-1.

I do not believe we can count on TBB checking this thread before deadline hits.
I don't think we should count on Haylen checking this thread before deadline hits either.

I will be online for the next 25 minutes. If someone puts Nachomamma at L-1 during that time, I will hammer him. However, if noone puts Nachomamma at L-1, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE A LYNCH!

This means that, in that case, someone who isn't currently voting TBB will have to hammer him.

Sposh, with just 4 hours before deadline, you didn't hammer. Why? Will you be able to hammer TBB before deadline hits?

[MichelSableheart]

I have to log out now, and won't be able to log back in before deadline hits.

I strongly urge anyone who has a chance to hammer, to do so, in order to guarantee a lynch.

[MichelSableheart]

That was an extremely bad end of day 1. We basically lost a lynch there. Assuming that the mafia kills every night, we now can only mislynch once without losing the game (mislynching twice means 4 players, 2 mafia -> no attainable mafia lynch). With 9 players alive, we could mislynch twice (5 players, 2 mafia, Lylo but not yet lost).

Haylen, why on earth did you unvote in post #227? 1 day before deadline (with no lynch if there is no clear majority) is NOT the moment to be worried about mafia quicklynching.

Jase, in post #229, you said you would change your vote if necessary. Were you online after that? When? If the two of us had changed our votes, we would have been able to guarantee a lynch. Did you consider moving your vote for that purpose? Personally, I didn't know when you would be online again. I considered switching to Nachomamma when I made post #241, but didn't, as I had no reason to believe that made a lynch significantly more likely at that point in time.

Sposh, why didn't you hammer TBB in post #239? Isn't getting a lynch more important than lynching your top suspect? What made you believe TBB and Haylen would be online before the deadline?

TBB, you were at L-1 after Bronco voted you. I am assuming that you didn't want to be lynched there. The only other viable lynch at that point in time was Nachomamma. Why weren't you voting him?

Bwian, were were you when the deadline hit? Why didn't you post on monday or tuesday?

Bronco, did you consider who might be able to hammer when you voted? Who did you expect to hammer TBB?

Nachomamma, no questions for you. I don't believe you could have voted anyone else.

I believe I have done everything in my power to try to get a lynch. I strongly encourage everyone to look closely at my actions around deadline though, and question me if there are any doubts.

[MichelSableheart]

We may want to consider no lynching again today. We may mislynch once, regardless if there are 8 or 7 players alive. And with 7, we have a better random chance of lynching scum.

That being said, I believe there are better choices that can be made today. Like lynching the person who actively tried not to get a lynch yesterday.

Vote: Haylen

TBB is still a perfectly valid lynch candidate too.

[MichelSableheart]

I didn't want to be part of a lynch that I didn't believe in. If you remember correctly, I gave no reason for voting him. My vote was merely to apply some pressure. He reacted in a townie way, so I unvoted him when I could.

First of all, Haylen, would you agree with me that any lynch on someone other then yourself is better then no lynch day 1? Because that is my basis of operating here, and is why I tend to believe that "I didn't want to be part of a lynch that I didn't believe in" isn't a valid excuse not to vote. I also didn't want to see Nachomamma lynched. But if he was the only option that guaranteed a lynch, I would have hammered him instantly.

But let's assume for a moment that it is a valid excuse. So you unvoted. Why didn't you go over to the TBB bandwagon? He was the alternative to the Nachomamma lynch. If you didn't want to support Nacho's wagon, you should have voted TBB. And if you had very strong reasons not to want to see TBB lynched either, you should have tried to get a lynch on someone else going. You weren't voting anyone when deadline hit. At the very least, you weren't actively trying to get a lynch.

I didn't actively try not to get a lynch, any number of the other players cause have voted.

I accused you of actively trying to not get a lynch. In order words, you took actions that would lead to a no lynch. I am making this accusation because of the second part of post #227. In it, you encourage the other players NOT to vote people, because putting someone on L-1 risks a mafia quicklynch. 1 day from deadline, with a lynch sorely needed, that is not something that should be a concern.

