DP12 JeepFest Mafia GAME OVER

[Nox]

Two good points here. First, the speed of the Vesuvan and SK wagons is cause to doubt that they are scum. Second, scum are likely to be on the bandwagons (especially the quick ones).

I absolutly agree with that.

[rolandofthewhite]

Unvote; Vote: PBuG

.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Vote count, 10 to lynch, 5 to lynch at retractable deadline Thursday 8PM GMT:

Someone 4 (NanooktheWolf, Axelrod, Pbug, MrStoofer)
Olio 3 (Leonidas, Vesuvan, Someone)
SaberKitty 2 (the silent speaker, Olio)
Peacebringer 2 (SaberKitty, EnterYourNameHere)
Pbug 2 (Nox, rolandofthewhite)
Vesuvan 1 (the Shadow)
EnterYourNameHere 1 (MeMe)
Mr Stoofer 1 (Fuldu)

[MeMe]

OK - I can get down with that.

unvote: EnterName
vote: PBuG

[The Shadow]

Unvote. Vote:Someone.

[Someone]

How ironic, bandwagoning Someone for bandwagoning.

Anyways, getting serious, I do see where you guys are coming from: I have been on quite a few bandwagons. However, I'm not sure how it's an indicator of scumminess.

A) I am not the most blatant bandwagoner here, I've been on just the Vesuvian wagon without a reason. Both the SK votes and the olio votes had explainations, and I was the one to point out olio's suspicionness. You can't tell me with the 10 people who voted vesuvian, and about the same number of people that voted SK, that there was nobody that has been wagoning but me.

B) Bandwagoning is not such a bad thing day one, is it? I mean, as long as it doesn't go all the way to a claim, all the arguments/reactions do some good, doesn't it? Since when does bandwagoning=scum?

I'm tempted to jump the PBug bandwagon ...but I won't: not because you guys would probably lynch me (okay, maybe a little bit ), but because I still like my olio vote.

[the silent speaker]

Here's something. Olio was fourth on both the Vesuvan and SaberKitty bandwagons, and Commodore Amazing was third on Vesuvan's and second on SaberKitty's. Going with Mr Stoofer's theory that the bandwagons' speed is an indicator in their favor, both of them are in good scum spots for two townies' bandwagons! (I'm not sold that they

are

two townies, but the 'if' statement still holds, and Mr Stoofer's idea is probably independently not dismissable out of hand.)

Notably, the Commodore is not voting for any of the top suspects now. Indeed, since ditching the SaberKitty bandwagon he has not voted for anyone... and the Oliowagon stalled. Which means that that wagon did

not

get scum piling on en masse.

And if SaberKitty

is

scum, it's interesting that PBuG led the charge off that bandwagon.

FOS: Commodore Amazing, Olio, and PBuG.

I'll switch my vote when I've decided between the latter two -- Olio preferential to CA because he's already got votes.

[Fuldu]

I'm back and, while I don't find the logic behind the claim that the Vesuvan and SK bandwagons suggest that they're not scum to be especially strong, I agree that PBuG has seemed scummy in his manner of riding the bandwagons.

unvote: Mr Stoofer; vote: PBuG

As for the argument on Vesuvan and SK, keep in mind that there's a decent likelihood of multiple scum groups, so even if Vesuvan or SK is scum, there would still be other scum willing to push them to a fast lynch.

[Commodore Amazing]

Bandwagoning is not such a bad thing day one, is it? I mean, as long as it doesn't go all the way to a claim, all the arguments/reactions do some good, doesn't it? Since when does bandwagoning=scum?

I whole-heartedly agree. Neither of our bandwagons went to claims, and both gave us some good information. I don't want to vote out Someone. If it comes between him and PBug, I will vote PBug.

[Axelrod]

Couldn't they both be mafia? Obviously, bandwagoning is just one way to catch a scum, and on Day one it's far from reliable. PBug has been just as bad as Someone, however, and I wouldn't be adverse to throwing a vote that way, although I will refrain at the moment.

[Nox]

Eeeehhh No, Someone explained his votes. Check PBug's posts just for fun. You'll see what I mean.

[Vesuvan]

Either you were lurking on purpose (scummy) or not paying attention to this game (poor play).

Or logging onto the site quickly to post in two games that I was actively participating in and was able to reply to quickly, and not checking other forums since I didn't have time to.

Really, the point you're bringing up isn't much of a point at all.

It isn't? The thread is open for three days, you're participating in other games and post in the thread only when it's noticed you're missing. Maybe it's just me, but for the first day vote I think that's a good reason enough.

