Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[TheButtonmen]

What's the point of the vote?

Why are you voting someone your not willing to see lynched?

[Equinox]

Okay, fine. I'm too lazy to check if DavidParker was at L-1, so I'll sort of accept your explanation for now.

No thoughts about the cop claim?

[Equinox]

EBWOP:

For some insane reason, I checked. DavidParker was at L-1 as of post 197, then moved down to L-2 as of post 220. screl1's explanation that he didn't want to hammer makes sense.

His vote now doesn't. Waiting for that explanation now.

[screl1]

EBWOP:

For some insane reason, I checked. DavidParker was at L-1 as of post 197, then moved down to L-2 as of post 220. screl1's explanation that he didn't want to hammer makes sense.

His vote now doesn't. Waiting for that explanation now.

Post 239 - DP has 3 votes....

[screl1]

oh and the cop claim - it was my understanding that people make false claims all the time. No reason to believe him so far so why start now?

[Equinox]

That is not the sole reason you're voting DavidParker, is it?

I'll rephrase so you can stop dodging.

Why do you think DavidParker is scum?

EBWOPreview: ...you're not serious, right?

[screl1]

That is not the sole reason you're voting DavidParker, is it?

I'll rephrase so you can stop dodging.

Why do you think DavidParker is scum?

EBWOPreview: ...you're not serious, right?

Do you really want me to write a WOT only to state the same reasons that DP was L-1?

[Equinox]

Well, if you've already typed it up, you can link it or just tell me that you already made it.

If not, you'd better be convincing. The wagon lost steam when DavidParker claimed, and now it's on you.

[screl1]

okay well check back later tonight - I am in the middle of a movie and then I am running.

[screl1]

Equinox – Below you will find an analysis of DP throughout this game, it is because of these reasons that I believe DP to be scum. I might have missed one or two things so I reserve the right to come back and add to this list later. Also I don’t know if I would say the bandwagon is on me, two of you switched your votes to me, fairly quickly if I might add. DP still has the most votes and Day 1 is almost over now.


He stays in RVS when everyone else is out of it

He follows everyone else’s votes

He admits he has not done much as of yet – post # 128

He uses arguments that are rehashes of what others say

As of post # 154 he is still building case against me for FOSing people

He attacks me for voting for lurker – then says the lurker should be the lynch for day 1. Why would you attack a vote if you think it will end up being right? He also goes on to say in the same post that we should lynch MME 3 times who is a lurker and in my opinion an active lurker.

He says that lurkers will lurk until they are pressured, so I should ignore them and vote for active people. How would one pressure a lurker without voting for them? Can’t FOS them since that would be a scum tell according to DP.

He makes a post that is 141 characters long with no major errors; 5 min later he makes another post that is 83 characters long where he appears to be drunk off his ass. Now I know when you drink hard alcohol it can hit you like a wall, but come on – really?

He claims cop which cannot be verified, if you look to his past however we see that DP has made false claims before.

He seems to have disappeared for now, perhaps hoping things blow over




On a side note after going back to reread the thread I noticed that MME said he started posting because he had more time in post #179, but the mod says that he prodded MME in post #180. That would make me think that he posted because he had to rather that because he had more time. Since that time he has said “I know I haven’t been posting but whatever” and has yet to post anything that hasn’t already been said.

[DavidParker]

To clarify one thing quickly, I believe lurkers to be the correct day 1 lynch AT THE END OF THE DAY, assuming no one of a scummier nature has presented themself. You voted for a lurker at the start-middle of day 1 which stuck out to me.

[Equinox]

Hmm... That's better. The attacks coming from you earlier and that vote were not so great.

So... I'm looking at a deadline coming up, three inactive slots, and a bunch of other people I don't care to lynch right now. screl1's case against DavidParker means his vote is backed by evidence, but unfortunately it doesn't clear him of the unfortunate timing of his vote and his earlier attacks.

oh and the cop claim - it was my understanding that people make false claims all the time. No reason to believe him so far so why start now?

Just because false claims are common doesn't mean you shouldn't just lynch any claim scummy players make. DavidParker may have a history, but I'd still be reluctant to lynch him -- after all, the boy who cried "Wolf!" eventually met with one. If DavidParker is scum, he'll reveal himself soon enough.