Also, note that the options the other players have don't matter whatsoever when determining whether or not you actively tried to get a no lynch. You unvoted without voting anyone else, and you were telling players not to place the L-1 vote. That is true regardless of the number of other players that could have hammered.

You seem to be using your IC status in order to lead the town Michel. That isn't nice. I never take kindly to people who try to lead the town...

Yesterday, when deadline loomed closer and closer, it was necessary to take the lead, in order to actually try to get a lynch. In despite of me trying to lead the town, we still failed to lynch. If anything, I didn't lead the town enough then.

Outside of the deadline situation however, I believe I have been focal about my opinions but also have encouraged people to think for themselves, and not blindly accept what I'm saying.

[MichelSableheart]

That was sort of my reasoning... I just figured everyone would vote before deadline I didn't know people would completely lurk their way into a no lynch! But at least I was voting... Haylen was not!

What I don't understand though is why you didn't see it coming. TBB had not contributed anything whatsoever, and had only posted once every two or three days. Why did you figure he would come online and vote in those short four hours we had remaining? Didn't you consider at all what would happen if he wouldn't show up?

Sable: I came on line some time after you had logged off I think.

So if I had changed my vote to Nacho we would have had a lynch?

[MichelSableheart]

@Sposh: he isn't talking to himself, he just forgot to put quote tags around what I said.

Michel, I looked at the thread and choose TBB. He has actively lurked the whole game, not provided any information to the game. Yes, I considered who would hammer, when I voted there were equal chance for both. I went with who I think is scum.

It isn't just the number of players who could hammer. It also matters who exactly they are. If you had voted Nachomamma, the players who could have hammered were Haylen, TBB (inactive), Jase (said he would hammer to guarantee a lynch) and me (said I would hammer to guarantee a lynch). Now, the players with the opportunity to hammer were Haylen, Sposh (had recently joined Nacho's wagon), Bwian (Replaced in recently, no comment on deadline lynch) and Foilist (active, but no comments on a deadline lynch). Which of those two sets looks more likely to hammer? And out of the four players who could hammer, who did you expect to actually pull the trigger?

[MichelSableheart]

Sable: What are the pros and cons of a no lynch today?

pro: Currently, there are eight players alive. This means town can mislynch once before being in a situation were a mislynch means losing (Mylo). If we no lynch, we have 7 players alive, also one mislynch away from mislynch means losing. Therefore, by no lynching we don't give up a lynch.
No lynching has two advantages. The first is that any powerroles we have will get the chance to use their abilities to gather more information. The other advantage is that by reducing the pool of players, we increase the chance of lynching mafia.

con: First of all, appearantly this town has problems getting to a decision. We weren't able to force a lynch yesterday. That may happen again. It's therefore better to be in a situation were a no lynch doesn't cost us the game.
Secondly, the player we lose by no lynching is probably a player the mafia wants to see dead. They remove an important pro-town voice from the equation, increasing the influence they have over the lynch.

---

So far, today's discussion has been trying to point the blame for the no lynch yesterday. Now this is all well and good, but no one's actually talked about suspicious behaviors during Day 1... Who is everyone's top suspect right now, and why?

I believe my post #249 made my stance clear. I'm most suspicious of Haylen because I consider her most responsible for the no lynch when she really should have known better. Second top suspect is Netopalis, because TBB didn't contribute to the game in any way during all of day 1, but was only replaced today.

---

It's easy! I just never saw the case behind TBB, but Nacho had my eye the entire day.

If you didn't understand why we were voting TBB, you should have asked for explanations. If you didn't believe we were voting TBB for a good reason, you should have argued against our arguments. You didn't comment on the TBB wagon at all. Saying you didn't see the case now is complete rubbish.