Hey, if it's an initial, semi-random vote then I agree entirely. As it was, I was making my posts in the other games when I only had a short time online, but you don't know that and don't have any reason to believe that, so as a reason to vote for someone, you have my wholehearted agreement.

It it's a lethal lynching vote you're talking about, then I disagree entirely. You do that when you're reasonably sure that the person is scum, not for fairly weak reasoning - unless you're scum, that is.

It's not a threat; it's a statement of how I would expect players react when someone puts a lethal vote onto someone who has just explained themselves. That's a large part of why I am generally unwilling to claim without a good reason to do so.

So, when playing with you that "statement" is a sure way to keep you throwing in the last vote ever, right? What you're saying is that anyone putting a last vote on a un-claimed person is probably scum and the blame is always on them, not in the person who didn't feel like claiming. How it does fit for scum to get in that spotlight you also mentioned the last votegiver should in your opinion receive?

LOL

Way to misrepresent an argument by ignoring the important point.

The difference is between lynching an unclaimed person for good reason and lynching an unclaimed person for very weak reasoning when the person has furthermore offered to claim if the people asking for him to claim can come up with a good reason.

For reference, in Mini 180 I was lynched without making a full claim for very good reason: placing the final vote on a lurker (I was mafia in that game). In that sort of situation the person making the lethal vote is under no additional suspicion. In the situation in this game you have a bandwagon for very weak reasoning (and lurking) and I had answered the weak reasoning, stopped lurking and explained why I wasn't claiming and asked if anyone had reason for me to claim. It's a completely different situation and the fact you're trying to imply that something that applies to a very specific situation applies to all situations makes me reasonably certain that you are scum.

As to how important my role is, that should have no relevance whatsoever on my decision. If I'm a vanilla townie, then I'm better off unclaimed in that situation to keep our power roles hidden from the scum, who I don't doubt were on that bandwagon to either get a quick lynch or fish for information.

My take in this situation is following and it differs from yours and Meme's I see:
If you're vanilla townie being bandwagoned on day one, sacrificing yourself will keep power-roles that much longer in play and uncovered. In my opinion if the next person bandwagoned claims a real power-role, you've played poorly if you're townie.

It's not about a townie being bandwagonned period, and the fact you're trying to make it so looks like you're trying to make it appear that I'm making an argument that I'm not. Further, despite my offer to discuss the strategy in principle elsewhere, you're carrying it on here. My only conclusion from this is that you're trying to make me look like scum because of my refusal to claim, and as I previously stated, that increases my suspicion that you are scum.

If a townie, power role or otherwise, is under a bandwagon for weak reasoning, claiming should not be the answer to get the bandwagon off them. Claiming should be a last resort, whether for a vanilla townie or a power role.

wtf? You're ready to lynch someone for refusing to claim with no real reason? Added to the BS "logic" I've quoted above...

I'm still of opinion that I have decent reason for my

day one

vote and I still view your "statement" as a threat I'm not going to be afraid of.

Yes, for your

day 1 vote

you have answered me. For your

willingness to lynch based on a player not claiming under a weak bandwagon

you have convinced me that you are scum.

[rolandofthewhite]

I refuse to read that.

[LoudmouthLee]

I'm going to

Vote: Olio

on the pure strength of Vesuvan's statements.

The quote I find most damning is...

It's not about a townie being bandwagonned period, and the fact you're trying to make it so looks like you're trying to make it appear that I'm making an argument that I'm not. Further, despite my offer to discuss the strategy in principle elsewhere, you're carrying it on here. My only conclusion from this is that you're trying to make me look like scum because of my refusal to claim, and as I previously stated, that increases my suspicion that you are scum.

If a townie, power role or otherwise, is under a bandwagon for weak reasoning, claiming should not be the answer to get the bandwagon off them. Claiming should be a last resort, whether for a vanilla townie or a power role.

You're absolutely right, and I believe an Olio bandwagon sounds about right now.

[Mr Stoofer]

Eeeehhh No, Someone explained his votes. Check PBug's posts just for fun. You'll see what I mean.

I've just done this and the result is startling.

Unvote Someone. Vote: PBug

.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Vote count, 10 to lynch, 5 to lynch at retractable deadline Thursday 8PM GMT:

PBug 5 (Nox, rolandofthewhite, MeMe, Fuldu, MrStoofer)
Someone 4 (NanooktheWolf, Axelrod, Pbug, TheShadow)
Olio 4 (Leonidas, Vesuvan, Someone, Loudmouthlee)
SaberKitty 2 (the silent speaker, Olio)
Peacebringer 2 (SaberKitty, EnterYourNameHere)

[edit]corrected

Someone voting for Someone

to

Shadow voting for Someone

. Thanks for the alert[/edit]

[olio]

It it's a lethal lynching vote you're talking about, then I disagree entirely. You do that when you're reasonably sure that the person is scum, not for fairly weak reasoning - unless you're scum, that is.