[DavidParker]

Haha, as soon as I made my claim I thought of the boy who cried "wolf!"

[MichelSableheart]

Given Screll's behaviour, I think we can safely eliminate the possibility that Screll is scum but DP town. If Screll is scum and DP town, there would be no reason whatsoever for him to wait with placing the hammer, especially considering that Screll was willing to vote. Screll clearly isn't looking for a mislynch on DP.

If both of them are scum, Screll's behaviour makes perfect sense. A mafia member doesn't want to lynch his buddy, but is willing to distance when there's not much chance of a lynch.

Screll's behaviour might come from town, but I find it very remarkable that he felt strong enough about DP being scum that he is willing to ignore a cop claim, but didn't feel strong enough about DP being scum to place a hammer. Giving more time to discuss is also giving the scum you found time to wriggle his way out of a lynch.

With three possibilities (DP scum Screll scum, DP scum Screll town, DP town Screll town), I still prefer a DP lynch. In the case where both are town, it would prevent a mislynch. A Screll lynch doesn't give us info on DP, however.

[chauchaudotcom]

Votecount:

It takes seven to lynch!

Voting

DavidParker (3): My Milked Eek, MichelSableheart, screl1

screl1 (4): DavidParker, Copper, Equinox, AGar

Not Voting

Sotty07, remussaidow, AWA, Oso, TheButtonmen

Deadline is in

2

days. July 16, 2010 at 10:00pm PST.

[Copper]

Michel, that's a surprising post you've made there. Your thoughts derive from the idea that screl scum/DP town is impossible, which I fail to see. Scum players, especially newer scum players, are reluctant to hammer, even more so if the person they target flips a power role. A flippant "he hasn't hammered yet, so obviously this isn't scum driving a mislynch" doesn't do justice to the issue, and given what you've concluded from this psuedo-axiom I'm surprised you think it does.

The most worrying sentence is "In the case where both are town, it would prevent a mislynch." But that line of thought expands as, "If we lynch DP and he flips cop, we know screl is a townie." Not only do I not agree with that statement, but even if you do that doesn't seem like a fair trade. You seem to be drastically under-valuing the use DP would have to the town if he was telling the truth. I can understand not believing in his cop claim (as your continued vote and the "giving the scum you found time to wriggle his way out of a lynch" comment would seem to indicate) but your sloppy town/town hypothetical focuses on information from lynching while treating the outcomes of their lynches as identical.

I don't like lynching claimed cops day one. I like it even less when, instead of blatantly saying "I don't believe in your cop claim", you monger for their lynch with incomplete lines of thought and throw out subtle comments cheering on their lynch without directly engaging the claim.

I'd still prefer a screl lynch to a Michel lynch at this point, but Michel's attitude toward DP unsettles me.

[AGar]

I severely dislike screl's "Now that DP is out of harm's way, I will vote him," vote. I still think both are scum.

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I also don't like Michel's #263. He's been keen on continuing to push for DP's lynch after the claim. I understand that he doesn't believe the claim. I don't either at this point. But it's not like we don't have any other options, and quite frankly, my hesitance of DP's claim stems more from past experience with him. While I find him scummy, I don't find that to hold any bearing on whether or not I'm in belief of the claim. I'm still not sure what to make of him though. Ugh.

[screl1]

Screll's behaviour might come from town, but I find it very remarkable that he felt strong enough about DP being scum that he is willing to ignore a cop claim, but didn't feel strong enough about DP being scum to place a hammer. Giving more time to discuss is also giving the scum you found time to wriggle his way out of a lynch.

I already said I was willing to drop the hammer, I just wanted to give more time to replace inactives.

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I said that it would be a rehash before I wrote that. I have been coming up with original content and working to create conversation. I was pointing out that any argument DP was using had already been used by someone else.

[Oso]

Since quite a few folks have put there 2 cents worth in David's RC, I might as well too.

I don't like like it, not to put too fine a point on it there. The reasons that led me to vote him and to keep my vote on him up until his RC are still valid. But when he said this:

Well, I'm the cop, don't know my sanity, but I was trying to "town follow" as you described it because I didn't want to seem too pro-town and end up getting killed on one of the first few nights.....

