Mafia 119: MURDER AT HOTEL DEATH(GAME OVER)

[vollkan]

People can have post restricts without having a power role. Also the point doesn't matter too much. There are already two bleedingly obvious swings to town so far, jack being one of them.

Vibe based on my interpretation or what he means by his posts. Not going to share more on that yet. It is still incredibly early so imma just leave that for now.

How does a "vibe" based on an interpretation amount to "bleedingly obvious"?

Vote: Espeonage

@Espeonage: Hate to sound scummy, but what erges you to say that Jack is town. Isn't it a bit early to defend someone? And wouldn't a bandwagon help the town? You are however, correct in saying that not all power roles have post-restrictions and visa versa.

@Jack why do you want to know about post restrictions? It seems like it wouldn't effect you this early on.

I agree that not all power roles have restrictions, but my point is that it's highly unlikely for a vanilla to have a post restriction, as it just becomes a townie with a negative on it that affects the entire town. Generally if there's a restriction of some kind it's in the form of balancing their role more. Hence why I find it extremely disconcerting.

It's highly unlikely for a vanilla to be not-vanilla? Hard to argue with that!?

Rather than making a flippant remark, why not actually respond to the post?

[vollkan]

OK. Jack is town because he had the right reaction to my vote. That emoticon was the perfect response and the way I would expect any townie to act.

This makes no sense at all.

First, you say it is "bleedingly obvious" he is town. Then you say it is a "vibe" coming from interpretation or what he means by his posts and it's something you aren't going to go into detail on yet and "it is still incredibly early". And

now

it's because...you thought an emoticon was a townie response?

You've now given three inconsistent explanations in the space of two pages.

[vollkan]

That's a subjective justification which is inherently incapale of refutation.

However, I can't see any reasonable basis for thinking that your personal vibe reaction to an emoticon would constitute "bleedingly obvious" evidence of Jack being town.

[vollkan]

Well that kind of reaction is kinda obv town.

You cast an unexplained vote and he resopnded with . How on earth is that obvtown?

[vollkan]

Espeonage is making perfectt sense.

Seriously? Or just because it happens to be you that he thinks is obvtown?

[vollkan]

UNVOTE: VOTE: a2rudeboy For bussing in his original post.

He selfvoted. "Bussing" is where one mafia member attacks another mafia member for the purpose of gaining town cred.

Why is selfvoting scummy?

Because is an unadultered uneasyness about a vote on a highly likely town. A scum player wouldn't make this play in normal circumstances.

Assume Jack is scum. He sees CKD indicate that he has some non-vanilla role. He then sees somebody vote for CKD. Why the hell wouldn't Jack-scum then express uneasiness? At worst, it comes off as a nulltell for him, while at the same time he has the prospect of making people think "wow, he's protown"

(Btw, I think the emoticon is a nulltell)

Add to that the time of the game. Scum really don't like taking risks this early usually and are thereofore unlikely to make any plays to put themselves out of neutral.

So what? There's no risk involved in the action he took. Nobody half-sane is going to attack him for expressing discomfort over a stupid vote, but there is at least some prospect of him winning some town-cred.

[vollkan]

What if you and Jack are scum buddies, I just thought I might throw out that possibility.

Why are you throwing that out?

[vollkan]

@volk- why not throw it out there? just reading through a couple of times, it seems pretty clear to me that the two people who are most closely buddying up are jack and esp. they also happen to be the two players that are the most on the defensive now. i'm not sure if i've gotten good enough of a read on either yet...but if you asked me to pick my scumpair right now, it would be them. although there is the point about scum trying to stay neutral this early in the game, but being experienced they would know it and could use it as an easy defense if they chose to play it agressive, but... (endless WIFOM tunnel)

1) Where is the evidence for Jack buddying up to Esp?
2) Would it change your view of that evidence if I informed you that Jack's meta (from what I have seen of him, which has been quite a bit recently) is to play somewhat tongue-in-cheek?

I really don't like the way those bolded parts read. Even if they are joking about it the rapid back and forth just gets my scum meter ticking up-ward.

What is scummy about a rapid back-and-forth?

Also, if you accept that they are bolded about the joking (and it's pretty obvious that they are), then what's your problem with "the way those bolded parts read"?

cooldog I claim scum, I'm scum with espeonage, your move

See. It's stuff like this and that exchange earlier that make me think that I would stand by a lynch on either of you guys, even if you turned up town. Because, at this point, if you aren't scum, you surely aren't pro-town (and it's not as if it's in your meta to play the VI) And that's enough of a reason for me.

See above - this really is meta-consistent for Jack.

vote: DemonHybird

All the guy does is vote and then goes V/LA.

Golly gosh! Voting

and

going on VLA! He must be scum!

[vollkan]

I call the epic chainsaw def. Sorry I just couldn't help it . But the definition of the new chain saw def is: A player defending another player by attacking that players attacker. So that fits the bill.

*sigh*

The idea of a "chainsaw defence" is a load of crap. It started as something that newbs began copying from the wiki which, I should note, is now very clear that:

UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here.

The reason why is fairly simple: it's not only entirely legitimate but actually entirely pro-town for Player X to attack Player Y because Player Y suspects Player Z for crappy reasons.

Also jokes are almost never really jokes. I don't let anything slide as "just joking!!! lolz!!!".

First, jokes are actually almost always jokes. They are a nulltell, a product of individually idiosyncratic playstyles.

Second, it's not about letting things "slide". The question you SHOULD be trying to answer is "Does this action make Player X more likely to be scum?" Despite encountering many people in the "joking is scummy" camp, I've never once seen a convincing reason as to why it is scummy.

iso 3

He is wishy washy.
Vote
He isn't going to by quick lynched.
He is consistent with his bad town meta.

Considering that was tipping point vote, I'm not happy about it. It is opportunistic and doesn't even give a real reason. A wagon flop if I ever saw one.

VOTE: Pom

That is the scum that is most likely on my wagon.

Strawman. Pom's reasons:

On another serious not, I am suspicious of Espy for being wishy-washy and other fun stuff (like, how vollkan explained, that a smiley doesn't make Jack town, no matter whether it was the "correct response" in Espy's mind or not).

The way you characterised her post is, as I said, a strawman. Her reasons weren't entirely original (but that isn't a scumtell), to be sure, but I can't see any basis for concluding that her vote is opportunistic, given that the reasons underpinning it are sound.

It puzzles me - if Pom is town and she genuinely agrees with my argument against you, are you saying that she shouldn't vote you?

[vollkan]

As far as voting goes Im going to vote Jack as this whole joking around with the scumbuddies thing really is now beyond the point of joking around now. It's now like they are trying to hammer home 'we are scum lol' kind of routine, which actually makes you think well if there joking about it there not, but they quite possibly are? Would that be WIFOM? At the very least deliberately acting anti-town doesn't help the town with it's investigations into rooting out scum, unless of course thats what your trying to do? I think I need to keep a watchful eye on this situation going forward.

Something is only a scumtell if it is more likely to be done by scum than by town. Nothing you have said in the above explains why Jack's joking is more likely to be done by scum than town. You've raised the

possibility

that they are scumbuddies hiding in plain sight, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis. I would also point out that such play strikes me as typical from Jack, metawise.

So, a simple question, why do you think Jack's joking around is more likely to come from scum than town?

Snake+2

plissken is scum, trust me.

unvote, vote:SnakePlissken

His justification for his vote sounds like scum justifying their vote.

Reasons?

@ Vollkan: Where did Pom say she agreed with your reason for voting me?

On another serious not, I am suspicious of Espy for being wishy-washy

and other fun stuff (like, how vollkan explained, that a smiley doesn't make Jack town, no matter whether it was the "correct response" in Espy's mind or not).

Epic stupid... now may I ask you how this is pro-town? And what about that OMGUS? This reinforces my theory that you and esp are scum...

You jump from Jack's play being anti-town (and, frankly, I can't see how his weird voting roulette thing is anti-town) to him being scum with Esp. What's your path of reasoning there?

@ESP: you know that defending people is anti-town (most of the time, and early in the game) right?

You've entirely missed the point of the case against Esp if you think that he is being attacked for 'defending' people.

This reinforces my theory that you...are scum

What a coincidence

Timestamp of cooldogs "suspicion" of me: Post #112 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:33 pm

Time of my vote for cooldog: Post #109 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:28 pm

Unvote, vote:CooLDoG

Just a few hours after I vote him, he says I'm scum. How

convenient

For those that aren't aware, this is textbook "omgus": http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Omgus

You've made me find something interesting here. ISOing CD's suspicion of you is very interesting:

Why do you ask this on your first post??? It would seem that a post restriction would be only noticeable after some time. vote jack I personally think this is better then any RV could be...

Suspicion

@Jack did a little meta on you. Your play seems pretty consistent from what I saw. unvote.

Loses suspicion on meta grounds

@esp wish-washy is always a scum tell as well as being the third vote... (seems like you fit both doesn’t it?) I like my vote on you for now. What if you and Jack are scum buddies, I just thought I might throw out that possibility.

Raises the prospect of Esp-Jack scumteam. This is interesting because he actually has, based on his previous mention of Jack, no reason to suspect Jack individually, and yet he is lumping Jack with Esp as scum.
(Also, CD, I will headdesk if you say "I was just throwing it out there". There are 18 people in this game, so there are a lot of technically possible scumlinks. To raise a pairing implies to some degree that you think it has a higher than average likelihood)

why not throw it out there? just reading through a couple of times, it seems pretty clear to me that the two people who are most closely budding up are jack and esp. they also happen to be the two players that are the most on the defensive now. I’m not sure if I’ve gotten good enough of a read on either yet...but if you asked me to pick my scum pair right now, it would be them.

What's noteworthy here is that he doesn't actually give ANY reason for suspecting Jack. Rather, he points out that Jack and Esp are buddying (I completely understand an accusation that Esp is buddying to Jack, but Jack hasn't been buddying to Esp, other than the "perfect sense" thing which I've already indicated I think was not to be taken seriously) and then points out that they are both "on the defensive".

NOTHING in that post is a scumtell against Jack.

CD+5

Also, to keep my points up to date, I would currently have Esp at 57 (ie.

ESP+7

)

I don't know about you but I kinda want to know why he's switched his vote twice and why he hasn't explained anything.

I want to know his reasoning too. But that doesn't make him scum.

Read your own ISO. You said you'd claim. I don't like day 1 claims but fine. You said that what you have to tell us will help. Fine. I'm patiently waiting on you to explain yourself. But I'm NOT pushing for your lynch...at least not yet.

What on earth do you find scummy about his claim?

From my vantage point Jack, ESP and DH all look bad. Are they all scum? I'd like to think so but I doubt we are that lucky. But for the time being they all look like decent lynch candidates.

DH has made 3 posts, and you haven't even mentioned Jack until now. So that makes one person who could not reasonably want to lynch (DH) and then you jumping behind the consensus candidate (Esp) and the apparent rival (Jack).

NC+4

Lets say that Jack is scum, and he votes for DH apparently for no reason. Perhaps it was, I guess it would be bussing, if DH was also his scum buddy. If DH was lynched he could come out and say LOOK I FOUND YOU SCUM!!!

This makes no sense to me.

That said I'm on board for lynching all three but Jack is the one I'd like to see go the most.

Now you get an additional

CD+2

. Reason being is that not only have you failed to mention Jack at all until this post, but I cannot conceive of any reason why you could reasonably want to see Jack lyched over Esp (outside a scenario in which you and Esp are scumbuddies, of course)

[vollkan]

EBWOP to previous post. The last "CD+2" I gave should be

NC+2

here is the partial claim and why I think it is important that I tell you.

I am one part of a neighbor. My neighbor is totallynotmafia. I am not sure why he is not talking now, we talked before the game started....(we cant talk during the day). I do not know his alignment.

together we have a "vig-like" ability. Dont want to get into the mechanic(and there is more to it), but we both have to decide who to kill. If we cant decide, it doesnt happen. Now, why am I telling you this? Well, if one of us dies, then the other can use the vig like ability alone. Now I cant imagine the mod would give scum an extra kill like that, but again, i dont know my neighbor's alignment.

My fear is that I will be offed tonight, without telling you this. then if my neighbor IS indeed scum, there will be an additional kill and no one will know where it was coming from.

I don't think you should have claimed. As Jack said, the scum strategy in that situation is obvious - off you and then have an extra kill each night. I can't imagine any decent mod not realising that that would be extremely overpowered. It basically makes the game swingy - since a lot then comes down to whether you outguess the mod or not, which is never a good way for a game to be.

[vollkan]

@Volk, If you have noted I am not currently veteing Jack right now. I find him to be mor anti-town then scummy right now. However I do find ESP scummy.

I call bullshit:

Why do you ask this on your first post??? It would seem that a post restriction would be only noticeable after some time. vote jack I personally think this is better then any RV could be...

@esp wish-washy is always a scum tell as well as being the third vote... (seems like you fit both doesn’t it?) I like my vote on you for now. What if you and Jack are scum buddies, I just thought I might throw out that possibility.

Epic stupid... now may I ask you how this is pro-town? And what about that OMGUS? This reinforces my theory that you [Jack] and esp are scum...

why not throw it out there? just reading through a couple of times, it seems pretty clear to me that the two people who are most closely budding up are jack and esp. they also happen to be the two players that are the most on the defensive now. I’m not sure if I’ve gotten good enough of a read on either yet...but if you asked me to pick my scum pair right now, it would be them.

Each of the above posts demonstrates suspicion of Jack and

not

merely thinking he is anti-town.

CD+2

[vollkan]

This Jack/Espy fiasco: I felt like Jack was acting too scummy for his own good...a meta check with Jack shows that he likes early-game gambits, hence his talk on the post restriction. Reaction fishing. So I waited and thought about putting pressure on Prana, but I noticed that a LOT of people were starting to fall for his gambit (albeit not voting him quite yet)...so I decided to wait for the one person that actually agreed with Jack and found him town to take advantage of being the "smart guy who knows whats up and looks most town":

I've been consistently saying that I see nothing wrong in the way Jack's playing. The only obvious difference I can see between myself and Espy in this respect is that he called Jack "town" - which I disagree with; I see Jack's play as null. But that doesn't seem to be the crux of your Espy case here.

My thoughts on Cooldog and a2 at this point: Somewhat townish...

Why?

