/in-Vitational Game 5, Simon Mafia 2: Game Over before 832

[petroleumjelly]

Official Day Three Vote Count #4

1 – Elmo (Battousai)
1 – Lord Gurgi (Elmo)
1 – SpyreX (Debonair Danny DiPietro)
1 – TDC (SpyreX)

With

9

alive, it takes

5

to lynch and

3

to lynch at deadline. Deadline is October 10, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 5 – forbiddanlight, Goatrevolt, LlamaFluff, Lord Gurgi, TDC

---

LOCK COUNT

6 – Green (Goatrevolt, Lord Gurgi, forbiddanlight, SpyreX, Debonair Danny DiPietro, LlamaFluff)
0 – Blue
0 – Red
0 – Yellow

Not Locking – 3 – Battousai, Elmo, TDC

With

9

alive, it takes

5

to lock a floor.

At nightfall, the floor to be locked is: GREEN.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

If you thought the Nuwen lynch was a good one then you should've been behind it and voting, if you thought it was a bad lynch then you should've been voting someone else trying to push your own candidate or find a viable alternative.

And this lynch should fit clearly into those two categories? I thought it was dubious at best, but not outright terrible. I did think she was mildly townish, and I said so at the time. If you would have liked me to do one or the other, then you should have talked to me at the time and we could have discussed it, instead of you informing me of your preferences well past the point where I can do anything about it.

And I am

not

going to defend Nuwen, either directly or indirectly by pushing a counter-wagon for the purposes of a counter-wagon, without a reasonably strong town read on her.

If Nuwen wasn't scummiest to you then someone else was, it's a simple and truthful binary equation. And you showed either no confidence or interest in pushing a wagon for information or attempting to get them lynched based on your read.

[Battousai]

Explain what better? You haven't asked me to explain anything.

Well, you haven't reacted to my vote or claims. I want your opinion on what I said.

f you would have liked me to do one or the other, then you should have talked to me at the time and we could have discussed it, instead of you informing me of your preferences well past the point where I can do anything about it.

It shouldn't have to be discussed. Do you tell every player, 'Make sure to scumhunt'? No. Because they should already know.

[Elmo]

If Nuwen wasn't scummiest to you then someone else was, it's a simple and truthful binary equation.

It is neither simple nor true that a single person is scummiest to me, because a group of people may be, and were.

And you showed either no confidence or interest in pushing a wagon for information or attempting to get them lynched based on your read.

Agreed. Therefore..?

Well, you haven't reacted to my vote or claims. I want your opinion on what I said.

You said that you find not voting at the end of the day scummy; I don't agree. You said you thought I'd be more likely to argue with Goatrevolt if I was scum. I don't know the truth of that.

It shouldn't have to be discussed. Do you tell every player, 'Make sure to scumhunt'? No. Because they should already know.

I don't even agree that it's true, much less that it's obvious. Why is it true?

Assuming that I should "just know" to do stuff is a great way to end up in this situation - you think I should have done it, I don't, and somehow I have done something wrong, despite having no way of knowing what you wanted me to do. If you wanted me to do it, and I was not doing it at the time, why do you wait until this point to say anything?

[Battousai]

Do you not realize WHEN you did those actions???? D2, at the very end of the day. I'm not psychic, so I couldn't tell if you would vote or not vote at the end of the day and as I said, you should know people want you to be on the vote count at the end of the day, this is hardly your first game of mafia.

[Elmo]

Why exactly should I 'know' this?

[Lord Gurgi]

So I reread SpyreX and I didn't really see anything. He just seemed like he was hyper at the beginning. It seemed like typical SpyreX play, to me, except for the marked absence of Elmo/TDC mentions for the beginning of the game. So I checked TDC, who random voted SpyreX out of the gate and then didn't really mention him fora long while. We all know that TDC has butted heads with Elmo. Elmo is pretty clean. I'm practically certain that Elmo is town, and I don't really see any strong connections between any of them to anyone else. So I'd think that if TDC or SpyreX are scum, they'll be scum together, but unless they both are, I won't consider Elmo. That SpyreX is now voting for TDC makes me wonder, because that case was never really explained. So out of this I make the following.

SpyreX: How about some explanation regarding TDC.
TDC: How do you feel about SpyreX and Elmo both getting on your case at different times? Do you think it means anything about you? About them?
Elmo: Could you address my earlier questions?