I'm still of opinion that I have decent reason for my

day one

vote and I still view your "statement" as a threat I'm not going to be afraid of.

Yes, for your

day 1 vote

you have answered me. For your

willingness to lynch based on a player not claiming under a weak bandwagon

you have convinced me that you are scum.

Ok. In my opinion we've discussed about two different things here which are not related.
1) my reasoning behind my vote on you
2) putting in the lethal vote

I had a reason for my vote on you and I've moved forward when I found something more solid.

When it comes to number two, there's something in your playing style I think is selfish which in my opinion doesn't fit with pro-town play = scummy.

You said:

If I don't see a reason to claim, I state why and ask for a reason why I should do so from those calling for my claim. If someone puts the lethal vote on, then they are running a very big risk of being lynched in turn the following day and there is a very good chance of them being scum.

Of course, if I do see a "real reason" for the bandwagon, then I'll claim in that sort of situation.

So, you'll be the sole person deciding if you'll claim or not, doing it only if you see reasons real enough in your opinion - no matter how many votes on you, no matter how powerful your role is, with statement "Whoever puts in the lynching vote should be considered scum". Maybe my logic is way off, but if everyone'd play like that we'd never get further than day one. No townies would be throwing in the lynching vote, as those nearing the lynch could just spam that statement.

What I was trying to say, is that I'll be willing to throw in that lynching vote if other pro-town players aren't.

[Someone]

So, you'll be the sole person deciding if you'll claim or not, doing it only if you see reasons real enough in your opinion - no matter how many votes on you, no matter how powerful your role is, with statement "Whoever puts in the lynching vote should be considered scum". Maybe my logic is way off, but if everyone'd play like that we'd never get further than day one. No townies would be throwing in the lynching vote, as those nearing the lynch could just spam that statement.

The problem is, he is not the sole person deciding if he should claim. What should be a deciding factor in his claim is simply the strength of the logic used agaist him. Now, if somebody did something that is considered very scummy, then he should very well claim. And, if you give reasoning, a lynching vote is very reasonable. However, what vesuvian is trying to say, is that there is no good reasoning on his bandwagon, so he should not be forced to claim.

Why have role-claims become so prominent in our game today. If people would stop claiming at every chance they get, and try to actually defend themselves, the town would get much farther in finding scum.

[MeMe]

Just for the hell of it, I'll point out that SaberKitty has now been absent for a longer stretch of time than I was when she saw fit to point

me

out as an "inactive" and claim she hates it when "people don't play."

Under deadline, I'll keep my vote on PBuG (whom I like better as scum than the other leaders: Someone & olio)...but I wanted to get that out there.

[the silent speaker]

Part of the problem, I think, is that often by the time a bandwagon gets to two off, the person has already made his defenses and

is

at the point of last resort. Vesuvan got there almost before he even posted.

Vote:olio.

What decided me in his favor over PBuG is that he has something going for him when SaberKitty is scum, as well as when she's town: she was voting for him randomly and then unvoted without having anything constructive to do with her vote. This suggests that the random was there in the first place only to make them look unallied (remember, this assumes SK is scum; if she's not, my previous post applies). So, PBuG looks scummy when SK is scum, not so much when she's town; olio looks scummy when SK is town, but also a little when SK is scum; olio gets the vote.

[the silent speaker]

The above should read

unvote: SaberKitty, vote olio

.

[Nox]

Just for the hell of it, I'll point out that SaberKitty has now been absent for a longer stretch of time than I was when she saw fit to point

me

out as an "inactive" and claim she hates it when "people don't play."

Under deadline, I'll keep my vote on PBuG (whom I like better as scum than the other leaders: Someone & olio)...but I wanted to get that out there.

Good point. *Clap clap*

FOS: SaberKitty

[Axelrod]

Darn it, I'm having real trouble with this. Olio and PBug are leading at five each with deadline imminent. Chances are that at least one of them

isn't

mafia, and I already thought PBug was not looking so great--definately worse than Olio, whose biggest mistake was arguing with Vesuvan (hint: don't try this at home, kids).

[Mr Stoofer]

As I understand it, PBug's head is in the noose at the moment since he got to 5 votes first.

[Mr Stoofer]

Even though it's his birthday today.