You say you can't see how his moronic voting is anti-town, but to that end then, how is it pro-town?

It's a legitimate information gathering tool (note: I have my own history of deliberately self-voting to provoke reactions). Jack's moronic is similar as voting stupidly is really only anti-town if the risk of it increasingly your own lynch outweighs the likely information gain.

FWIW, self-voting is probably more dangerous than moronic voting. Reason being that it tends to be newbies who think it is scummy (plenty of experienced people think it's a bad tactic, but not scummy) and newbies are also the type most likely to get tunnel-visioned. That's actually the reason I tend not to do it so much - because more often than not it just acts a way of distinguishing newbs from experienced players, which is useless gamewise, and getting newbs tunneling me, which is highly counterproductive

I'd also note that he's basically voted everyone and taken to claiming every vote on him thereafter is an OMGUS vote. Why are you just farting about Jack? Are you not interested in lynching scum?

What he's doing is obviously a joke

I'm not saying I like the way he is playing, but it isn't scummy. (NB: I find Jack's playstyle exceptionally hard to read, so me saying it "isn't scummy" doesn't even mean I think it is null - just that I literally can't get an informed opinion easily.

Regarding the claims, I'm not entirely sure I believe we have two pairs of joint vigs out there. That would be three kills a night, meaning in the span of two days we could be 8 town down and that's it, pretty much game over. If it turns out they ARE both pro-town, then you've basically told the scum where to begin their targetting (the second claim was even stupider because you could have flown well under the radar with that one).

This is a good point.

That many NKs would make this game insanely swingy

Pom is somewhat scummy

The above is

somewhat

extremely vague.

Why do none of these claimed neighbors want to actually list their exact role name? Got something to hide?

Paired players who can communicate at night and have a shared kill. What could they

possibly

have to hide?

if you knew you would understand....my neighbor and I are vig-like..not vigs....I dont need to tell you if we are two shot, unlimited shot, etc...i dont need to tell you any other part of the mechanic, which is in the name...so no, it is not pro-town...so back the fuck off....if you think i am scummy for not telling you..vote me or move on.

I'm willing to accept this. If the role name gives away mechanics that could be anti-town, it shouldn't be claimed.

UNVOTE: VOTE: curiouskarmadog
Do you propose we lynch you or totallynotmafia?

If claiming the role name would be anti-town, do you think he should claim it?

LOL. neighbors with vig shots. Why the heck did you guys claimed?
If you are town you did very bad because the scum may no kill and get a nice little bunch of WIFOM.
This claim is like what scum means.
I believe they are scum running a gambit. Let's kill one of them and see what happens.

unvote vote CKD

1) Even if it was anti-town, that doesn't make it scummy
2) WTF does "This claim is like what scum means" mean?
3) You have absolutely NO evidence to support your "belief" that they are gambiting scum.
4) "Let's kill one of them and see what happens" Oh FFS

Vezok+2

Note: The only reason Vezok isn't getting more scumpoints is my meta of him. Ongoing game so I cannot give analysis but I can point you to the game, where I have recently seen town-Vezok be lynched.

[vollkan]

Vezok is one of the hardest people to read. But from my (two? I think. I lose track.) game(s) with Vezok this is fairly town.

How on earth are you able to get a town read from his play here?

i have yet to see a game where vezo is anything other than a VI...his unthought out vote is a null tell...i would be surprised if he has even read the game

@Vezokpiraka:

Please post 25 words outlining your opinion on each player without using the words "gut", "feels", "vibe", or "tone".

"This is a triumph. Making a note here, huge success!"

For once, I actually know what's being referenced!

It must be hard for you to overstate your satisfaction at knowing the reference.

I still don't like that there was a claim, but unlike Vezo I can see that announcing 4 scum as joint vigs would be a terrible play as it only needs two of them to get offed to prove that the rest have to be scum (and if we lynched one today then it wouldn't take long for all 4 to go down). So at best one of those 4 is scum. (I actually think them all being town would be overpowered for the town too, so I feel it's more inclined to be one as scum, or even the second group tagging onto the original claim, as I still stand by that 3 kills a night could destroy the town before the town actually get a chance to truly scum hunt).

I think you're pretty much right.

It's a ridiculous gambit for 4 scum to make, and it seems overpowered for town to have two vig neighbour pairs. One or two might be scum, but definitely not all four.

Anyway, at the moment Vezo has been bugging me but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet.

You can psychically detect a lobotomy patient?

I mean, call me a metaholic, but at first I found Jack to be null based on past play, but I'm leaning heavily in favor of it being a town vs scum exchange. My read on Jack is based solely off of my read on Espy.

Makes sense. You see Espy as scum and you see their argument as scum v town. Therefore, Jack is town.

Two mis-read statements show nervousness/lack of care in this game among her other traits.

This is your only reason for suspecting Pom?

I agree that we should lynch one of the meighbours and that it should be from the second pair. But I think it should be zwet other than Pom. It was unneccessary for him to claim. He could be jumping on to the townieness in which case both are scum or he claimed because he is the scum member of the pair when the town half wouldn't claim in that position unless they were stupid. I hardly think zwet is stupid (yet) and so I think he would be better to lynch than Pom.

Prematurely claiming to jump on townieness is a stupid strategy for scum in zwet's position. It draws attention and will fuel NK speculation.

And, while it's true that a town neighbour had no reason to claim like zwet did, I don't see why that makes zwet scummy, because it's not a strategy that has any discernbile benefit for zwet-scum (ie. I think it's just a stupid play no matter what his alignment).

DH or espy is scum. I believe espy is the scum because DH cares about himself more.

Scum don't care about themselves? :S

1. I'm not saying that it's not likely that there's one mafiate in there- it is, I guess- but I wouldn't assume it. Also, as far as the bolded part goes, check out something I found on Seraphim's wiki page:

Seraphim's wiki page wrote:I have decided to commit myself to a mission: games that combine complicated, mostly no-vanilla setups along with mechanics that favor scumhunting to create games that generate interest in both phases.

I think that that would put your calculation as to the number of VTs and PRs all off.

That's very interesting. The vig-neighbour thing fits exactly with that state mission. If the mod has this stated policy, it throws what I said above about the likelihood of various scum and town neighbour combinations into complete disarray

That was something I didn't catch. If that's so, I'm the minority, because I'm a VT myself.

Claim: Vanilla Townie

How do you think that your claim has been beneficial to the town?

On the latest CKD-Singer one-shot claiming fiasco:

I am siding with CKD here. A one-shot CPR neighbour pair is not the sort of PR that it is unreasonable to claim, at least in light of CKD having reason to suspect his neighbour.

Also, Singer has failed to give any convincing explanation as to why she thinks CKD is scum. The "he didn't read his role PM" thing is really just stupid.

[vollkan]

I feel that all the players are townish. This is gut.
I get a weird tone from CKD post. It gives me a bad vibe.

How do you think posting useless bullshit like the above is even remotely pro-town?

This is not a case of me getting angry that you are a newb - it's that you plainly playing in a obnoxiously useless way. If you aren't going to accede to what is a perfectly reasonable request then please replace out and make way for somebody who isn't the mafia equivalent of a troll

[vollkan]

I need flips to analyze people.

Bullshit. There is no way that you can have the intellectual capacity to analyse people in light of a flip, but lack it analyse without a flip. Everybody is somewhat handicapped on D1; and, conversely, flips aren't a panacea to uncertainty. You're just making an excuse for being too lazy to do any proper scumhunting.

The above post was a joke because it had 25 words and the 4 words you told me not to use.

Thanks. Being exceptionally stupid, I didn't work out your clever joke

I think karmadog is scum but i can't say anything know because I don't have flips and wagons to analyze.

First, that's crap. You can't think CKD is scum unles you have reasons for that opinion. If you don't have any reason to think CKD is scum then,

by definition

, you can't think he is scum.

Second, to state what should be obvious, it's no use analysing CKD after he's flipped.

Third, let's assume CKD flips scum. What does that tell you? If you needing flips and wagons to analyse isn't just a bullshit excuse you are making up for being a VI, then you should have some answer.

Fourth, let's assume CKD flips town. What does that tell you? And again: "If you needing flips and wagons to analyse isn't just a bullshit excuse you are making up for being a VI, then you should have some answer."

[vollkan]

I can't get volkan in a scum or town category.
Ahhh.

Oh, the irony of a VI complaining that somebody else is unreadable :igmeoy:

The first paragraph, given that we are indeed a one shot CPR Doc, if one of us dies (the other can use the ability without having to come to a consensus), and the other is scum, do you think that scum will get "extra" help? Why do you think here that SS is saying they dont? (BTW: I just doubled checked the PM again, and yes, the other can make the decision alone.) Do you feel that a.) that is scummy to misrepresent that and b.) do you feel it was a good move as town to mention the one shot part? Also do you understand/agree with SS's vote on me?

SS is wrong. If there is scum in your pair, then plainly they stand to gain by having a free NK. And, for the same reason that OSVs shouldn't claim that they are OS (though, interestingly, I think that it's perfectly legit for multi-shot-vigs to lie and say they are OSVs...), it was anti-town of her to claim that you were OS.

As I said before, her vote is stupid. In my head right now, there are really two explanations: a) She is scum trying to get rid of you to get a free use of her power; or b) She is null (as in, I don't think this is alignment-dependent) who has gotten pissed at you for unilaterally deciding to claim and is basically becoming tunnel-visioned. I know I'd be furious in her position no matter what my alignment, but I also know I wouldn't think you were scummy for claiming like you did.

2nd paragraph, first of all, this is a completely untrue statement. I DID discuss it in the QT thread, my neighbor, decided to quit posting in there. I did not go behind ANYONE's back and I stated my intentions clearly. But for WIFOM sake, what possible motivation could I have as scum to coming forward? IF I was scum, wouldnt it have been easier (and a much better play) to shut my mouth today, kill off my neighbor tonight, and simply use the CPR doc on someone I knew wasnt going to be killed? I am interested in hearing theories here..

There's no scum motivation for your actions. And, in light of you being OS and suspecting your neighbour, there is an obvious, if not universally accepted, pro-town one.

Hmm, actually, now I understand why you wanted to claim...in a weird way. I don't think you went about it in the right way, since you brought too much attention to yourself in a bad way, but thinking that I was a part of the scum faction, and I could communicate to them to kill you tonight (which I didn't understand you were getting at earlier), it would make sense for you to want to draw attention to us so that if I were scum, I would automatically be the target the next day.

You didn't think of this before?

[vollkan]

unvote P
vote singersinger
You tried to force a lynch on CKD. By using false information.

What false information?

She tried to push a lynch for stupid reasons, in a manner that really does just look like a nullperson getting pissed off.

How can vollkan and curiouskarmadog both have "Best Mafia Performance"?

We won it based on our performance in a scumteam in Advertising Mafia.

@vollkan...no I did not think of that before, because I'm dumb. In fact, your theory "b" sums up a lot of it, except after CKD was able to explain it in a manner I understood (sorry, I just wasn't getting everything that led up to it), when I accepted it. Honestly, I wish an apology for being so blind-sighted (regarding him claiming by himself) would actually be accepted on this site. But alas, that is not how people work here.

This is good posting.

No you didn't. If you did you would have brought it up but you didn't which tells me you were content to let him fly under the radar. Why?

The guy made three quicks posts then went on VLA. He clearly had good reasons for not explaining himself immediately

I never called his claim scummy, mostly 'cause he hadn't claimed yet but I did want him to explain himself better. Why do you find my wanting an explanation so scummy?

You're spouting bullshit.

I never once attacked you for "wanting an explanation" and it's pure misrepresentation to claim that I did.

NC+2

Let's review the history:

You expressed suspicion of CKD:

CKD deserves an FOS until he explains himself better.

CKD then legitimately asked:

curious as to what anything I have said is scummy.

Your response:

Read your own ISO. You said you'd claim. I don't like day 1 claims but fine. You said that what you have to tell us will help. Fine. I'm patiently waiting on you to explain yourself. But I'm NOT pushing for your lynch...at least not yet.

If somebody asks you "What have I done that is scummy?" (after you'd clearly expressed the view that you considered them scummy, through your FOS) and you respond by pointing their claim and that you won't lynch them "yet", the

only reasonable inference

is that you are attacking their claim. If you had some other reason for suspecting him, you presumably would have given it in answer to the question.

Goodness knows why I was then prompted to ask:

What on earth do you find scummy about his claim?

So, two questions:
1) Without being evasive and turning my question back at me without actually answering it - what was it that CKD had done that merited your FOS?; and
2) Quote me where I attacked you for wanting an explanation? If you can't point to a quote that satisfies that question (hint: it doesn't exist!), please quote which thing I said made you reasonably beleive that I had attacked you for wanting an explanation? If you can't do that, please explain why you felt the need to respond to my attacks against you with hyperbole.

From the time I posted to the time you posted there were 19 more posts. Maybe I play different than you but I don't auto read, my reads will change through the game based on new posts. I already mentioned ESP in my first post. Jack's 109 is especially stupid but 108 and 115 are full of fail as well. His no sell of 116 is scummy as fuck. I also find it incredibly odd you call ESP and Jack rivals when it looks a whole lot more like buddying. This sounds like scum/aggressive townie just trying to fling stuff at the wall and hopes it sticks.

So, basically, it's my fault for expecting to be able to see some logical pathway in your suspicion

On Jack specifically, 109, 108 and 115 may well be stupid and full of fail, but that doesn't make them scummy. And, despite your hyperboic description of 116, you've failed entirely to explain why it is sufficiently scummy to make him a "decent lynch candidate".

And I wasn't calling Esp and Jack rivals - I was saying that they were rival wagons (as in, the two most popular lynch candidates):

you jumping behind the consensus candidate (Esp) and the apparent rival (Jack).

ie. "candidate...and the apparent rival"

How the hell is me not thinking Jack was scummy in my first post as scum tell? Why do I want Jack lynched over ESP? I find Jack scummier. Watch this, why do YOU want ESP lynched over Jack? Perhaps you and Jack are scum buddies, yes?

Again, you are distorting what I am saying in the worst possible way.

I didn't attack you for not mentinoing him in your first two posts. The point is that you go from a post that says:

CKD deserves an FOS until he explains himself berrter.