---

I'd like to ask Michel if you share my view on Haylens part in the no-lynch. Also, could you please explain the following inconsistency?

It is usually wise to assume that town will lynch each day, and mafia will kill each night. With nine players alive, that means the following progress, assuming town always mislynches:
nine alive (two mafia) town lynches town, mafia kills town.
seven alive (two mafia) town lynches town, mafia kills town.
five alive (two mafia) Lylo. If town doesn't lynch mafia, town loses.

If town no lynches on day 1, the situation changes.
nine alive (two mafia) town no lynches, mafia kills town.
eight alive (two mafia) town lynches town, mafia kills town.
six alive (two mafia). If town lynches town, mafia kills town, 2 vs 2, mafia wins.

Now assume that town no lynches on day 1 and 2. Then the situation is as follows:
nine alive (two mafia) town no lynches, mafia kills town.
eight alive (two mafia) town no lynches, mafia kills town.
seven alive (two mafia) town lynches town, mafia kills town
five alive (two mafia) LYLO. if town doesn't lynch mafia, town loses.

So basically, a no lynch on day 1 will mean that town has one less lynch available to lynch mafia. Therefore, a town no lynch is just as good for mafia as a lynch on a pro-town player is. Therefore, Haylen as mafia would not need to get a lynch on town if she could get away with no lynching. Which is why I don't agree with your read on Haylen.

As for the inconsistency you mentioned: No lynching on day 1 costs the town a lynch. No lynching after a No lynch already took place, doesn't. Which is why a no lynch should be avoided at all costs during day 1, but why we may want to consider no lynching today.

[MichelSableheart]

It seems I missed another con against no lynching today: if we lynch, a succesful doc protect can give us back the lynch we threw away yesterday.

---
Sposh, were did you get that I wanted to no lynch today? I wanted the option to be considered, but I also strongly belief it is not the correct play for today. It is unlikely that the mafia kill will actually reduce the possible lynch pool in this situation. They will likely kill someone who's obvtown and wasn't going to be lynched anyway.

[MichelSableheart]

mod:

I will be unable to post from friday to monday next weekend.

I did apparently do the wrong action with unvoting nachomamma on day one. But, if he is town and i believed he was when i unvoted, then I would want him lynched if I was scum, wouldnt i? It's illogical to think i would do that.

If you were scum and Nachomamma was town, a no lynch would have been better for you then a Nachomamma lynch. By no lynching, you also reduce the number of lynches available to town, but you keep a scummy pro-town player alive to be mislynched on a later day.

I belive trying to make reason about who was killed might give us a clue to who was behind it. The downside about talking about what happend during the night we might give the mafia ideas for the next night. It is my belief we'll stand a better chance to lynch the right person by taking on the subject compared to if we avoid it.

Allthough you are right that talking about the reasons the mafia chose to kill can help, it usually doesn't give a great benefit. There are so many reasons the mafia can have, that it is virtually impossible to draw correct conclusions on the kill. Especially when the lynch took place on a player who wasn't under any suspicion and was active.

I don't think there are any obviously town players in this game, though. Also, I think we should lynch Nacho or Haylen today.

Why? I thought you wanted a no lynch in your previous post. What made you change your mind? Or are you just following popular opinion there?

[MichelSableheart]

Bronco seems scummy to me, but I would prefer to see him replaced rather than lynched at this time.

Noticed this thanks to Bronco's remark.
You strongly imply there that he is scummy because he isn't posting. But your remark about wanting to see him replaced rather then lynched implies that if he were replaced by someone more active, he wouldn't be scummy anymore.

Is that interpretation of what you're saying correct? If so, why is scum more likely to be inactive then town?

[MichelSableheart]

Haylen's meta:
She's being attacked by everyone and their mother and their grandmother's too -- Town.
She's coasting... somehow -- Scum.

The question is: Do you really trust the mod?