[Elmo]

Yes, I should have done that previously. I guess I haven't got a lot out of it, I only voted you because I wanted to have a vote out and I'm slightly paranoid about the idea of people buddying up to me; I think you're a bit more townish than I used to, though I guess I can't really justify that. I didn't have a plan beyond "see what happens", really. I don't think it's rude, and I think it's fine to be a bit rude if you feel the game demands it, regardless of who it is

As to LlamaFluff, the way people defend themselves varies. Some people think it's pro-town to let the wagons happen in hopes of drawing out more info, some people think it's anti-town to have any votes on a townie. I mostly side with the former, but the latter makes sense, especially with a certain playstyle. I guess the thing that interests me was the point early on, that he disliked the setup discussion (as did I) but didn't really try to spark discussion.. I guess I'm WIFOMing myself about that more than I did previously. It's hard to tell the difference between simply not trying and wanting to, but not finding a viable way to make an attempt. That said, I probably should have wagon'd LF before.

unvote, vote LlamaFluff

- wherefore art thou, anyhow?

As to Danny, I honestly can't remember where or why you suspected him. I should probably mention that I don't want to lynch forbiddanlight, but I'm not at all convinced she's town on the basis of e.g. 807.

I'm practically certain that Elmo is town

I can't help being a little curious, but maybe it'd be better for everyone to just leave it alone?

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: How about some explanation regarding TDC.

Its a combination of things:

1.) I

really

don't like the fact there has been no vote at the end of either day. The justification for that is still itchy too - the I have no reads and my vote wasn't needed thus no vote. Which leads us to:

2.) The sheer amount of volume around my claim that STILL hasn't had a solidified stance - it's turned into talking for the sake of talking. If one was to isolate this days play its actually flabbergasting.

3.) I just looked in detail and realized that it isn't simply a no vote at the end of the day:

TDC hasn't voted. Not a real vote at all. Ever.

4.) This would be a bigger part if I was more awake but there has been a marked absence of scumhunting - a large portion of his posts are concerned with setup versus the game going on.

So, yea.

[TDC]

TDC: How do you feel about SpyreX and Elmo both getting on your case at different times? Do you think it means anything about you? About them?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Elmo didn't actually have a case. He didn't have a case either and has now reiterated something that Fluff had already caught fire for on Day 1.
Probably just voting so people can't say he isn't voting...
I don't think SpyreX has brought anything new to the table. His "case" is pretty much the same as Fluff's with more time having passed.
Same goes for Batt and DDD who certainly look like they could be voting me with exactly the same reasoning.
Quite frankly, just shows me that I'm far from alone in being clueless. The people that do nothing are gone, so Elmo and I are the next best policy lynches.

Have you missed my question about Elmo?

SpyreX: I'm really not interested in having this debate yet another time. If the town wants to lynch for being useless, I can't change it anyway.
I don't share your implied stance that if it doesn't lead to me getting a read on you, I should not enter discussion with you regarding how you concluded fl to be town.


Of course I would be able to follow what seems to be the One Way To Play Mafia.
I could vote GR and say "Mostly gut, perhaps because he claimed to have a solid town read on me, yet is doing absolutely zero to prevent what is an upcoming lynch on that townie".
I could then every couple of posts bitch about nobody following me and how GR is still alive. Of course, I would ask people why they're not voting the obv-scum.
Then, with all the credibilty I'd have gained in this process of brilliant scum hunting, I could bully people who don't see The Light about how we're three days in and it is impossible they could have no real suspect, I mean look at me, I've found obv-scum.
Would also save lots of time, I suppose.

I'm really beyond the point of caring whether you or anyone else believes me that the cause of me not voting is that for whatever reasons this game is a mysteriously annoying and annoyingly mysterious clusterfuck.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise. From where I'm sitting the implication that this could be the result from me being scum is ridiculous.

[Battousai]

so Elmo and I are the next best policy lynches.

Hmm... I like how you degrade all of the cases against you and another player as just policy lynching. If it is a policy lynch, don't you think there is a reason WHY it is a POLICY? It's because the actions are scummy.

The reason my vote is on Elmo was because I noticed him doing two different scummy things, whereas you only did 1. But now that Spyrex has brought it up, it is pretty scummy to never having placed a serious vote (you voted in the RVS) all the way up to D3. You call people scummy, you bring cases or accusations at people, but you never follow it up with a vote (possibly hoping a wagon will form and you won't have to take the heat for a mislynch). The one thing you did, I find is now much more scummier than what I thought.

Unvote
Vote: TDC

[TDC]

So, according to SpyreX I'm not scumhunting at all and only posting meaningless setup speculation and similar garbage and according to you I "bring cases or accusations at people" and don't follow up on it?

People are constantly moaning about how I'm not having suspects and you say I'm "calling people scummy", "bring cases or accusations" and try to get someone (I don't even know whom??) lynched without getting my hands dirty? Seriously?