It did shake my confidence in my read a bit because it did fit in with the way he played so far even if I don't agree that is the optimal way to play a Town PR.

The things that reinforce my scum read on him are that, even though it is a meta I haven't personally observed in a game with David (I've never played with him before) several people including David himself have validated it and that he uses cop claims to keep from being lynched. Also, that felt the need to stress that he doesn't know what his sanity is smacks to me that he already trying to setup an atmosphere where he can get a wrong result and justify it. There are actually very few things that can "go without saying" but pointing out you don't know the sanity of a Cop Role is one of them.

But, the smart play as I see it, is to accept for the moment that he is true-claiming. I forgot exactly who said it, I think it was either Equinox or maybe Buttons, that if he is false claiming it will become apparent soon enough.

Screl: Not willing to stretch quite that far yet. One secondary piece of information I had to keeping him on my suspect list relied on a connection with David and since I can't use that anymore, there is only one other piece of of info that I used to keep him there that pointed at him being newb-scum rather than just newb. That was the point Copper made and (oddly enough) David reinforced about him parking his vote safely on MME. The rest of the tells can be logged off to newbieness pretty much without being able to assign any alignment to them. Even the voting of DP after his wagon lost steam. I almost auto-voted Screl on that one myself. Only thing that stopped me was a variation of "he's too scummy to be scum" except I reworded to "nobody that thick could ever really be that thick". He may very well be that dense. Which again points to newbness and inexperience rather outright scumminess. No way around it though, I'ma have to get right at some point with the fact that even though this may be his first game, the newbie thing only goes so far.

Michel: Great amount of respect for your willingness to buck the thread and go ahead and push a case against a claimed cop. More balls than I have. One of the problems I have with your reasoning is this:

- snip -

Simply put, DP's claim seems far more likely to be made to avoid being lynched then to be made genuinely.

I'm normally against lynching claimed powerroles, because if they're town, they're a powerrole, meaning that the risk of a mistake isn't worth it.

In this case, however, even if David is town, there's a big chance he is vanilla.

The chance that he actually is a cop is far smaller then the chance that he is mafia. Which means that the negative effect of letting him live another night if he is mafia is much larger then the risk of accidentally lynching our cop. I'm keeping my vote.

From what I've heard here from you and others here in the thread, I think you are on to something with that first bold part.

The second bold part gives me pause though. It sounds suspiciously like a preemptive call for a 'Lynch all Liars' policy lynch. Not that I disagree with lynching liars but I would prefer if we do it after they have been shown they are actually lying. You go on to say that the chance he is actually a cop is smaller than that of being mafia which may true but you don't really compare the chance he might be a lying townie. Just true-claimed cop or lying scum and that is what you are basing keeping your vote on him with in this post. (I know you posted additional reasons to lynch DP in a later post but I have to agree with Copper pretty much there on that post).

I took a while getting here but here it is:

VOTE: Michel Sableheart

Backhanded call for a preemptive LAL lynch in my opinon (even though he didn't actually come out and say it, more like inferred it in my estimation).

This

IS

a classic case of parking your vote safely while still calling for a lynch. Equinox, AGar, myself, Buttons and Copper have all unvoted or didn't vote to begin with. David certainly isn't going to self vote. So that's 6. AWA and MME haven't been in the thread yet to say anything about Michel's continued DP vote and three player spots are still waiting to be filled. So even if he did manage to convince MME to stay on and AWA to vote with him, that's 3 votes. No way in hell DP gets lynched today.

Finally, this is perfect for scum because it just might've worked. MS gets alot of cred for pushing DP because of his past play with a perfect out for lynching a townie or even a cop based on David's meta. Hell, if he hadn't thrown in that part about "even if DP is town, he's probably just vanilla town" I wouldn't think any the less of him really had DP ended up lynched.

[MichelSableheart]

@Copper: Have you also read post #241? There, I directly engage his claim, just like you seem to be asking. Even if DP is pro-town, I find it more likely that he is VT then cop. I'm not undervaluing the use DP could have if he is speaking the truth, I'm estimating the chance that DP is speaking the truth as extremely low.