That's an appeal to authority ("do you really trust the mod") and an appeal to emotion ("I'm being attacked by everyone") in the same post. Furthermore, it's yet again no attempt whatsoever at scumhunting (ISOing only reveals a townread on Nachomamma and suspicion on me, neither with much logical backup).

Add to that the fact that I am the only one who is seriously attacking her, and the first part of that post becomes completely irrelevant.

---
Sposh, you still haven't explained the direct contradiction between

Also, I think we should lynch Nacho or Haylen today.

and the fact that you are voting and pushing for a no lynch.
---
As for all other players: I would like to see a bit more votes please. Already half of day 2 is gone. I don't want to no lynch again, unless it is a concious decision.

[MichelSableheart]

EBWOP: now with fixed quote tags.

Haylen's meta:
She's being attacked by everyone and their mother and their grandmother's too -- Town.
She's coasting... somehow -- Scum.

The question is: Do you really trust the mod?

That's an appeal to authority ("do you really trust the mod") and an appeal to emotion ("I'm being attacked by everyone") in the same post. Furthermore, it's yet again no attempt whatsoever at scumhunting (ISOing only reveals a townread on Nachomamma and suspicion on me, neither with much logical backup).

Add to that the fact that I am the only one who is seriously attacking her, and the first part of that post becomes completely irrelevant.

---
Sposh, you still haven't explained the direct contradiction between

Also, I think we should lynch Nacho or Haylen today.

and the fact that you are voting and pushing for a no lynch.
---
As for all other players: I would like to see a bit more votes please. Already half of day 2 is gone. I don't want to no lynch again, unless it is a concious decision.

[MichelSableheart]

Probably my last post till next monday.

Netopalis, based on your current reads, there are only five potential lynch candidates at the moment (Bwian, Haylen, Sposh, Bronco, Jase). How would the mafia killing one of the other two players help you determine who out of those five to lynch? The way I see it, even if it was true that almost every player could be scum, not everyone is up for a lynch and therefore a no lynch would NOT lower the number of lynch candidates.

Also, I don't like how you are waiting for a Bronco replacement. Waiting for a replacement usually only signifantly slows down the game. First you wait for the mod to replace him, then you wait for the replacement to read the thread. In the meantime, deadline is getting closer and closer. It is usually better to judge them on what you currently have available, and change your opinion if the replacement's play warrants it.

---

Like I have said to many other people on this site. I have a very unique playstyle. And I'm not changing it for anyone, cause in the end I'm always right. Sometimes I don't like to post straight away, I like to take a step back and observe what's going on to try and get a deeper understanding of things and make good conclusions.

I am not voting you for having a unique playstyle. I am voting you because your play at the end of day 1 significantly helped the mafia, and didn't help the town at all, when you are experienced enough to know better. You still haven't given me a pro-town explanation for your behaviour back then.

So you didn't want to lynch Nachomamma because you had a strong town read on him. Why was him staying alive preferable over the information that would have become available by Nachomamma's town flip (mainly bandwagon information)? Especially considering the fact that a no lynch reduces the number of available lynches just as a lynch on a pro-town player does.

Furthermore, if Nachomamma was in fact unacceptable as lynch, why didn't you want to vote TBB, who was the alternative at the time?

And if neither of them was acceptable as a lynch, why didn't you try to actually get a lynch on someone who was acceptable?

[MichelSableheart]

Ok, I'm back. Quite a few things have been said during my absence, so this may be a bit long. My apologies for that.

Haylen, your accusation that I am leading the town into no lynching is rather serious. Can you please show how my actions caused yesterday's no lynch? Because I believe I have done everything I could to prevent one.

@Bwian: The main reason that there are rules against communicating outside the thread is that such communication usually has a very negative impact on the thread. Comparing the play of a player in this game with how he played in another game isn't outside communication, however. You don't talk about the current game outside of thread. It's using what you know about a player to your advantage. It's also difficult to avoid, if you've played with a certain player before.