ESP ISO 3 is bad.
ESP ISO 9 is WIFOM

vote: DemonHybird

All the guy does is vote and then goes V/LA.

to one in which Jack is scummy (with no explanation as to why), which is made worse, as I indicated, becasue suspecting him is utterly unreasonable

your massive chainsaw defense of Jack is noted.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHAINSAW DEFENCE!

Seriously, this has to be one of the dumbest ideas that has ever risen to prominence on this site. If I had kitten smiting powers, I would smite ten kittens every time anybody used the phrase "chainsaw defence".

If one player (A) attacks another player (B) for a bad reason, it is entirely legitimate, in fact it is proper play, for a third player (C( to then attack A for A's bad reasons.

To put things more directly: Vollkan is a townie who thinks the case on Jack is bullshit. Should Vollkan a) be quiet and not make what he considers to be good arguments against what he thinks to be the scum arguments driving the Jack case; or b) make what he considers to be good arguments against what he thinks to be the scum arguments driving the Jack case?

[vollkan]

your massive chainsaw defense of Jack is noted.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHAINSAW DEFENCE!

Ok. So what do I call it when you defend Jack by atacking me?

Scumhunting.

[vollkan]

Can someone please explain this +1/2/3 etc. Thing?

As has been said, it's how I track scumminess.

Every player has a score from 0 -100, starting at 50. Towniness pulls it down, scumminess pushes it up. It basically just helps me keep track of who I suspect and, more importantly, why. I'm trying to start using it again (as in, I used to use it, but then stopped) because I do find that if I don't I very often forget who I suspect (or, more accurately, I forget

why

I suspect them and, because I insist on not playing by gut and having reasons for everything, it basically means I lose track).

I also think numbers help for clarifying whether I think a scumtell is serious or not.

Espy is scum. DIE.
unvote vote espy

Your previous post:

unvote P
vote singersinger
You tried to force a lynch on CKD. By using false information.

Why is Espy scummier than SS?

[vollkan]

Cause Espy is scummy now.
SS didn't post so she is not scummy now. I will switch my vote if she posts something scummy.

That's bullshit.

This is all Esp posted since your last post:

lol. Actual post will be coming tomorrow. I'm both busy and tired.

So let me get this straight:

• SS, the person you previously apparently thought scummy enough to vote, loses her scumminess because she didn't post (which, by the way, makes no sense at all).
  
• Esp, the person you were not voting, makes a post promising content, which not only makes him scummy (again, this makes no sense), but makes him
  more scummy
  than the person you were just voting

Your reasoning on these two players is fundamentally inconsistent.

Vezok+5

[vollkan]

I'm conflicted on vezokpiraka.

He ALWAYS does this shit.

Does he really? Can you show me examples?

Countless. Just check any game he was in....he always gives off scummy tells and throws around suspicion without giving thoughts or opinions or examples. Some of the time, he's scum and some of the time, he's town but he ALWAYS acts like this.

From my personal experience, I can only give examples of ongoing games, so I can't from my perspective, but take a look at his game history and you'll know what I mean.

I've played with him in one other completed game. He was stupid and a VI there, though I don't recall him ever being outrightly contradictory like he is now. He usually just gave suspicion and votes for no reason - as opposed to being contradictory and having 'reasons', albeit terrible ones.

Is that your experience of him?

[vollkan]

I didn't know there was a difference, voll, except for the subtleties.

There is. To get MD-theoryish for a second:

A person who votes without reasoning and just on gut by definition can't be inconsistent. Since their positions have no ostensible rational basis, a sudden shift in direction can't be attacked (unless, for instance, it appears opportunistic). This is one of the many reasons why I detest gut play.

However, a player who gives reasons, like VI has been doing (even if they are abysmally crap) makes themselves more accountable. To demonstrate, consider the following scenario:

1) (at time = t) Player A: "I Vote: B for doing Q"
2) (at time = t+x) Player A: "I Vote: C for not doing Q"

If Player A is town, that means that at time = t he genuinely believed that Q was scummy. However, he contradicts that if, later on at time = t+x, he votes somebody for not doing anti-Q (which might be not doing Q, or doing the opposite of Q - depends on what Q is). Unless he has a reason for changing his mind on Q's scumminess, then there is a fundamental inconsistency.

Same thing here.

1) Vezok unvotes SS for not posting recently; and
2) Vezok votes Esp for not posting*

(* he made a "I will post soon" post, but it's tantamount to not posting and, in any event, Vezok has failed to respond to this and explain why that post had scummy content)

I'm not.
You'll get my reads day 2.
So Looker looks like town to me. Anyone want to agree?

1) You're not what?
2) This is ridiculous. For starters, if you don't have reads YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ANYBODY! Secondly, I cannot see what difference a D2 flip makes. Imagine Espy is lynched and flips town - what read does that give you? Imagine Espyt flips scum - what read?
3) Despite just having said you won't give reads until D2, you now tell us Looker looks town. Isn't that a read? And why the hell does Looker look town?

Vezok, replace out. You are seriously incapable of playing this game. I can tolerate inexperience, because people can improve, but you are going nowhere in terms of your play. This game requiers reasoning and analysis; you have neither. Leave.

[vollkan]

HD has already torn Vezok to shreds, but I find it cathartic so I am going to the same thing.

I have reads.
I just don't post them day 1.

Then you are anti-town and useless

(not that we didn't know that already.

Horrordude is scum guys.

Why is he scum?
And the above is a read, which you just said you weren't going to give.

He is not doing anything here guys. Jut setup speculating in hope of fishing.

He is doing more than that, which is more than I can say for somebody :igmeoy:

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

The igmeoy at the end was not meant to be an IGMEOY of Vezok. I was typing in what I thought was the text code for this emoticon . Turns out it is :igmeo

u

:

[vollkan]

No. no.
Oh. I mean I don't give reads on all the players day 1.
I give reads on some players.

Then WHY do you think HD is scum?

And explain the Espy/SS thing from way back that you totally ignored.

No. English is not my first language

Fine. But that's no excuse for only selectively responding to certain points. I notice is this is about the first question you've actually answered.

Sorry, but you're not the best player around, but when I have played against you, you've not been this poor with your day 1 posting (I hate meta generally, but you're not normally making ridiculous posts like the switch to Espy from SS).

Are you agreeing with my inconsistency point here, but just expressing it another way?

[vollkan]

He is not doing anything here guys.

And what have YOU done lately?

This does not invalidated his reasons on you. Just because he doesn't post much doesn't mean his reasons are invalid. Your point is a logical fallacy, which I am too lazy to get my ass of this chair and look up its name in my logic book. However, if you do nothing, you are still doing nothing independently from what other people are doing.

You're accusing HD of tu quoque (The fallacy where: A makes criticism of X. A is also guilty of X.Therefore, X is not scummy)

However, mafia is one situation where tu quoque is not actually as fallacious as it normally is. Let me explain why:

In order for a player to treat X as a scumtell, they have to, at the very least, think that

X is more likely to come from scum than town

. Vezok attached HD for not posting content. That means that Vezok is implicitly saying "I think not posting content is more likely to come from scum than town". However, Vezok himself is not posting content. Which means, in order for Vezok to be logically consistent (and thus be reasoning validly), one of the following must be the case:
a) Vezok is scum (eg. it is consistent for scum-Vezok to see something as scummy if he is doing it);
b) Vezok has a special reason as to why it is not scummy for Vezok individually (eg. a meta point that Vezok tends posts no content as town/no matter what his alignment); or
c) Vezok has a special reason as to why it is scummy for HD individually (eg. a meta point that HD tends to post no content as scum).

Vezok seems more newb than scum, so we can't treat a) as true. And I find it very hard to believe that Vezok even knows how to meta, let alone actually has something that could satisfy b) and c).

(Note: b) is actually probably true, which is Vezok's uselessness isn't a scumtell - however, in terms of analysing the validity of

his own reasons

it is irrelevant, because Vezok hasn't actually appealed to his own incompetence)

I'm gonna see if I can look at your meta really quickly before I decide if you're a VI or not, though.

That boarders on omgus as well as (sorta) this next post:

First, a Community Service Announcement. Please see this recent MD post by me which explains why there is no such thing as OMGUS.

Second, how on earth does it border on "OMGUS"? He isn't attacking Vezok - he is saying that he wants to investigate Vezok's meta before deciding if he is a VI or not. Isn't that exactly what a townie should do in this situation?

And for using a boiler-plate scumtell without basis (not that there is ever a 'basis' for accusing someone of "OMGUS" ) :

CD+1

I don't like the tone of that above post.

I don't like the pixellation of your avatar.

Since at this stage, tone seems as relevant to HD's alignment as avatar pixellation seems to yours, why is his tone relevant?

[vollkan]

Pretty much Vollkan, I've never found Vezo to be the strongest player, but I don't ever recall seeing him move his vote with such piss poor reasoning as that before.

what game have you guys played together?..link please. because I looked over his games, curious which one you were in with him.

Both are ongoing still, so can't actually discuss the games I'm afraid.

Using google, I find that the game where Vezok was scum is Square Enix Mafia III.

The rule against discussing ongoing games is just that - a rule against

discussing

ongoing games. It doesn't operate to prevent people from establishing parts of a player's meta based on events in an ongoing game; otherwise, you would have an absurd situation where a player could be basing their read on somebody off what they have seen in another (ongoing) game, but yet be unable to explain their read to anybody else.

Just use common sense (or, in Vezok's case, don't post or, preferably, replace out) and limit any comments or quoting from that game to discussion about Vezok's meta.

[vollkan]

It's ridiculous how much I'm convinced that looker is scum

You haven't had a single post longer than a sentence so far this game. I know that others (ie Jack) are also playing with a similarly minimalist style, but this is getting, well, ridiculous. Why do you think looker is scum?

[vollkan]

I like lookers play. It is pro town, scummy or not.

Looker's play is pro-town even if it is scummy?

Opens with a solid point on zwet, follows up with pointing out Espy had, indeed, pointed out Snake's claim well before he had (I didn't even put much thought into Looker pointing it out because Espy had already shown it quite clearly by then anyway, why is Looker getting grief for that and not Espy?)

Are you fucking serious? *facepalm* Look at Espy's post!

unvote

Came in late and didn't realise that RV had pretty much finished. I shoule Watch out more I guess.

Dude, seriously?

Someone explain how the HELL you can translate that as "You shouldn't have sofclaimed"?

Looker is obv. town, he's pushing people, and pointing out things that need pointing out.

How the fuck is pointing out a softclaim something that needs to be done and is obvtown? WTF?

Someone ask me something simple about the game please.

Did you notice Snake's alleged softclaim?

Looker is scum, and when he flips as such, I think I'm gonna be taking a closer look at Prana.

^Goodposting

PD+5

@Volk: Horrors only def was that vez was guilty of the same thing as him. This does not defend the point it simply attacks Vez.

That depends on your base assumption. Let me explain:

Some people (most, actually) approach this game with a presumption that inactivity is scummy. Others, myself included, think that inactivity, being so often a product of non-game factors, cannot be treated as a scumtell.

Of course, in theory, only scum have a

motivation

to lurk, whereas Town have the opposite. But that's just it -

in theory

. The problem with that theory is that it ignores non-motivational factors (ie. real-life factors)

A player who was lurking, as HD was (though I see he disputes that he was; and frankly I don't care because it isn't scummy anyway), is most likely going to be far more likely to automatically assume that inactivity isn't scummy. In turn, they are far more likely to do the sort of thing that he did, which is turn the attack back on the attacker.

Also I think omgus does exist, however I don't base my tells on that alone.

What you are attacking here is the

tu quoque

(latin for "you too") fallacy. OMGUS is entirely different (and non-existennt)

unvote, vote cooldog

thats what I thought

Please explain.

Okay, now tell me the pro-town reasons for Espy's post there. And what you think the "Dude, seriously?" was referring to. That goes to both you HD, and Espy. What the hell was that comment referring to and what pro-town benefit that post gives us.

Valid question. I have an idea what the answer is, but I want to hear it from Espy first.

I'm here.
Sorry internet screwed up.

You shouldn't have fixed it. That was the gods trying to spare me from having to play with you.

[vollkan]

Ugh..accidentally hit submit instead of preview

Fair enough, that wasn't a great thing, but Espy had already done so, quite blatantly (I will admit I ignored it in the hope others had, but I feel the need to back up Looker in that he wasn't the one and only person, nor the first, to point it out). But what about the fact you're ignoring that Looker has made good points towards Zwet, Vezo and Espy? Do they all get ignored for what I can make out as one bad post in a sea of scum hunting?

This is just wrong. Espy's wasn't that obvious, let alone to the extent that Looker could reasonably justify not pointing it out (

Looker+4

, by the way)

Just a reminder that the deadline is nearly exactly 3 days from now.

In that case:

NicolBolas*	50
Jack	50
vezokpiraka	57
curiouskarmadog	50
Stef	50
horrordude0215	50
Espeonage	57
CooLDog	58
Neo Crain	58
zwetschenwasser	50
a2rudeboy*	50
Pomegranate	50
Looker	54
SnakePlissken	52
PranaDevil	55
Demonhybrid	50
totallynotmafia	50

[vollkan]

And I now realise that, having added up my scores, my vote isn't in the right place. I normally don't end up with a tie for first place. This puts me in a confused position because a major goal of my scoring system is to enable me to remove fluffy on-the-spot judgments from my play. For now,

Unvote, Vote: Nero Chain

Pseudo-vote: CoolDog

[vollkan]

Ugh..accidentally hit submit instead of preview

Fair enough, that wasn't a great thing, but Espy had already done so, quite blatantly (I will admit I ignored it in the hope others had, but I feel the need to back up Looker in that he wasn't the one and only person, nor the first, to point it out). But what about the fact you're ignoring that Looker has made good points towards Zwet, Vezo and Espy? Do they all get ignored for what I can make out as one bad post in a sea of scum hunting?

This is just wrong. Espy's wasn't that obvious, let alone to the extent that Looker could reasonably justify not pointing it out (

Looker+4

, by the way)

Please explain the scum motivation for Looker pointing out so blatantly please.

"Hey guise a watcher!" whilst also maintaining plausible deniability

[vollkan]

Hey.
Let's lynch CoolDog.
He is probably scum.

unvote vote cooldog.