[Elmo]

I thought the defining feature of a policy lynch was lynching to a policy (e.g. lynch all self-voters) as opposed to lynching because they're scummy.

Battousai, for TDC specifically, amortized over all possible games it might be scummy, but why is it scummy in

this

game? Who should he have voted?

[Battousai]

Why is it a policy lynch? Because someone felt it was scummy at one time, and therefore applied it to all players who do the same.


Go look through the game and tell me who TDC has tried to get lynched. Can you find one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched? No. That is why it is scummy, because he isn't trying to find scum the past few days. At least I have a vote out and am trying to get someone who I feel is scum, lynched (even if it isn't all that concrete, at least I'm trying).

[Elmo]

I disagree, but I don't really want a theory debate, although I'm willing if you insist. The default reason for lynching is because ___ is scummy, so stating another reason (policy) implies it isn't that, to me, and a fair number of people will support policy lynches without asserting they're more likely to hit scum.

Battousai, how do you know that he is not trying to find scum?

[Goatrevolt]

DDD is the only one saying anything of value at all today.

Elmo: Do you seriously have no scum suspects? Finding Nuwen mildly town means you would certainly rather lynch someone else, even if you don't have a strong read on them, because they are more scummy than "mildly town". Am I wrong? Even if you don't bother to push a lynch, I find it hard to believe you see no value in even putting a vote down?

TDC: You had no problem voting in Advertising Mafia. What is the difference? What makes you think I'm scum? Furthermore, why are you making no effort whatsoever to commit to it if this is what you truly believe?

LF: Why did I move up on your scum list? I am interested in hearing those reasons.

- - - -

The idea that Spyre or myself or FL or Batt being on both townie mislynches makes us more likely to be scum is foolish. If anything else, I'm considering it a slight town tell. In a game where the town is content to sit back and do nothing, I see no reason why scum would have any need to push lynches whatsoever. Batt putting Nuwen at the 4 necessary for a deadline lynch strikes me as pro-town. I can see the scum in that scenario easily sitting on their lack of a vote or a meaningless vote while no lynch happens, and then Nuwen gets lynched the following day. That would have been a complete waste of a day.

Anyway

Vote LlamaFluff

This is nothing like the town play I remember from Llama at all. I've never seen him content to sit back and do relatively nothing while lynch after lynch goes through.

The way things look now, TDC will be the lynch. Two on his wagon, a few outliers willing to vote him if necessary. Can anyone say deadline lynch with less than the majority on board? I don't think both TDC and Llama are scum. I think Llama is scum, not TDC. I think TDC is more likely to be lynched right now.

I want everyone in the game to take a stance on both of those players. I would like to see votes as well. And if you would prefer we didn't lynch either, then how about a vote elsewhere and a reason why we shouldn't? That would be terrific. Thanks.

[Elmo]

Goat: Yes. No. Okay.

[LlamaFluff]

wherefore art thou, anyhow?

Shall I listen more, or shall I speak at this?

Yeh I guess I will speak... mostly im still just trying to get back into this game which isnt going all that well. Whats even more annoying is that I think I have scum down to 'must be in these few'... but keep second guessing myself due to pieces not quite fitting, and cant do much more then put up a deconstructive proof on why everyone else is town, which never seems to work out too well since last time I did that (spyrexs game) everyone just went ahead and lynched them while calling me scummy for defending and targeting them the night before.

So now im trying to see if I can put together something that will get people lynched on evidence on them as opposed to having a town read on the rest of the game, and actually make it sound non-contrived or anything along that nature. So yeah. Lots o fun right now for me. Kind of at the point where I am trying to figure out the area that as the highest chance of success for a scum lynch.

I am slightly leading to TDC, but that would eliminate a GR-Spy pairing in my eyes at the same time, but it would highly increase a TDC-GR or TDC-Spy pairing. If thats true though who is the last one since I would doubt LG is scum then which means a town read is wrong and I just am running in circles in my mind right now about what the right thing to do is. Maybe something like TDC-Spy-DDD is what we are looking at right now... which may be blah blah blah I need to read a few people over again to try and blow away some of this fog.

[LlamaFluff]

LF: Why did I move up on your scum list? I am interested in hearing those reasons.

Because im sure enough that Batt and Elmo are town to put them in that list, LG-TCD has scum but arent partners, Spy and you are bugging me quite a bit on more gut reasoning/PoE. DDD leans town, but not as near town as Batt and Elmo, leaning me to something like a (one of LG-TDC)/(two of Spy, GR, DDD)

[TDC]

Can you find one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched? No.

The funny thing about this is that Fluff says this is because I'm not calling anyone scummy and that you say this is because I do but don't vote them.
Can you tell me and Fluff who these mysterious people are that I call scummy but don't vote?