@Netopalis: I don't think that you can say that TBB's lack of vote was completely due to inactivity. In the last post he made, he made it clear that his lack of vote was intentional. I admit, that post was made 5 days before the deadline, but still.

Tehstefan pretty much made himself pro-town in my eyes with posts 28 and 33. By themselves, they're scumtells IMO. YOU DO NOT ANSWER FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You let them answer for themselves. This could be seen as coaching or defending a partner. By themselves, the posts are scummy, but then you realize that there are only two scum, and if Teh was scum he wouldn't be defending two other partners, he'd only be defending one.

I also noted that Tsf was answering a question directed at someone else (TBB) in post #28. However, I strongly disagree with your assesment of post #33. As far as I can see, #33 is a direct response to #30 by sxizzor, which was directed at Tsf. I got a possible connection between Tsf and TBB from that post.

I really am not going to make a strong case because I've been very busy and haven't had time to contribute much. I also don't mind being lynched because I'm just a vanilla townie and the scum people are going to try and push my lynch the whole rest of the game!

The second point is completely the wrong mindset for a vanilla townie to have. If you are in fact vanilla town, and you are lynched, the mafia will almost certainly make a kill tonight, bringing us in a position were a mislynch means a loss. Lynching a pro-town player is something we should avoid if at all possible. Therefore, if you are pro-town, you should do everything you can to avoid being lynched. In particular, you should try to discover who the scum are, and try to get them lynched.

---
I am going to have to look closely at Sposh, and the reasons people have for voting him, tomorrow. If I find myself agreeing with them, I would be willing to switch my vote to him. That being said, I still believe Haylen should be the lynch for today, mainly because she was in my opinion most responsible for the no lynch.

There are other players I would be willing to lynch, and players who I definately would not be willing to lynch. However, unless they become a significant lynch candidate, I would prefer not to make my opinions on them too explicit. Those suspicions probably won't be very relevant for today's lynch, and can help scum deciding on the nightkill.

[MichelSableheart]

Haylen, I appreciate that you admit that withdrawing your vote was a mistake. This being mafia though, I hope you don't mind that I disbelieve your claim that you forgot that part of mafia theory.

VRK, I am very much aware that I am not posting often. As I said earlier in this thread, I try to post once a day, but am not always succeeding. Writing a game post takes at least half an hour for me, and I don't always have the time available. Given that restriction, I am trying to play the best game I can, and hope that when I do post, my posts actually contribute to the thread. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that I will be posting more often though.

I have quickly looked at Sposh. Considering that he did not hammer four hours before deadline, his unexplained voting behaviour during day 2, the unexplained contradiction between his support for a no lynch and him wanting to lynch Haylen or Nacho, and some abnormalities during his day 1 play, I would support a lynch on him. I still believe Haylen is the better lynch candidate though.

[MichelSableheart]

Sposh already claimed in post #430.

Seeing the discussion between Haylen and VRK, the first thought going through my mind is 'so she can participate!'. I hope she manages to actually scumhunt rather then just throwing whatever she can find at her attackers tomorrow.

That being said, nachomamma's argument has been pretty strong. Haylen is defending herself, whereas Sposh isn't doing anything. Besides, the verocity of VRK's attack on Haylen, after supporting a Sposh lynch just a short while ago, doesn't sit well with me at all.

6 hours to deadline, and the last post I'll be able to make today. Time to do what I told others to.

Unvote

Vote: Sposh

[MichelSableheart]

Phew, that was a long read.

I haven't got much to comment on, actually. I kept reading, but stopped analysing, after I was killed.

Personally, I think that the decission of town to actually start lynching after the series of no lynch/no kill, was incorrect. With the way the game had gone to that point, scum simply couldn't have been happy to see a draw. They would ultimately be forced to kill.

On the other hand, this game has really removed my confidence in the "no lynch to get the scum to kill" strategy. By no killing, the scum can completely stop the game in its tracks, removing the will of the town to play.