[vollkan]

Ugh..accidentally hit submit instead of preview

Fair enough, that wasn't a great thing, but Espy had already done so, quite blatantly (I will admit I ignored it in the hope others had, but I feel the need to back up Looker in that he wasn't the one and only person, nor the first, to point it out). But what about the fact you're ignoring that Looker has made good points towards Zwet, Vezo and Espy? Do they all get ignored for what I can make out as one bad post in a sea of scum hunting?

This is just wrong. Espy's wasn't that obvious, let alone to the extent that Looker could reasonably justify not pointing it out (

Looker+4

, by the way)

Please explain the scum motivation for Looker pointing out so blatantly please.

"Hey guise a watcher!" whilst also maintaining plausible deniability

Lack of logical conclusion as to why he would willingly point it out as scum.

What is the actual motivation for it? Why would he, (or anyone for that matter) feel pointing that out to be beneficial to their win condition if they were scum? (Outside of being an idiot I mean)

I'm going to have to get theory-heavy here...

No matter which alignment he is, his actions were "anti-[that alignment]". As in, it was a stupid thing for him to do either way. However, "stupid" is entirely different from "insane" (ie Vezok). By that, I mean that though his play in this particular instant was objectively bad (ie no matter his alignment), he is also a player whom we can be relatively confident was actually thinking (cf Vezok), albeit imperfectly.

Now, a townie has some immediate and fairly large barriers against outing somebody's softclaim. For starters, it isn't something that vanilla townies have any reason to do at all. I may be wrong here, but I suspect that there are very few people on this site who actively look for breadcrumbs as vanilla townies. Now, I am also not suggesting here that Looker's actions indicate that he is a town PR that would have a reason to look for breadcrumbs (eg. a doctor trying to find a cop to protect). To the contrary, any person who was in that sort of frame of mind (eg. "I want to find a cop to protect") is actually far less likely to stupidly draw attention to the breadcrumb, because it undermines the very reason why they went looking for the breadcrumb in the first place.

On the flipside, scum always has good reason to look for breadcrumbs. Scum also always has

a

reason to want to draw attention to those breadcrumbs - in case they get lynched. There is also, I think, a good chance of something psychological coming into play that may make scum more enthusiastic than they rationally should be to out a breadcrumb (ie. "OMG I found a power role!"). At that same time, it is also unlikely that any scum player will be lynched for outing a breadcrumb, precisely because it is more likely to be seen a stupidtell than a scumtell. It's not an action that is manifestly 'scummy' (again, as opposed to stupid) unless you do what I have just done and compare the town and scum mindsets surrounding this issue.

[vollkan]

Just realised I have the rules here confused with another game I am in that is also approaching deadline; I thought this game was plurality lynch, not majority lynch. Since I think both my 58-ers are unlikely to be lynched, and there is a massive cloud of WTF hanging over my Vezok read, I will

Unvote, Vote: Espeonage

[vollkan]

vollkan, come baaack. We can get a late run of votes.

To my surprise, it now looks like there has been a late run of votes.

Unvote, Vote: Nero Cain

THAT'S RIGHT NERO, YOUR DREAMS HAVE BECOME REALITY, MY VOTE ON YOU IS INVALID BECAUSE I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME

BTW I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN LURKING HARDCORE

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A POST FROM YOU IN FOREVER

Why me and not NicolBolas?

Deflection much?

And what possible reason could that be? According to him he was acting scummy to gauge reactions. That's even worse. I'm town so I'm going to distract ya'll from scum hunting by acting scummy to gauge reactions. I don't like it or buy it.

The reason is V/LA. If somebody is playing gambitingly, and then has to leave, it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't explain themselves immediately.

And, you do realise that gambiting like that is perfectly legitimate town play - and even if you don't personally like it, that doesn't make it scummy?

I'd also like to note that Vollkan and DH both are outright lying when they say I was voting for him for going V/LA when I was merely noting his V/LA. Maybe they are upset about it 'cause they know it was a faux V/LA?

BS.

1) He was voting(not a scumtell)
2) He went on V/LA (not a scumtell)
3) You vote him for (quote) "All the guy does is vote and then goes V/LA."

So, you turn a combination of two un-scummy things into a faux-scumtell by accusing him of not explaining himself - when both the nature of gambiting and being on VLA themselves more than excuse non-explanation.

(And your invocation of a conspiracy argument at the end to discredit me just gets you a

NC+1

)

1) Without being evasive and turning my question back at me without actually answering it - what was it that CKD had done that merited your FOS?; and [/quiote]

You didn't explain it. I quote:

CKD deserves an FOS until he explains himself berrter.

Which again leads me back to my original point:

If somebody asks you "What have I done that is scummy?" (after you'd clearly expressed the view that you considered them scummy, through your FOS) and you respond by pointing their claim and that you won't lynch them "yet", the only reasonable inference is that you are attacking their claim. If you had some other reason for suspecting him, you presumably would have given it in answer to the question.

If you thought that his claim was scummy enough to merit a FOS without some further justification, you must have had some reason for thinking so.

Which I guess leads nicely to this:

Its perfectly logical to want an explanation. Especially when the guy pussyfooted around claiming for 2 whole posts instead of coming right out and claiming. But your are DELIBERTLY twisting my words;you said

Because it makes absolutely no sense that town-CKD would delay making a claim which has no benefit to D1 knowledge but which would very likely (and, in fact, did) cause mass confusion.

You are framing his actions in the most negative light possible

when I made it clear that I only wanted an explanation.

You had cast an FOS for him, and ended your request for information with a barb "at least not yet". The only reasonable inference was that you were attacking their claim.

On Jack specifically, 109, 108 and 115 may well be stupid and full of fail, but that doesn't make them scummy. And, despite your hyperboic description of 116, you've failed entirely to explain why it is sufficiently scummy to make him a "decent lynch candidate".

I apologize for not auto reading and voting for your scum buddy.

Way to ignore my arguments (I didn't even mention auto-reading; my point was that the posts you attacked as scummy weren't scummy) and instead you again point the finger back at me with a conspiracy.

NC+1

(Also, if there was ever a good use for the label "OMGUS", this would be it - when a person ignores an argument against them and instead just accuses their attacker of being scum on BS conspiracy grounds)

Vezok, replace out. You are seriously incapable of playing this game. I can tolerate inexperience, because people can improve, but you are going nowhere in terms of your play. This game requiers reasoning and analysis; you have neither. Leave.

This is extremely rude. Even if the guys sucks you have no right to tell him to GTFO. Its these kind of elitest posts that just don't belong in a mafia game. And really? If you don't like the guy just for for him.

What is rude is joining a game that requires reasoning and analysis and then making no attempt, over the course of several such games, to even attempt to play at a level beyond that of a well-educated chimp. I have no problem with people who genuinely struggle with the game - but Vezok isn't even trying to improve his play. Not once in the games I have played with him has ever even come close to attempting to properly engage with anything that anybody has said to him.

unvote: vote: Espy
him, Vollkan, Jack or DH would be my choices for a lynch today.

Why am I scum?

Pom 526 is fail.

Still waiting on Jack to answer 523.

Pom 526 raises a legitimate point. The only fail is your response to it.

That's the entirety of the case against him, and so what's his reaction meant to be? He's reacting to a mountain being made out of a mole hill. If there was an actual case against him, then fair enough, but there isn't one, there is a distinct lack of a case but a bunch of people who all went "yeah, Nero would be a good lynch" despite there being nothing to state why.

It isn't the case against him - read my ISO (Ctrl+F "NC+" to find all his points)

[vollkan]

EBWOP: bah, quote fail

vollkan, come baaack. We can get a late run of votes.

To my surprise, it now looks like there has been a late run of votes.

Unvote, Vote: Nero Cain

THAT'S RIGHT NERO, YOUR DREAMS HAVE BECOME REALITY, MY VOTE ON YOU IS INVALID BECAUSE I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME

BTW I MISSPELLED YOUR NAME BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN LURKING HARDCORE

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A POST FROM YOU IN FOREVER

Why me and not NicolBolas?

Deflection much?

And what possible reason could that be? According to him he was acting scummy to gauge reactions. That's even worse. I'm town so I'm going to distract ya'll from scum hunting by acting scummy to gauge reactions. I don't like it or buy it.

The reason is V/LA. If somebody is playing gambitingly, and then has to leave, it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't explain themselves immediately.

And, you do realise that gambiting like that is perfectly legitimate town play - and even if you don't personally like it, that doesn't make it scummy?

I'd also like to note that Vollkan and DH both are outright lying when they say I was voting for him for going V/LA when I was merely noting his V/LA. Maybe they are upset about it 'cause they know it was a faux V/LA?

BS.

1) He was voting(not a scumtell)
2) He went on V/LA (not a scumtell)
3) You vote him for (quote) "All the guy does is vote and then goes V/LA."

So, you turn a combination of two un-scummy things into a faux-scumtell by accusing him of not explaining himself - when both the nature of gambiting and being on VLA themselves more than excuse non-explanation.

(And your invocation of a conspiracy argument at the end to discredit me just gets you a

NC+1

)

1) Without being evasive and turning my question back at me without actually answering it - what was it that CKD had done that merited your FOS?; and

You didn't explain it. I quote:

CKD deserves an FOS until he explains himself berrter.

Which again leads me back to my original point:

If somebody asks you "What have I done that is scummy?" (after you'd clearly expressed the view that you considered them scummy, through your FOS) and you respond by pointing their claim and that you won't lynch them "yet", the only reasonable inference is that you are attacking their claim. If you had some other reason for suspecting him, you presumably would have given it in answer to the question.

If you thought that his claim was scummy enough to merit a FOS without some further justification, you must have had some reason for thinking so.

Which I guess leads nicely to this:

Its perfectly logical to want an explanation. Especially when the guy pussyfooted around claiming for 2 whole posts instead of coming right out and claiming. But your are DELIBERTLY twisting my words;you said

Because it makes absolutely no sense that town-CKD would delay making a claim which has no benefit to D1 knowledge but which would very likely (and, in fact, did) cause mass confusion.

You are framing his actions in the most negative light possible

when I made it clear that I only wanted an explanation.

You had cast an FOS for him, and ended your request for information with a barb "at least not yet". The only reasonable inference was that you were attacking their claim.

On Jack specifically, 109, 108 and 115 may well be stupid and full of fail, but that doesn't make them scummy. And, despite your hyperboic description of 116, you've failed entirely to explain why it is sufficiently scummy to make him a "decent lynch candidate".

I apologize for not auto reading and voting for your scum buddy.

Way to ignore my arguments (I didn't even mention auto-reading; my point was that the posts you attacked as scummy weren't scummy) and instead you again point the finger back at me with a conspiracy.

NC+1

(Also, if there was ever a good use for the label "OMGUS", this would be it - when a person ignores an argument against them and instead just accuses their attacker of being scum on BS conspiracy grounds)

Vezok, replace out. You are seriously incapable of playing this game. I can tolerate inexperience, because people can improve, but you are going nowhere in terms of your play. This game requiers reasoning and analysis; you have neither. Leave.

This is extremely rude. Even if the guys sucks you have no right to tell him to GTFO. Its these kind of elitest posts that just don't belong in a mafia game. And really? If you don't like the guy just for for him.

What is rude is joining a game that requires reasoning and analysis and then making no attempt, over the course of several such games, to even attempt to play at a level beyond that of a well-educated chimp. I have no problem with people who genuinely struggle with the game - but Vezok isn't even trying to improve his play. Not once in the games I have played with him has ever even come close to attempting to properly engage with anything that anybody has said to him.

unvote: vote: Espy
him, Vollkan, Jack or DH would be my choices for a lynch today.

Why am I scum?

Pom 526 is fail.

Still waiting on Jack to answer 523.

Pom 526 raises a legitimate point. The only fail is your response to it.

That's the entirety of the case against him, and so what's his reaction meant to be? He's reacting to a mountain being made out of a mole hill. If there was an actual case against him, then fair enough, but there isn't one, there is a distinct lack of a case but a bunch of people who all went "yeah, Nero would be a good lynch" despite there being nothing to state why.

It isn't the case against him - read my ISO (Ctrl+F "NC+" to find all his points)

[vollkan]

My vote still stands.

This is ridiculous.

I oppose lurker lynching in general, but in a situation where: 1) the lurker (Stef) is inactive elsewhere, 2) there are multiple decent lynch candidates, and 3) we need a majority (10 votes) to avoid No Lynch, holding out like this is simply stupid.

[vollkan]

He really wants everyone to know that his vote isnt changing today...which makes me feel like he knows Nero will flip town...that added to my other scum reads off him...

I was trying to get at this possibility, though more discreetly, with the question I just asked him (which I still want him to answer) - to see if there is any actual protown reason why he would hold out in the way that he is.

[vollkan]

Continuing with scumpoints from yesterday:

Vote: Cooldog

. That said, I also want to do relational analysis of Espy, so this vote is somewhat contingent.

We're at 3 votes... that's L-5. Are we really in danger of a quicklynch?

At the moment: No.
If the wagon continued at it current pace: Yes.

I think you'll find that wagons tend to slow down as they reach the vicinity L-1 .

Unvote, Vote: a2rudeboy

This may go into complete mafia game theory territory, but I have never once

once

once

seen someone Vote/HoS two people in the same post and not be scum.

If Cooldog is scum, lynch a2. If a2 is scum, lynch Cooldog.

a2+5

I don't completley agree with you, though, DH.

There is certainly a tendency for scum to do the Vote/HoS combo. However, it's a weaker scumtell (+1/+2) in isolation. For me, the most important thing is his reasoning for putting a HoS on CoolDog:

for things such as: posting at night, his constant "i'm going to be going, but.." posts, AtE overload.

The biggest tell for me

however, was the posting of the case after the hammer, especially considering how his case was just exact repetition of a previous case from someone else.

I am unable to tell at this point if it's for sure a scumtell, or just stupid play.

None of those points are at all paticularly reflective of any actual analysis, and all but the vague "AtE overload" charge are only dubiously scummy at best. I can't see how they could justify a HoS. But then we get the "biggest tell" of repeating a case. Putting aside whether that really is a huge scumtell, a2 immediately proceeds to undercut this with his last sentence (bolded). In other words, he both thinks it is the "biggest scumtell" (among a handful of rather piddly 'scumtells', the aggregate of which apparently justifies a HoS), but is also uncertain about whether or not it is a scumtell.

So, having equally incredibly strong suspicions on two players after 24pgs is considered scummy now?