Allthough it is true that newb scum is usually reluctant to hammer, that usually translate to them asking others if it's ok if they hammer. By the time he made post #206-#208, at least 3 different players were encouraging him to hammer, but he was still vehemently opposed, and not because he wanted to hear a claim first. It simply doesn't fit that pattern.

@OSO: first of all the chances as I see them: I believe that if DP is a cop, he would claim cop. If DP is a different powerrole, he would claim that powerrole. If DP is vanilla townie he would claim cop. If DP is mafia, he would claim cop. If we assume that one in every two games contains a cop (which I believe is a high assumption), and that two games contain on average 12 vanilla townies (each game 12 players, 3 powerroles, 3 mafia) and 3 mafia, I estimate the chance that he actually is a cop at 1/16, the chance of him being Vanilla Townie at 12/16 and the chance of him being mafia at 3/16. And that is ignoring his scumminess which makes him more likely mafia and less likely town. The reason I'm ignoring lying Vanilla townie in my comparison of chances, is that the only reason not to lynch him is the chance that he is cop.

I was actually hoping to convince the players you named to come back, because I felt I had good arguments. With Copper, AGar and you saying no, however, only Equinox, AWA and buttonmen could switch, which means a DP lynch indeed won't be happening today.

Unvote

Vote: Screll

[AGar]

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I said that it would be a rehash before I wrote that. I have been coming up with original content and working to create conversation.

I was pointing out that any argument DP was using had already been used by someone else.

Where?

And I said this to someone in one of my last few games too (can't remember which, they blur together after a while): In most cases, you can't say person A is scummy for action X and then commit action X, but say you aren't scummy for it. This is one of those "most cases."

Just because you SAY it's a rehash of other cases (which I fail to see) doesn't mean that you're clear to use that and then accuse another player of being scummy for re-hashing other players cases.

[DavidParker]

Hi guys, I'm still here. Had a very busy last couple of days, and 3-4 more to come. So will be around a bit, but won't be able to spend as much time as I normally would on this game.

With that said:
Recent thoughts: I still find screl scummy. Although he has seemed less scummy of recent, when he posted his reluctance to hammer, when there were a number of people who wouldn't have thought anything of it. However, that could just be him knowing that if he hammer'd me, he'd then be under even greater pressure on the following day for mislynching a claimed PR... So, I still find him scummiest, although he has started to bring up some good points of discussion.

Oso: Has just jumped to the top of my town reads. Why? Because he has been the first one to legitimately ignore the two easy bandwagons presented. Now why do I think this makes him town?? Because if we leave day 1 with only 2 people having been legitimately pressured, and one of them lynched, then we have a lack of information going into day 2 (especially if scum decide to nightkill me, because they don't have a roleblocker).. By launching another attack on someone, he has actually widened the scum-hunting scope beyond the 2 players everyone else in the game has focused on. (including myself, as i've just had to defend myself, and only suspected screl really). I think not so much his vote (as alone it doesn't mean much to Michel), but the accusation he has presented (Michel, please respond) will lead to some useful discussion for tomorrow.

I think the amount of lurkers has made it hard to expand our scope. As it stands, I think we should hold out on lynching, and give as much time as possible to find replacements. If it comes to end of day phase, and there has been player(s) lurking all game I would be willing to lynch screl or one of the lurkers (as previously stated, I think a policy lynch for someone who lurked all of day 1 is sometimes necessary, as much as it isn't ideal)

[chauchaudotcom]

nopointinactingup replaces remussaidow.
Awa has been prodded.

Deadline has been extended 3 days due to replacements.

Deadline is now in

4

days. July 19, 2010 at 10:00pm PST.

[MichelSableheart]

@David: I believe I have already responded to his accusation, by explaining my intentions. What more do you want to hear from me?

[AWA]

Sorry I haven't posted guys, I got my wisdom teeth out this week (ouch!) and I've been laid low. I'll read up and post. From what I gather from skimming, David has claimed cop (prompting several unvotes) and screl has been flailing a bit. I'll post a more in-depth post in a bit.