926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[Bogre]

Howdy guys.

Vote: Kinetic

Nameclaiming suggestion, and the voting me for being the last to confirm. I confirmed after I read my role PM. I find it strange that you are 'getting annoyed' by that. What is your reasoning that last to confirm is over 50% likely to be scum?

[Bogre]

Hardly defaulting to OMGUS, or defensiveness. RVS votes are next to meaningless- why would I be exceptionally worried about that?

Now, in regards to my vote, and Kinetic's considerable mention of it- there are two things I imagine: He is a townie, and wrong about the scumminess of the confirm, or he's scum, trying to point out something trumped up and was wrong about how to go about. At this point, nothing is really confirmed, but at that point it was -something- for me to go on.

Now, why he is wrong: Confirming last can plausibly indicate scumminess, but that is in the case of -confirming- in thread. (Scumminess comes from confirming late, beause of talking in quickchat.) In this case, however, confirmations were done by replying to role PM's- something that I do immediately after reading them (and I imagine is what most people do). Thus, his attribution of increased likelihood of me being scum is fallacious.

At the moment, I'm more interested in Miserable person, hopping on a wagon (mine) by parroting others reasons. Plus his post is a lot of waffling and 'soft' play- scumtells.

I also like Mina's analysis- opportunism is a very valuable thing to look for in the RVS. Scum are trying to appear active and contributory, and start pushing mislynches. New scum, especially, are very prone to opportunism.

[Bogre]

Also, Kinetic, <---2006.

[Bogre]

Thus my original point, that someone is more likely to be scum when confirming last than town stands.

See- that only holds if people are confirming in thread. At any rate- what drew my interest towards you, was that you mentioned it twice, without a response from me (In which I was inactive across the site, not night-talking)- that you were very concerned with it, not so much that I think you were trying to pin mis-suspicion so early in the game.

Unvote

[Bogre]

Yay

[Bogre]

Catelyn Stark.

I'd like Mina next.

[Bogre]

I see nothing "breaking" about scum being given a name that they know is scummy, not being gift wrapped a fake name by the mod, and being forced into telling the truth and trying to argue that there is nothing role related about their name or trying to come up with a fake name themselves.

Since AGoT is so grey instead of black and white I'd agree with the idea that names don't necessarily reflect alignment. Also, I've seen games before (see Lost Mafia) in which 'good' characters were just as likely to be scum as 'bad' ones, to stop such nameclaim breaking.

[Bogre]

And does anyone have objections to me reading through the topic and posting thoughts, or would you all prefer I just play mostly from this point on and such?

Read through the topic.

[Bogre]

Coldhands.

Miserable at Best: name claim time.

xvart.

Which book does he appear in ?

[Bogre]

A 2-shot bulletproof is weird. Usually you just have 1-shot or completely bulletproof. And why would you announce that anyways?


I dislike the early claim of VT from Seacore, especially as he was willing to ascribe Heilo's D1 actions as scummy and not VI play. Claiming VT out of the blue essentially loses a big chance on helping the town- soaking up a NK instead of a power role. Adding to that is the possible scumslip, the 'I'll be the top suspect if Heil comes up scum' comments, and speculation that the Starks are probably all good and other role-name related judgements. In a game like this, as its been stated, mods can guard against nameclaim breaking by making 'good' characters part of the mafia. (or by giving safeclaims).

Raivann: Why I asked xvart about his character's book, it had been mentioned earlier that the events were only supposed to be in AGOT- I didn't know where Coldhands was and, as kinetic mentions, if its outside of the timeline its more suspicious.

[Bogre]

Bogre: so you think all of those things Seacore has done are scummy, or just bad town play? As far as I can tell, most of those objections are against things that you think are unhelpful for the town. For example, you don't indicate that you think claiming VT is scummy, just that it reduces the scum's NK pool for PRs. I'm not sure whether you're driving at Seacore being a bad townie or scum deliberately trying to damage the town.

Bad play, mostly. This is relevant to town members, who should realize that and take it into account, instead of letting bad play lead to mislynches. I am not convinced it is malicious scum play.