Quote for me please where somebody attacked you for 'having equally strong suspicions'?

[vollkan]

I might not be able to post much as of late but, I will be happy to answer all of your questions.
<snip>
I will answer all of your questions to the best of my ability, I am town thus I have nothing to fear.

What I like about this post is the way you don't resort to AtE that verges on sycophantry.

Oh...wait

CD+1

[vollkan]

vote cooldog

scummy bastard.
To much use of AtE.

Vezok is voting for a valid (if not valid enough to singularly justify a vote) reason...

How is CoolDoG looking super scummy? Is this the same way Nero looked "super scummy" but wasn't in the slightest? Can someone honestly sum up the case on CD for me here? As so far it just seems like he's getting pushed heavily for... not being able to be online constantly? Since when was being busy off site a scum tell?

View my ISO and Ctrl+F for "CD+". You will see each reason I have for suspecting him. None of which include his not posting much

NC was scummy. The nature of this game is that town often do look scummy and scum often don't (it wouldn't be much of a game otherwise). You can't raise the NC mislynch as some kind of vague argument against lynching CD.

Vollkan, I misspoke myself in that last section, and I admit that I contradicted myself. What I meant to say is that all of those little things, even though separately may be only dubious scumtells, added up together, they give me the biggest impression of scum. I am unsure if the unnecessary repeating of a case at a time when no case was needed was either a scum slip or if it was just stupid play (certainly not needed/beneficial to either side). At the same time, if i take the repeating of the case (which I am unsure about until i hear more from CD), but combine it with the previous little things, that's what caused me to say biggest scumtell. It's not the biggest on it's own, but for me it's what tipped his overall play into scumland.

I think your defence here is extremely weak, but you also admit that you are wrong. So the net result is that I am not going to alter your score.

@all voting me, I want you guys to post a case on me NOW. I will answer to all if you simply ask. I can't answer to generic shit like "he's supper scummy", or "scummy bastard". My only answer to those reasons is this: I'm town. That is the only and the best answer. Anyone else wanna take a crack at building a case on me (vollk seems like he enjoys such things). Then I will answer to every point presented.

See above about my ISO and Ctrl+F. Easy insta-case.

[vollkan]

Because I as a townie don't wish to be lynched. Simple as that read my sig. But, if you think about it you guys are wasting a perfictly good lynch on me which you could be useing on some one else who is scum. I don't want to make myself seem scummy if I'm town...

Ugh..more AtE

@volk #9 and 11, I was saying that Jack in himself was not playing overtly scummy, he was just playing anti town, but ESP came along and buddyed with Jack. This made the possibilty for Jack to be a scum buddy. And if you guys haven't noted, he is lurking now. Also to note Jack and esp did have a long back and forth, and Jack did buddy with esp.

You've ignored the main point of my post. You went from a vote of Jack, to saying his play was consistent with his meta and unvoting, then you again accuse him of being scum based on interactions with Espy.

It makes no sense to suspect somebody based on an as-yet unproven scumlink. And, as I said, there was NO buddying from Jack to Espy. In other words, you were suspecting Jack based on Espy's actions, which is just ridiculous because it entirely ignores the more likely prospect of Espy-scum buddying to Jack-town.

So don't say it "made the possibility" of Jack being scum. There is ALWAYS that possibility. The point is that you expressed clear suspicion of Jack for pretty dodgy reasons.

And now, as if to muddy the water, you wave your hands and point to Jack's current lurking (not a scumtell) and his back-and-forth with Espy (which has NOTHING to do with the point I made against you initially)

@26, tu quoque does exist. Sorry Vollk.

I never said it doesn't exist.

And that wasn't the reason I gave you a point there anyway.

In the end vollks case consits of mostly rants about Jack not being scummy, and I attacking esp/jack for no reason. For your information ESP fliped scum, So I was right about that one. What happens if Jack flips scum too? Will that make me town vollk?

That question is facetious.

The point is that at the time you made those attacks against Jack you had no reasonable basis for accusing him of scumlinks. It's incredibly 'convenient' that you are now implying that Espy's flip legitimises your position on Jack.

[vollkan]

Hello. Just got home and I'm gonna get settled in and do some reading.

Until then, VOTE: vollkan

I will explain.

This makes no sense. If your reason for suspecting me is strong enough as to justify an insta-vote off the back of (apparently) no reading, then I can't see any circumstance under which you also wouldn't be willing to explain your vote right away. Not assigning any points for this, yet, since I can't see any scum motivation for it; it's just weird basically. That said, I nonetheless want to know your reason for delaying.

[vollkan]

Do you usually not finish reading the thread before replying?

Is this the reason for your FoS on CKD?

My reason is that I wasn't delaying. I had something to do and didn't post the whole argument, I just wanted to put an opening post up to let people know I'm here.

How much of the gmae had you read by the point at which you voted me?

SO. In a nutshell, my case on you is that you replace actual scumhunting with just quoting people and applying terms to everything they say and then dictating whether or not those terms are scumslips or not. However, most of these terms can't really be considered scumtells anymore. Let's take lurking for instance. It was a scumtell then people caught on, added a turn to it, scum wised up, and now lurking is practically a town tell because scum know that lurking was a scum tell so they make sure to avoid doing it. We can get into how they can now lurk because it's a town tell and how it's all just WIFOM but I wanna take my argument a different way instead of just saying "all vollkan does is WIFOM" even though I could probably make that work.

He doesn't scum hunt, just iso him. His posts generally consist of two things.

1. This is scummy because term A and term B
2. Question I want you to answer so that I have more terms to apply to your next posts.

Obviously most of his posts stray from this skeleton in some way or another but a very base level, that's been his play this whole game.

SO. In an even smaller nutshell, you don't like my playstyle.

I've seen traps like this before. Big words and lots of unreadable walls of text trick many players into believe someone is town. I mean [sarcasm]OBVIOUSLY NO SCUM WOULD GO TO THE TROUBLE OF WRITING LOTS OF WORDS TO MAKE THEMSELF SOUND MORE TOWN[/sarcasm].

Google the following:

site:mafiascum.net AND vollkan AND (walls OR wallz OR verbose)

Then come back and tell me whether you think that my posting style makes me scummy.

[quote="Jack]
Espeonage is making perfectt sense.

Seriously? Or just because it happens to be you that he thinks is obvtown?

An example of my second point above. [/quote]
Which is scummy because?

Since he's always so eager to talk about how all these terms and actions are scumtells, here's one:

Isn't over-questioning people a scum tell? IIRC on the wiki.

Read the words under my name: "The Interrogator".

Why do you think they are there?

Also that numbers system is pathetic.

Which is scummy because?

Policy lynch then?

[/quote][/quote]

VI alert.

1) Not even an attempt to defend your case?
2) Why do you think a policy lynch of me would be pro-town?
3) There's something ironic about the fact that you join this game and attack me for 'not scumhunting' and yet the sum total of your contribution thus far is an argument for my policy lynch.

[vollkan]

1. Nobody has asked me to until you.

Wrong:

that's vollkans playstyle

Policy lynch then?

You didn't even try to argue that the 'case' you had made against me was actually valid in relation to my alignment. Instead, you immediately suggest a policy lynch instead.

2. Because your meta is decidedly anti-town.
3. I'll admit I was unaware of your [moar sarcasm]godly history[/moar sarcasm] and that it was against the rules to suspect you so when I wrote it, it was scumhunting, not a policy lynch suggestion. I'll support a lynch of you for any reason, however, because of number 2. Your meta allows you to get away with not giving opinions. Labeling stuff and giving it a number and then "interrogating" as your entire meta means it would be basically impossible for you to slip, and very easy for you to stay in meta for the duration of a game. A policy lynch on you is fine because you're more of a threat than you actually help.

Since the above is simply arguing for a policy lynch, I'm not the least bit inclined to respond.

I will, however, ask you to explain why you aren't a hypocrite for joining the game and attacking me for doing nothing (which is crap, btw) when, at the same time, the sum total of your contribution thus far has been a playstyle attack.

And, IIRC people discussed this D1, so the fact that he is a watcher was out there. Am I misremembering this? Which begs another question, why would the scum leave a claimed watcher alive?

WIFOM is a possibility, though in a game where there are so many other claimed power roles who would be obvious targets for a town watcher, that seems less likely than usual.

The more likely possibility is just that the other power roles were more attractive, given that they had claimed rather than crumbed. Having said that, looking at the flipped roles plus the claims, I'm really confused as to how (if?) this game is balanced.

horrordude, what makes you think Jack is town? He's not even attempted to be useful all damned game. He's been completely useless all the way through, and now is just creating massive distraction by claiming something that isn't true (he did no pbp on CKD).

FWIW, I've been in a few games with Jack lately, and his playstyle always makes no sense to me.

@Jack: is the sole reason for you suspecting CKD that his claim of not reading the thread 'sounded fake'?

[vollkan]

This is actually not bad posting.

You're referring to this?

cooldog I claim scum, I'm scum with espeonage, your move

See. It's stuff like this and that exchange earlier that make me think that I would stand by a lynch on either of you guys, even if you turned up town. Because, at this point, if you aren't scum, you surely aren't pro-town (and it's not as if it's in your meta to play the VI) And that's enough of a reason for me.

If so, I don't agree.

Aside from the fact that it is Jack's playstyle (not that not being aware of that can be held against a2 at first instance), it's muddying the waters between a suspicion lynch and a policy lynch

I agree, however so far I'm wondering what the hell is going on, we have Jack making no attempt at actually playing the game, horrordude being useless, Pacman deciding that lynching scum is a second priority behind lynching someone when he dislikes their (exceptionally pro-town) playstyle, and thus far it's horrendously ridiculous. Throw in that Looker was being completely worthless and nonsensical yesterday, and it's like half the game don't even want to win.

At this stage, I want Jack or Pacman lynched, not only has Jack been acting worthless all game, but he and Esp were buddy buddy at the start of the game, and he's just being allowed to slide by being useless and scummy.

Pacman on the other hand has entered the game, and his first action is to push Vollkan for... well, nothing at all in actual fact, as his entire case is "I don't like his playstyle, policy lynch him". Absolute bullshit.

This is Jack's playstyle. Every game I have been in with him, he has played like this; and in every one of those games at least person inevitably does what you are doing and pushes what is essentially a playstyle lynch.

[vollkan]

so is what I am hearing is jack is just a poor player?

I wouldn't say "poor" so much as chaotic/idiosyncratic.

[vollkan]

waiting for you to put 2 and 2 together here...

So.. jack not playing more serious = jack is SC... no wait... if jack is not playing more serious... =... jack is... not... Serial Killer!?
Am I right do i win!?

The fact that Jack has been serious once as SK does not logically suggest that non-serious Jack is not SK. All it indicates is that, if Jack was being serious, then it would not be a SK-tell.

[vollkan]

so is what I am hearing is jack is just a poor player?

I wouldn't say "poor" so much as chaotic/idiosyncratic.

you feel like his actions in this games are good?....is chaotic antitown?

You're asking

me

whether I think chaotic, non-logical play is pro-town?

What I mean is that Jack is a player who knows what he is doing, even if I think that what he is doing is completely useless.

@Vollkan: in this post you finally put up your point board. You mentioned earlier in the thread that people get + points for scummy actions and - points for townie actions. How come no one had earned any - points after a full day? You even commented "good posting" after some people's play.

I can get a pile of meta to support this and go into theory if you like, but basically this is a consequence of the fact that I don't believe in towntells. In practice, the only time I use - points is where I assign + points to somebody for a particular reason but then they rebut that reason.

On the "goodposting" point specifically, to give you some idea of where I am coming from:
I think the game as a whole becomes more pro-town if play is logical rather than illogical. Accordingly, I encourage the posting of thorough cases. That doesn't mean I think that they are more likely to come from town than scum because experience has taught me both that town can and do play exceptionally anti-town and that scum can and do play exceptionally pro-town-like. Basically, a game driven by reasoned cases makes it much harder for scum, but the posting of reasoned cases does not make an individual less likely to be scum.

So you have no case on me

I was going to say the same thing

[vollkan]

vote: evilpacman18

Still no attempt to do anything beyond go for a policy lynch on Vollkan.

Why do you think pacman is scum?

I ask because my read of him so far is just stupid newbie. Pushing policy lynches is stupid and anti-town, but town do it often enough that I really don't think it can be considered scummy. Conversely, if I put myself in the shoes of scum-pacman, I really can't fathom how he could seroiusly think that a policy lynch on me would be a good strategy; if he came in and pushed it on Jack, for instance, I think there would be a viable scum strategy (doesn't make it scummy, though, for the reasons in my second sentence), but I can't work out how, if he was scum trying to get me lynched, he could seriously imagine that a policy lynch of me would have any prospect of succeeding.

[vollkan]

[vollkan]

Awesome, so now you're psychic too?

Could you tell me what I'm thinking about now? I'm not entirely sure what to have for dinner, evidently you know my thoughts better than me, so perhaps you could inform me of my decision?

You were attacking Jack basically because he was being (in your view) useless, and being very clear that you suspected him. You then turn around and attack someone else for a very similar reason. How on earth can you expect an observer to think "Oh wait, he might be pressure voting?"?

[vollkan]

He was at 4 votes in a large game and you were going to be gone for 24 hours. How on EARTH could you be afraid of a quick lynch? It's preposterous. Your refusal to clarify it from that craptastic response is bad.

Are you suggesting scum are more likely to be more cautious than town then?

Complete strawman

PD+2

I'm going to wait for LMP to respond to the rest

[vollkan]

It's not a strawman Vollkan, to say something is scummy means you have to show why scum would do it more often than town. LMP has failed to do that at any point. What he's essentially saying is "I don't like what you said, therefore I refuse to accept it as the truth, and thus it is scummy". I mean... seriously? How is that not being noticed here? Just because LMP feels that it was a "craptastic response", not that he has once explained why, nor why it is somehow false (Has LMP gone to check on the UKFF to find out? 'course not, he's just bullshitting), it's taken as fact.

But meh, I'm officially giving up on this game, half of the players aren't even attempting to play mafia, while the majority of the rest have done a vanishing act.

The strawman is that he wasn't accusing of you of being cautious but, rather, of a justification which makes no sense.