TDC: You had no problem voting in Advertising Mafia. What is the difference?

*sigh*
I guess I'll just dig up all three votes I made in that game in the two days I lasted:
First off, the game started without us being able to vote, when we were able to vote I started with

vote: Seraphim

If he is oh so scummy, why ain't you voting him?

Which is essentially a random vote.
Then I

unvote, vote crywolf

because

She wanted to hear more from Seraphim, but didn't actually ask him anything. Seemed like a poor excuse to go into "I'm not posting anything because I'm waiting for replies"-mode.

Which is on the border of random/non-random, yet a better reason to vote someone than anything I've come across in this game, as sad as it sounds.

And then I helped lynch FaerieLord according to Adel's plan with

Not particularly convinced of the case as such, but I understand the argument for getting him out of the way.

vote: FearieLord

That was all in D1. D2 I didn't vote anybody until I was nightkilled by you and your buddies for, as far as I remember, not being connected to anybody, being a blank sheet.

So, not really sure where you see the disjoint between these two games.

What makes you think I'm scum? Furthermore, why are you making no effort whatsoever to commit to it if this is what you truly believe?

You misunderstand me. I somehow don't like your posts when I read them (gut), but I don't take that as a sign that you're scum. I have no actual reason to think you're scum. I can't mount anything resembling a case.
The evidence that my gut is reliable is zero.
I feel you should reread the paragraph we're talking about with a sarcastic voice.

[Battousai]

TDC: Sorry, but I said (P AND Q), not (P and not(Q)). The difference is that in the first one, both quantifiers have to be true, if one is false the statement is false. The second is where the first one has to be true and the second false to make the whole statement true.

-- Sorry, have a discrete structures test coming up and I'm relating this to studying

The only person that I think that YOU think is scummy is SpyreX, by way of focusing on questioning him all day. Now, you may not think he is scummy, but I think that YOU think there might be something there.

[TDC]

Uhm, no you said NOT (P AND Q) ("can you find a person..

no

") and I said that Fluff thinks it's NOT P and you think it's P, but NOT Q. (Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)

I'm a bit confused as to why you think that I think there might be something there and still think I'm scum. Obviously, if I was scum, I would know whether or not something is there.

You know. I can be like that, too.

[Battousai]

"one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched"

Uhm, no you said NOT (P AND Q) ("can you find a person..

no

") and I said that Fluff thinks it's NOT P and you think it's P, but NOT Q. (Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)

It is obviously (P AND Q) as both P and Q as the truth table would show that T, T = T; T, F = F; F, T = F; F, F = F. Remember, you have to do it logically, as I could say If it is sunny, it is nighttime and make an AND statement "It is sunny AND it is nighttime" which logically makes sense. Now P = Found someone scummy, and Q = tried to get them lynched. If P = false the whole statement is false. If Q = false, the whole statement is false. In both those instances, it doesn't matter what P or Q means, as one of them is false and thus, the whole statement is false (hence the "No.").

"(Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)"

Logically, it does.

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

I'm a bit confused as to why you think that I think there might be something there and still think I'm scum. Obviously, if I was scum, I would know whether or not something is there.

I'm going off the assumption of trying to find an instance of you scumhunting. Scum scumhunt, usually not as well as townies, but they do it none the less.

Also, Yeah! More discrete structures practice.

[TDC]

"one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched"

Uhm, no you said NOT (P AND Q) ("can you find a person..

no

") and I said that Fluff thinks it's NOT P and you think it's P, but NOT Q. (Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)

It is obviously (P AND Q) as both P and Q as the truth table would show that T, T = T; T, F = F; F, T = F; F, F = F. Remember, you have to do it logically, as I could say If it is sunny, it is nighttime and make an AND statement "It is sunny AND it is nighttime" which logically makes sense. Now P = Found someone scummy, and Q = tried to get them lynched. If P = false the whole statement is false. If Q = false, the whole statement is false. In both those instances, it doesn't matter what P or Q means, as one of them is false and thus, the whole statement is false (hence the "No.").

*sigh*

You said that the statement P AND Q is false.
I said that I found it funny that Fluff says it's false because P is false, while you think that P is right (which you seem to think I think derives from the statement, but which I observed from the rest of your post where you say it verbatim), but that Q is false.

I'm going off the assumption of trying to find an instance of you scumhunting. Scum scumhunt, usually not as well as townies, but they do it none the less.

How is scumhunting and saying someone is scummy the same thing?
That's kind of the point I tried to make about GR. I could vote him and say he's scummy, but that'd not be scumhunting. Or any other kind of useful.

[TDC]

Or rather it was your previous post. Whatever.