[vollkan]

Answering LMP's request for comment on the Him-Prana exchange:

No, I'm saying your explanation is nonsense. There should have been 0 worry about a quicklynch if you were going to be gone 24 hours and he only had 4 votes on him.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be nonsense (There has been lynches quicker than that elsewhere, hence why I was being safe, ask Snake, he's on the UKFF as well), how is it scummy? If it's not scummy, why is it part of your case?

PD's explanation doesn't make sense. I can't see how he could reasonably think that there was a risk of quicklynch. Also, answering the question he poses, there is a clear scum motivation for refusing to vote; it's the same as underpins the Vote:Townie,Fos: Scumbuddy tell - not wanting to commit to the lynch of a buddy but also leaving wiggle room to get distancing points.

PD+1

I repeat, this is my FIRST Large normal (and my last most likely), you are basically saying that because my only experience of large games is two Kise run themed games that I should somehow assume that there wouldn't be a single scum team.

I'm used to NORMALS having just one scum team. Regardless of whether I'm wrong or right about that, it's NOT scummy by itself. As far as scum/town tells go, it's completely null.

What it IS as a tell, is a "New to large normals" tell if large normals are normally 2 scum teams.

@PD: How many large theme games have you played?

Bolded to show my major points in that post, the first pointing out where Looker had, indeed, been pointing things out that needed pointing out (as everyone was blaming Looker for something Espy had already done by that point), and the last one showing that there was no scum motivation in that post, nor had I actively noticed any from Looker at that point.

This doesn't make sense. Looker was obv town for pointing out something in his own defence?

I didn't have the time. Guess what? Looker was a bigger priority for me to make a case on at that point in my eyes. Are you suggesting that, when I didn't have much time to make a full case, that I should go after one that YOU feel I should make, as opposed to the one that, at that point, I believe to be more useful?

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is? It's basically: "He had time to make one case, he must have had time to make more as well". Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. Time is not infinite, and when I have non-mafia stuff to do, I have to say that mafia will normally be done last. Not first. If being busy away from the site is somehow scummy then I'm fucked if I know how.

As somebody who routinely says "I want to ISO X" and never gets around to doing it, for exactly the reasons in PD's second paragraph, I agree with PD here.

It's fluff because NONE OF IT MAKES A CASE

Where are you showing that any of it is "more likely to be done by scum than town"? Where are you showing where the scum motivation for anything I've done is?

It isn't there, it's non-existant, it's just a massive fuck ton of bullshit.

Here's your entire case on me:

"He hasn't played in large normals and assumed scum would be a single team, that's scummy"
"I don't like why he unvoted in case of a quick lynch, must be scum"
"He unvoted Espy to check the thread then disappeared for a while through being busy, scummy"
"He felt Looker was pro-town, that's scummy"
"He had chance to check over Looker and not CD? Must be scummy"

THAT'S IT!

I've played with you quite a few times PD, but I can't remember this: are you normally emotional like this?

UNVOTE: vollkan
I'll come back to this when people are more willing to listen.
VOTE: Jack
just iso'd him. 74 posts and next to no content. Most of his posts are useless one liners. Definitely not pro-town play.

Jack plays like this every game. It isn't scummy.

[vollkan]

[quote="a2rudeboy"]@Vollkan- You seem to have a good enough knowledge of Jack's meta. What does Jack play like when he's scum?/quote]

I can't recall actually playing with him as scum, so I can't help you here

[vollkan]

Think of it like that if you want, but after utter stupidity elsewhere (I'm pretty sure that we had 7 people quick lynch someone within the space of 12 hours even though the day was only 2 days old on the UKFF, it was something utterly ridiculous like that, so while normally I suppose I'd not be worrying about a quick lynch, after seeing that I didn't want to risk it).

But how similar is UKFF to MS normally? Specifically, MS has a bit of a rep for being uniquely long and drawn-out (which I like) whereas on many other places the game runs much faster. The fact that you had a quicklynch on another forum doesn't really say too much unless it is normally similar to MS.

Not even so much in his own defence, but that nobody had pointed it out at all by that point. It was simply the example I had used immediately after being questioned about why he was "obv. town" to me at the time because it was also the most recent. At this stage I don't feel that going back through Looker's early posts to show further why I felt he was town at that point to be beneficial to the current state of the game.

But it was in his defence. Whether he was town or scum, of course he was going to say that. Also, why does the fact that nobody had pointed it out make it a towntlel?

But then what IS scummy for him?

I don't know, but his normal playstyle sure as hell isn't

Surely he should be playing to the town win condition? Confusing fellow town, creating issues, and generally being a nuisance aren't helping the town to win are they? If this is his "normal" way of playing, then perhaps he should take a good look at himself and start to play to his win condition?

I agree with the above entirely - but that's got nothing to do with his alignment.

[vollkan]

Not even so much in his own defence, but that nobody had pointed it out at all by that point. It was simply the example I had used immediately after being questioned about why he was "obv. town" to me at the time because it was also the most recent. At this stage I don't feel that going back through Looker's early posts to show further why I felt he was town at that point to be beneficial to the current state of the game.

But it was in his defence. Whether he was town or scum, of course he was going to say that. Also, why does the fact that nobody had pointed it out make it a towntlel?

I used it as an example at the time, but regardless of whether he was town or scum, can you deny it's true to what I said it was, namely something that "needed pointing out"?

I might be missing something here. Are any of the following incorrect?
1) You said Looker was obvtown
2) Your reason for that was that he was "pointing out things that needed pointing out"
3) I have now pointed out that it was in defence
4) You say, regardless of whether he was town or scum, it "needed pointing out"

4) seems to directly contradict the combination of 1)+2).

PD+2

contingent on my facts being correct.

Maybe, but my point is how do we tell when he is or isn't scum?

I don't know. This is a problem I always have in games with Jack. Policy lynching is never the answer, and pointless debates about how anti-town his playstyle is only waste time.

So while it might not be a tell, it's something that should be taken into consideration.

To an extent. If hypothetically Jack and X were tied for my number one suspect position, I'd vote Jack in a heartbeat, given the great big question mark over him.

So, my problem with playstyle lynching is less against playstyle lynches per se as it is with the assumption that someone like Jack's playstyle creates sufficient uncertainty about their alignment to override clear scumminsess from others.

1 - It stops town being uncertain in the late game, which can create a mislynch at a point where a mislynch could be disastrous (As if he's scum we might lynch non-scum because "it's his playstyle" but then we may also wind up lynching him as town because those left at that point have bad feelings about him).

This sort of argument often comes up in relation to VIs. My problem with it is that it assumes that the risk involved in a lynch with a greater-than-average likelihood of NOT hitting scum (because it isn't alignment-based) is justified by reference to risks later on in the game.

2 - It means he might actually realize his "playstyle" of being useless and unhelpful means he gets lynched almost instantly in every game and force him to start being helpful.

I have a problem with this sort of policy argument. The cardinal rule of Mafia is "Play to meet your win condition". If you are pushing lynches for policy reasons, you are violating that rule.

However, at the moment I would rather see an evilpacman lynch for the reasons I've previously stated. But if it comes down to "Prana or Jack" I would actually say stuff conventional views and prefer the lynch of myself because more people seem uncertain of me than they do of Jack, and from what I believe it would put a spanner in the works of the scum's gameplan (i.e. get the harder to lynch guy out of the way, then leave me for an easy lynch down the line).

Doesn't the above assume Jack is town?

[vollkan]

Damn it I wanted to win a prize...

Lynch made a big post so he must be town

I also am apparently not only voting.. but have quite literally been vanished into a ghost?

Yes, you are very sneaky like that. Fixed.

not only not*

lmao

*scratches head*
*looks at the sky*
*ponders*
*scratches head some more*
*scribbles on the ground*
*stares at scribble just made*
*ponders it*
*nods head*
*brings redcoyote over*
*redcoyote reads*
VOTE: prana
*redcoyote and i shake hands*
*redcoyote leaves*
*ponders more*

*looks above*
*slightly confused look*
*scribbles on ground some more*
*it reads*
What happened to giving up?
*stares and waits*

*sticks jack's fingers in his ears*

*shakes head*

*scratches head*

Has Jack got a protege in Silver Bullet too?

*blushes*

*scratches head*
*studies ground some more*

*asks "What the hell is wrong with you?"*

[vollkan]

*asks "What the hell is wrong with you?"*

*stares*
*grumbles*
*studies ground some more*

Shake your head if you have a post restriction.

[vollkan]

I said it was an EXAMPLE not "the only one". "things" not "thing", that s is rather important in number 2.

What part of "I used Looker''s last long post just to show an example to CKD" is missed here? I never said that was the one and only, I also never said that post was the extent of what made me believe him town, but it showed a damned good reason why I felt he was at that point in time.

In which post/s have you explicitly pointed to other examples?

If you haven't, why not? It seems bizarre that, if you had other examples, you wouldn't raise them, especially given how much this example has come under attack.

But how would you ever know when he's a suspect if you can't tell his alignment from his posting anyway? This directly goes against the fact that you are suggesting we shouldn't lynch based on Jack's playstyle, however it's only that which is scummy because I've not seen any actual step to help the town, even his latest list of suspects has no reasoning for them.

I don't know when he is suspicious. I've said that multiple times now.

Let me put in bold for you:

I can't read Jack

What I do know, however, is that the way he is playing is not a scumtell. No matter how ridiculously anti-town it might be, it isn't scummy. Yes, it sucks that he is unreadable. But ignoring actual suspicions today and going down the path of lynching him simply because we can't read him is a recipe for potential disaster.

But how is if a "greater-than-average" likelihood? Someone's just as likely to be town as scum in any game. Just ask "Always scum in the UKFF" Snake, I don't think he's played a game over there where he's been anything but scum, and I would laugh my ass off if he turned up scum here too.

It's a greater than average likelihood of a mislynch for the simple reason that, in lynching Jack, we would be lynching explicitly because of playstyle and not because of alignment. Alignment-based lynches are, assuming our scumhunting abilities are not worthless, more likely going to hit scum than if we lynched based on non-alignment-relevant factors.

(And, of course, if our scumhunting abilities aren't going to give us a better-than-random chance at hitting scum, then we may as well just use random.org to determine who we vote)

So to that end, my point is whether it's day 1, or LyLo, you would still be uneasy about lynching someone who has seemed scummy all game purely because it's their playstyle. VI's aren't quite so bad because you can often spot them a mile off, but someone who you can never get a read on, whether they're scum or town, is someone who is more dangerous to town alive in LyLo than dead in the early game.

Wall of text below trying to end this debate. Skip to "In short" if you are so inclined.

There are I think three elements to LYLO danger:
1) Jack being scum and not being lynched because of unreadability
2) Jack being scum and being able to lynch townies based on nonsense arguments
3) Jack being town and being lynched for nonsense arguments
(For VIs, there is a 4) "The person being town and lynching town for nonsense arguments", however since Jack is not a VI, he just plays crazily, I don't think Jack-town would lynch for bad reasons, even if he expressed things badly)

Note that 3) is quite unlikely to happen given that Jack's play is clearly a nulltell. It should also be noted that 2) can't arise on its own; in any LYLO scenario, a lynch requires at least one townie's support. This is obviously by no means a solid guarantee since townies can and do push terrible lynches, but it needs to borne in mind that Jack-scum can't do anything in LYLO on his own.

1) is clearly a big problem. In a LYLO situation, it would basicaly require the remaining town to weigh up the scumminess of the other player/s against the uncertainty of Jack. For example, if I was in a 2:1 LYLO faced with Jack and a player I have only minor suspicions of, my response would probably be to vote Jack just on the basis of that uncertainty. I would note, however, that you yourself have implied below in your most recent post that you think Jack is probably town, which diminishes this risk.

Now, having discussed the above, it's obvious that a lynch of Jack now avoids all three risks.
BUT there are countervailing (and, I think, overwhelming) risks in lynching today:
1) Chance is no-better-than-random of hitting scum
2) Because the lynch is playstyle not alignment, there is no information value
3) Scum get to NK freely
4) Opportunity cost of foregoing a lynch with a higher likelihood of hitting scum

In short:

None of the risks inherent in Jack surviving are insurmountable (and the only serious one, you yourself logically think is not as likely as it might be). In contrast, there are unavoidable costs and serious risks in lynching Jack today.

Except you are killing two birds with one stone, it's not something that happens seperately from the above, it happens alongside it, thus you are playing towards your win condition AND trying to force them to actually play the game in the future.

See above. It ends up simply being about future games, which should not be a relevant consideration in this game.

[vollkan]

Still doing my catchup (this isn't it), but I just saw this.

Let me put in bold for you: I can't read Jack

That's OK, because Jack is town.

If your still playing catchup, how do you know that Then? Because your scum and know who is town?

Why do you think Antihero made that post?

[vollkan]

*facepalms*

[vollkan]

Okay, I've had a look through silver's recent posting history in other games, and I can't find any precedent for what he is doing. So, I think it's safe to say that he has a post restriction.

If anyone sees (or even thinks it's possible) that someone is under a very subtle post restriction please point it out to me. I suck at noticing these things.

*points it out to you*

[vollkan]

Vote: silverbullet999

[vollkan]

*wonders*
*gives you all powers to read his mind*
"What is a post restriction?"
*Is what you read from my mind*

A post restriction is where the mod imposes some restrictions or weird conditions on your ability to post. You appear have a post restriction because your posts are all in the format of actions with * * surrounding them.

Unvote, Silverbullet

@Silverbullet: Do you, or do you not have a post restriction? Your 1005 and 1006 fall out of it completely, so I am confused.

*is confused at Silverbullet*

Vote Silverbullet

Why do you not believe his tracker claim?

[vollkan]

Then why have you been posting in that stupid "*action*" format?

[vollkan]

[vollkan]

I need to ask a n00b question. Everyone keeps referring to meta? Can I have some clarification on what that is?

As far as voting goes Im going to

vote Jack

as this whole joking around with the scumbuddies thing really is now beyond the point of joking around now. It's now like they are trying to hammer home 'we are scum lol' kind of routine, which actually makes you think well if there joking about it there not, but they quite possibly are? Would that be WIFOM? At the very least deliberately acting anti-town doesn't help the town with it's investigations into rooting out scum, unless of course thats what your trying to do? I think I need to keep a watchful eye on this situation going forward.

Jack doesn't do anything though. Sure he sided with Espy, but he throws so little of anything around how does that make him scum? I know I voted him in the last round but there are others such as previously mentioned CD and then there's you a2 seems to me your indecisiveness is just a way of hedging your bets on who town will follow onto the Wagon and you'll be hopping right on. I think you need a closer looking at in the coming posts.

I need to understand Volkans reasoning on you a bit better, but it hard to concentrate on a train. I think later...

This really sounds like espy's scumbuddy.

vote:snakeplissken

Mafia in mendo had town tracker and scum watcher, the scum watcher was real carefree about claiming early too. I'm betting his early breadcrumb was him being told pregame that it would be a good fakeclaim but that he should breadcrumb it.

I gave that first quote +2 originally just because it's basis for attacking you made no sense; but in light of the Espy flip it warrants an additional

Snake+3

for the fact that it wasn't just a crap argument but a crap argument that there is now a very clear scum motivation for (since Espy, whom he was tying Jack to, actually flipped scum). As a corollary to that,

Jack-1

: groupscum normally don't try and link their buddies together, so this makes Jack less likely to be scum.

Also gut, in appreciation of vollkans new avatar.

[vollkan]

First off, score update:

Player	Score
SilverBullet999 NicolBolas	50
Jack	49
Evilpacman Vezokpiraka	57
curiouskarmadog	50
LynchMePls Stef	50
Antihero Horrordude	50
a2rudeboy	55
Pomegranate	50
SnakePlissken	55
PranaDevil	60

Now, because my points at the moment are largely behavioural, they haven't yet taken the Silver/Snake issue into account. I'm going to give

Snake+5

for this and

Vote: Snake

, and explain why now: First, as a matter of game design, with the power roles we have already seen I find it very hard to believe that there would be both a town watcher and tracker. Flowing from that, the odds of one of them being scum are significantly elevated. The score chart above speaks for itself in indicating that Snake's play has been scummier (even allowing for the fact that he has posted more, and more substance, than Silver). Beyond that, as I think may have been mentioned already, Snake's early crumbing was extremely casual; pro-town power roles usually value their roles highly, so his failure to do so again makes it more likely that he is scum.

Nero Cain was pretty townish. Let's revisit that wagon:

Nero Cain(10)

– Jack, SnakePlissken,

singersigner

, Pomegranate,

DemonHybrid

, horrordude0215, vollkan,

Espeonage

, vezokpiraka,

CooLDoG

Let's see that Cooldog wagon too.

CooLDoG

(8) – LynchMePls, horrordude0215, Jack, vollkan, vezokpiraka,

DemonHybrid

, SnakePlissken. Pomegranate

While I'm doing VC analysis, let's look at a the Espy wagon too.

Espeonage

(7) – vollkan,

DemonHybrid

, horrordude0215,

CooLDoG

, a2rudeboy, Pomegranate, curiouskarmadog

Yeah, I'm /in for a Pom lynch today.

VOTE: Pomegranate

Even for VC analysis, which always strikes me as nonsense, the above makes no sense. Why is Pom scum?

[vollkan]

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with you saying "the score chart speaks for itself--> snake is scummier" when you voted silver a couple pages ago.

That was because of two facts combined:
1) Silver apparently having a post restriction; and
2) Your early game conduct and insta-vote for Silver indicating that you had reason to think that post restriction = scum

[vollkan]

Pom can respond to your case.

@vollkan: Why did you vote for snake when he doesn't have the highest score on your chart?

Usually my choice between two top suspects comes down to either who I am less certain about or policy considerations. Here, though, there is a good reason for favouring Snake: he appears to be a mafia watcher, which is a confirmed (from what the mod said) additional risk over and above him simply being scum

[vollkan]

What I'm not getting is why your all so sure that I'm a scum watcher and silver isn't a scum tracker? Does make me wonder what your real motivations are here?

I've already explained this:

First, as a matter of game design, with the power roles we have already seen I find it very hard to believe that there would be both a town watcher and tracker. Flowing from that, the odds of one of them being scum are significantly elevated. The score chart above speaks for itself in indicating that Snake's play has been scummier (even allowing for the fact that he has posted more, and more substance, than Silver). Beyond that, as I think may have been mentioned already, Snake's early crumbing was extremely casual; pro-town power roles usually value their roles highly, so his failure to do so again makes it more likely that he is scum.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, I'm uncomfortable with you saying the chart speaks for itself, and that Snake has been scummier than Silver... when you only gave Snake those five points in that post.

That's not true. The chart is the points as they stood prior to me giving Snake an additional 5. The reason I did it that way was to make it clear that Snake's play was scummier than Silver's to begin with and that this becomes much more significant when I added the later five points concerning his claim and crumbing.

Also, you admitted in that very post that your chart is now meaningless because everything has been largely behavioural. So what use is it currently if that's the case anyway? More to the point, should you not be ignoring anything that's behavioural if it doesn't mean anything?

I think you've misunderstood me. I award points as I am playing the game for particular behaviours that I consider scummy. The problem with this is that it means that my system is unable to deal with non-behavioural factors that make people more likely to be scum (eg. where you have two players who have claimed roles that are unlikely to both be town). Just like the -1 point for Jack was based on something not related to his play, it's something that I have to insert into the system so that it better tracks my suspicions.

In short, my system is normally simply a means of measuring the scumtels that a person commits. However, through adding points where appropriate for non-behavioural matters, I can make it more akin to a "probability-of-being-scum measurer"

[vollkan]

I now wonder if I should or should not make his identity public.

You're best placed to make that judgment. Generally, there's no reason to explicitly announce a failed vig target (ie. it doesn't normally have any meaningful bearing on the target's alignment), but equally I can't see any obvious risks.

Also: do you guys want me to produce a wall commenting into detail the first 43 pages of game? I am leaning towards doing it, but you gotta give me a little more time. It's a long game.

I do walls when I replace because I find them helpful, so if that's what you lean to then go ahead.

So can we lynch a2rudeboy today?

Not unless somebody dayvigs PD first.

Vote: PranaDevil

pacman, who doesn't have town like suspicions of people.

Pacman has VI-like suspicions of people

[vollkan]

vollk do you think that bit yesterday where a2rude tried to get prana to join my wagon is evidence of them being scumbuddies? A little buddy directing?

I hadn't noticed it before. Drawing my attention to it, the post is weird (assuming this is the post in question):

@Pom- And who are we lynching today? Pacman's vote puts Jack back at l-2, if PD were to switch his vote back to where it's been the majority of the game, that would be l-1, and I'm sure someone around here would be willing to hammer. As far as I'm concerned, Jack is the scummiest slot in the game right now, for reasons I've previously mentioned. Why, if Jack could be a future lynch is he not today's lynch?

The middle sentence is kind of out of place with the rest of it. That said, I can see it as null-a2 trying to drive up your lynch by pointing out to Pom that it was viable vote wise. So I think it's a nulltell.

Just a quick post.
Normally I wouldn't, cuz I'd risk outting a clear; but the situation here is not normal, so I want to reveal the identity of the target and I will explain why.

I shot a2rudeboy, because I thought he was the second scummiest player after prana and that if he flipped scum, then prana was very likely to be scum as well.

The reason why I am revealing this is simple: I find it hard to believe that a pro-town protective role would have felt like saving a2rudeboy last night. If I were a protective role, I would have a list of 3 or 4 not at all scummy or at least less scummy players I'd save. Anyway

please, if there is a doc and doc was on a2rudeboy, DON'T CLAIM

But let's think of the other options: is a2rudeboy nk-immune? And if he is, wouldn't it be too optimistic assuming that he is town-aligned? Town has already a lot of pr's... and anyway, if he were a town-aligned nk-immune role, then he could not be killed by scum, so why not claim before?
And if he isn't, how about a mafia-doctor?

I feel this is stuff we can work on, so you guys think about it while I fill a wall with my words.

The other possibility is that you were roleblocked, which would have nothing to do with a2's alignment. There's too much uncertainty involved in this.

Vollkan and LMP buddying up again, no shock there. Also no shock that there's nothing to back up their votes once more.

We made our cases on you yesterday. You may not agree with us, but saying we have nothing to back us up is just ridiculous.

3) rude is somewhat "in the middle" and would have a double effect, meaning that if he flipped scum, then I would have felt even more sure about Jack's townness and at the same time prana's scumminess would have become even more evident.

I may be misunderstanding you (I note you said English isn't your first language), but are you saying that you think PD is scummier than a2, but you want to lynch a2 because you think his lynch has more information value?

Does vollkan always insult anybody that builds a case on him?

My three suspicions so far: vollkan, and two people whose lynch vollkan wasn't against at some point. How do I become the village idiot there?

vote: vollkan

[vollkan]

LMP I've already stated isn't worth me continuing discussion with, the arguments are becoming circular and are going to distract from any scum hunting the town could do.

Rather than rolling off rhetoric, could you give an example of LMP's attacks on you becoming circular?

PD+1

contingent on provision of an example

LMP I'm worrying I may be feeling is scum solely because of his interaction with me, and the severe lack of anything outside of his tunnel.

More rhetoric.

"Tunnelling" is only truly scummy where it results in the application of inconsistent standards and can be scummy, depending on player and context, where it results in confirmation bias (ie. newb-town has a tendency to latch on to people they suspect).

The fact that LMP has been consistently attacking you does not make him a "tunneler"

More or less. I had the feeling that both players are scummy: I wouldn't say that a2rude is less scummy than prana, but I had the feeling that the other players seem more receptive of prana's scumminess. Therefore I decided to shoot a2rude. Because I held both for scummy, and a2rude flipping scum would have had more information value.

Okay, that's reasonable.

mafia doctor is also possible. vollkan said it was "too uncertain" or something but I think it is a solid odds increase in favor of a2rude being scum. Simply calculate the % of games with a roleblocker vs those with a role that makes a2rude definite scum.

I may be wrong, but I'd be highly surprised if the proportion of games with Roleblocker and/or Roleblocker-like roles (eg jailkeeper) was lower than that with roles that would make a2 confirmed scum (eg mafia doctor)

[vollkan]

prana. Vote a2rudeboy.

I don't like a prana lynch, he's putting too much effort into the game compared to a2.

Effort is a nulltell.

I will put PD at L-2 because he's scum anyway.

Putting too much effort into a game isn't usually a town tell, especially if it's an unprecedented amount of effort.

unvote, vote: PranaDevil

Why is PD scum?

Volltron: there was no bw on silver, so it is correct to state that you actually started the events that lead to his claim and to his death. Why
shouldn't Icall you a fisher?

I accept that it was because of me that he claimed. I don't think I acted unreasonably, though:
- Jack's D1 play strongly suggested that the presence of a post restriction would indicate scum; and he specifically asked anybody who spotted one to point it out
- Silver appeared to have a post-restriction
- Accordingly, I pointed it to Jack

"Fisher" has negative connotations, and it implies that a person is chasing power roles for no good reason. While the consequences of my pointing out Silver's PR to Jack were bad, my motivations weren't.

[vollkan]

I will put PD at L-2 because he's scum anyway.

Putting too much effort into a game isn't usually a town tell, especially if it's an unprecedented amount of effort.

unvote, vote: PranaDevil

Why is PD scum?

Looking through PD's iso, I noticed that he refused to vote for Espeonage the entire day and was quite integral in getting him NOT lynched like he should have been. He did vote ESP only after the wagon had let off steam. On that same day, he was very hypocritical, jumping on the neighbor thing asking for claims when he had got on jack about rolefishing slightly before that.

I think it's safe to say PD is scum just based on his D1 associations with Espeonage. If PD flips scum, my scumread on jack will be moot.

This is interesting.

Background summary of the history of your suspicions:
ISO1-7: You make your case against me
ISO8: You unvote me until "people are more willing to listen" and vote Jack
ISO10: You say I am still scum, but vote PD switch to PD for the reasons you just quoted
ISO11: LMP is town
ISO13: Unexplained vote for Snake (whom you hadn't mentioned up to this point)

This is where things become odd-
ISO16: "My three suspicions so far: vollkan, and two people whose lynch vollkan wasn't against at some point." Two points:

1)The first , and most notable, thing that stands out about this is that your suspicion of PD has vanished (obviously, PD couldn't be one of those "two people", because I've been consistently in favour of PD's lynch).
2) In your view, who are those two people?

And, of course, then we hit ISO17: "I will put PD at L-2 because he's scum anyway." So, you didn't think PD was scum in ISO16, but he is now?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, the double negative in my post is confusing you.

Those two people are jack and PD and my point was that you have supported voting for them so why do I become stupid when I voted for them? Because it would be contradictory of you to tell me I'm VI for voting them, I must be VI for voting you and "You're an idiot" is an extremely scummy defense.

So you and PD are a scum team. A2 and LMP are town. Jack's alignment will come if I see either PD's or a2's flip. And that's everybody I can think of without looking at the OP.

This makes absolutely no sense.

For starters, I haven't ever supported Jack's lynch, so your argument on him fails right there. As for PD, I haven't criticised your reasons for voting him (FWIW, I think they are weak, but they are at least directed at rational reasons for suspicion, rather than playstyle, so I'm not going to complain ). And my defence against you was not simply "You're an idiot"; I went through in detail why your case was lousy (ie. a playstyle attack)

Still I have a question to everyone. Why are we assuming that only two players are scum? This was a 18 player game, 2 scum died, I see no reason to assume they were just 4. if they were 5, then we would be on a near-mylo situation (I call near-mylo any situation in which mylo's risks are mitigated by the presence of a living vig).

A game with a 13:5 (town:scum) setup has 27.78% scum. The standard normal game has a 9:3 setup, which is 25% scum. If the setup was 14:4, then there'd be 22.2% scum. Since this game appears power-role heavy, it follows that it's even more likely to have a higher proportion of scum than a normal game. Thus, it follows that it is more likely MYLO (5:3) than not (6:2).

So, you've made a good point

That said, I don't think No Lynch is a good idea in the circumstances, even though it is most likely MYLO. Even if we No Lynch, there is still a risk of insta-loss (if both the scumkill and vigkill hit town). Ie:
A) If Lew is scum, then No Lynch basically equals a loss
B) If Lew is town, then No Lynch still carries a risk of loss. The only way to eliminate that risk would be for Lew not to kill but, in that case, there is a high likelihood that, come tomorrow, our situation is exactly the same as now minus Lew, which has negligible information-advantage.

my problem is, however, that it seems really really evident that silver was not *shaking head* out of the fear that revealing post-restriction related information was forbidden. Also note that Jack is constantly referring to his own insider info, but he did not enter in any details, probably for the very same reason. So how come you guys did not realise that before bw'ing him?

I can't see how any of what you've said amounts to fishing. You seem to be assuming that, despite the three points I raised in my previous post (which, in sum, said "Silver is very likely scum"), I should have hesitated on the purely speculative basis that "He might be a power role".

[vollkan]

since we lynched mafia, I decided not to shoot, according to what discussed in post 1133 and 1135.

I don't understand this.

1133 was my post and I didn’t say anything of the sort. The first part of my post relevant to setup discussion just basically said that 5:3 is more likely than 6:2, and the second explained why NL was a bad idea yesterday. Neither of which justifies you not killing.

1135 was yours, and you said:

I agree. The whole analysis is very much correct. Anyway, I am not suggesting nl. I only think that the reactions of some players to this problem may be extremely interesting. For instance, if I were town and I were at L-1 on mylo, I would be posting a lot more content and a lot more protests and complaints than prana is doing... wouldn't you?

Moreover: if the absolute majority of town (4) asks me to nokill, I will not shoot. You guys decide.
Just an observation, tho. Assume we are on mylo: if we mislynch and I nk, tomorrow it is 6 with 3 scum, which means gameover.
Wouldn't it be better to say that I will nk if and only if we lynch scum? Cuz if we mislynch, I may be the only chance for us to have a tomorrow...

The first paragraph doesn't seem relevant to this. And in the second, you actually say "Wouldn't it be better to say that I will nk if and only if we lynch scum?". Though, in the following sentence you said "Cuz if we mislynch, I may be the only chance for us to have a tomorrow...", so I assume you meant "if and only if we

don't

lynch scum" (which would be consistent with what you are now saying).

That still doesn’t make any sense, though:
Yesterday, it was most likely 5:3, improved to 5:2 by PD's lynch. If you factor in scum's NK, that makes 4:2 (MYLO), which is what we are probably in now. That means you had three options last night:

• Kill (and hit scum): making it 4:1 now
  
• Kill (and hit town): making it 3:2 (LYLO) now
  
• No kill: making it 4:2 (MYLO) now

In the MYLO created by not killing (ie. now), we have two only two avenues:

A) No lynch; or
B) Lynch scum

(ie. we can't mislynch)

Now, the theoretical rationale for A) (the default option to take in MYLO), is that a lynch the following day with access to the information that comes from the additional flip (caused by scum's NK on the night after No Lynching) is better than a lynch without that flip. However, a vig kill the night before the NL, which actually has a prospect of hitting scum (unlike a scum NK the night after) is obviously of much greater value than the scum kill (both because it can actually hit scum and, to a lesser extent, because any information-hunting is town-driven rather than an incidental consequence of a scum-kill).

And, in respect of B), needing to lynch scum is absolutely no different to the situation we'd be stuck in LYLO - except that an additional flip would have given us more information

In short, I can't see any motivation for not NKing last night. There is a scum motivation for your decision, though:

If lew is scum, his scumteam has two kills at his disposal. Now, last night it was 5;2. If scum used both NKs on town, they could have brought that down to 3:2 (LYLO). However, that would obviously mean that, come today, Lew would have been exposed to possible suspicion for the death of another townie. In short, there would have been a risk for scum in making two kills. At the same time, there was a very strong scum motivation for scum to only use one kill: it would put us into what is actually a LYLO situation right now (4:2 with two scum kills) and also would also carry the prospect that, if today we didn’t factor in this risk (eg by operating on the assumption that lew is town), we might actually No Lynch today (thinking it was MYLO when it is actually LYLO) and, thus, lose.

[vollkan]

I think it might be best if we mass claim. Thoughts?

Agreed.

It's the proper play in LYLO and so, given that we are potentially in LYLO at the moment, it's probably the right play here as well.

[vollkan]

very quickly from the middle of a conference (I already apologised for that, I will post more tomorrow): I re-read my quick post from yesterday, and yeah, post 1133 is quite misquoted there; anyway in my post 1135 (an answer to voll 1133), I explained that I would have shot if we myslynched, in order to try and avoid a likely defeat given by a possible 3 vs 3 situation; otherwise I would not have shot.
There was no negative reaction to that, and I acted accordingly.

Why did you think that you should only have shot if we mislynched?

If you want me to claim me first, u better answer in the next 60 minutes; after that I will be V/LA for the next 24 hours.

Please claim now, given that Pacman has jumped the gun.

I'll claim after you.

[vollkan]

cuz if we were on mylo and mislynched, it would have been town auto-loss: from 5vs3 d4 to 3vs3 d5, unless I shot and killed scum. Is my post 1135 so unclear?

But PD was lynched D4, so it obviously had gone to 5:2. Thus, you could safely kill. What the situation would have been if we'd mislynched was irrelevant. I still can't see why you thought that, if we lynched scum, it was better that you no kill.

Anyway:

I am a Town Neighbour Jailkeeper with LynchMePls.

Our history of actions:
N1: LMP JKed me.*
N2: LMP JKed me.*
N3: LMP JKed lewarcher*
N4: LMP JKed pacman***

Nights 1 - 3 were on a protective basis

Night 4 was in the hope of catching scum.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

Our Neighbourhood is the Alcatraz Neighbourhood

And the asterisks in my previous post are a typo left over from when I first typed out the history I had the explanations for each kill at the bottom:
ie.
LMP JKed me*
LMP JKed me*
LMP JKed Lewarcher*
LMP JKed pacman***


(* protective basis)
(*** scumhunting basis)

But then I decided just to simplify it with the two sentences at the end of my post.

[vollkan]

so vollkan, you guys did you jail keeping every night...and every night there was a kill...poor luck?

In part; also a consequence of the nature of the role. See below for an illustration of this, but the reasoning that goes into using JK is different from that in most other power roles: you can't protect somebody without also blocking them (making it bad for power roles) and you can't roleblock somebody without protecting them (making it bad for suspects in a game that is killing role heavy)

who made the decisions between the two of you?

Every decision was joint; we can't use the power without mutual agreement in our QT.

For N1, I was targeted on the basis that LMP considered my play being pro-town and there was no risk of it otherwise blocking a power role (since LMP was using my power anyway)

Ditto for N2: there wasn't anyone I wanted to protect in respect of whom there wouldn't also be a risk of blockage; and there wasn't anyone I wanted to block whom there wouldn't also be a risk of protecting.

N3: this is the only one so far that we have disagreed on. I wanted to target CKD since, because you are one-shot, there was no risk of it blocking a pro-town kill, but there was a chance of protecting you (whom I didn't suspect) from scum. LMP opposed this on the basis that he suspected you. I argued that you possibly being scum didn't invalidate my point: if you were scum, then we'd have a shot at blocking you anyway. We eventually compromised on LMP's suggestion that we protect lewarcher, on the basis that we considered lew a likely scum target and that outweighed the loss of his power for a night (I also made the point that the fact that lew was new to the game made his vig less valuable)

N4: Last night, LMP agreed to my suggestion to target Pacman. My reasoning was I thought lew was most likely town and would almost certainly target a2. So, the best way to use the power was to try and RB one of Pacman, CKD or Jack, since using it on one of those three couldn't possibly block lew. Out of those three, Pacman was obviously the superior choice, because he has been much scummier than the other two.

[vollkan]

LMP and vollkan...not only does your role stop someone from killing, but it also protects someone from a kill....after 4 nights, you have yet to stop a kill..one would think that you have done something by now...

I think that's simplistic.

N1 and N2, I was chosen on the conservative rationale that I was a good protection choice without any risk of being roleblocked. However, the kills on both those nights ended up being on claimed power roles, which I wasn't. When I was arguing for protecting you on N3 I actually made the point that I didn't think it was likely that LMP or I would be targeted, since neither of us had claimed. And I've already explained our thinking N4.

thoughts on suspicion of the other?

We've been in agreement on a lot, and I haven't seen any scumminess from him. Also, and I know there is some wifom uncertainty in this, I find it very hard to believe that scum would have kept me alive knowing that I was a power role.

vollkan and LMp are both scum and lying

I agree

Because?

[vollkan]

Because you are scum and if the only way for you to be scum is for LMP to be scum by association, so be it. I have already explained why you are scum.

1) Your case against me is a playstyle attack;
2) Why do you say that LMP and I both have to be scum?

[vollkan]

because LMP would say something if you weren't together on it.

What do you mean?

Wow, evilpacman is either stupid or scum. I'm not sure which yet.

There's a third possibility. It's the correct one and it's the one you're missing.

That you're an idiot AND you're scum?

[vollkan]

If you went around telling people what actions LMP did when he didn't do them, LMP would naturally say something if he was pro-town.

But LMP did do the actions that I said he did...

Ok that is another possibility but it's also the incorrect one. We are now at four possibilities and the three you've figured out are all wrong. Care to go again?

You're an idiot third-party role? You have a post restriction that requires you not to use logic?

[vollkan]

This:

I'm going to start looking for a replacement for rudeboy unless he tells me otherwise. He picked up his prod but never posted.

Just a reminder that a2rudeboy told me during the previous night phase that he did not want to replace out. Obviously if he doesn't post soon however, I'll start looking.

Refutes this:
[quote="lewarcher"
@Mod: sidenote for future reference (I am a kick in the balls, sorry): it is not a good idea to let a day become night and then day again with an inactive player. Now we can easily assume that a2rudeboy & pacman are not scumbuddies, as one was jailed and the other was inactive. This is an information we can use, but the way we got it is not fair.
[/quote]

CKD asked me if I agree on the fact that jack's posts about insider-info on post-restr. are the reason why he was lynched.
My answer in German would be jain, so "a little yes and a little no", because there is a high chance that jack was also lynched to make me (us?) become even more convinced that a2rudeboy is in fact scum. I am being devoured by doubts right now.

How does jack's flip make it more likely that a2 is scum?

[vollkan]

Ugh...quote tag fail

This:

I'm going to start looking for a replacement for rudeboy unless he tells me otherwise. He picked up his prod but never posted.

Just a reminder that a2rudeboy told me during the previous night phase that he did not want to replace out. Obviously if he doesn't post soon however, I'll start looking.

Refutes this:

@Mod: sidenote for future reference (I am a kick in the balls, sorry): it is not a good idea to let a day become night and then day again with an inactive player. Now we can easily assume that a2rudeboy & pacman are not scumbuddies, as one was jailed and the other was inactive. This is an information we can use, but the way we got it is not fair.

CKD asked me if I agree on the fact that jack's posts about insider-info on post-restr. are the reason why he was lynched.
My answer in German would be jain, so "a little yes and a little no", because there is a high chance that jack was also lynched to make me (us?) become even more convinced that a2rudeboy is in fact scum. I am being devoured by doubts right now.

How does jack's flip make it more likely that a2 is scum?

[vollkan]

it does not, again sorry if I did not explain myself. I mean that since Jack has been attacking a2rudeboy yesterday, this could be an attempt at framing a2rudeboy.

This sort of thinking, either way, just gets tangled in wifom. Jack's flip doesn't, and shouldn't, alter my opinion of a2.

and who here is played with vollkan before?

I think you're the only one

[vollkan]

(shit, i thought i had posted this up last night)

Claim: VT.

We've already discussed how it's unlikely there are many vanilla roles in this game. I simply don't think there are two left. And the claim i least believe is..

vote:evilpacman

Why do you think there cannot be two vanilla?

Also, why do we think there's two mafia left instead of one? Just the number of power-heavy town roles?

I've already explained this:

A game with a 13:5 (town:scum) setup has 27.78% scum. The standard normal game has a 9:3 setup, which is 25% scum. If the setup was 14:4, then there'd be 22.2% scum. Since this game appears power-role heavy, it follows that it's even more likely to have a higher proportion of scum than a normal game. Thus, it follows that it is more likely MYLO (5:3) than not (6:2).

[vollkan]

Volkan: What I was saying, was that given the earlier discussion that was had regarding originalmod's attempting to put strictly VT in the game, and the fact we've already lynched a couple, I would be doubtful that there is more than one vt (myself) left in the game. If pacman has a neighborhood alignment or something else to distinguish him from this, now would be the time to mention it. Otherwise, my vote is staying there. Also, it goes without saying i think that vezok was a pretty anti-town slot.

The game is MYLO and you are willing to lynch somebody based primarily on what, at best, is an educated guess as to the setup?

I'll also point out that up until now you haven't said a single thing alignment wise against either Vezok or pacmna (and even now you are using the word "anti-town" - do you mean that you think vezok/pacman is scummy or not?).

[vollkan]

Who is a better vote? I'm not sure.
I don't think any of the neighbors (CKD, Lewarcher replacing Pom) are scummy spots as I've already said.
I believed LMP and Volkan's claim.
Pac apparaently can't be scum because of the mentioned reasons.
I'm town.

So, that would lead, I guess to LMP and Volkan. I haven't got anything less than from major town from volkan, but looking at his play style, it seems even if he was scum, he would be hard to catch in a slip up. I've had my doubts about LMP for parts of the game, a lot of it based on his overenthusiastic wish to get me lynched.

This doesn't make any sense.

You say you don't think any of the neighbours are scum, and you say you believe me and LMP's claim, but yet you go on to say that we are scum by elimination. On what basis can you eliminate CKD and lewarcher from suspicion based, it seems, purely on their claims, but yet also keep myself and LMP as suspects?

[vollkan]

I'm trying to say, I have no suspects. And am really unsure what to do at this point in the game.
I believe that none of the neighbors are scum more than I believe your guys' claim So if i'm being pressured to scumhunt and put down a vote, it will end up being one of you two.

That's a reasonable position, insofar as everybody can justifiably vote anybody else over themselves.

However, you still haven't answered the key point from my question in the previous post: why do their claims clear them, but not ours? What's the point of distinction?

If I ask you why you believe LMP and I are more likely to be scum, it's just begging the question to say "I believe that CKD and lewarcher are more likely to be town".

[vollkan]

I was trying to elaborate on how I've come to this position and why I do not have vote down. I haven't completely eliminated anyone, just saying (again) I believed all the neighbors to be town, and CKD / Lewarcher's claims have already been backed in the thread numerous times.

You guys are more likely to be scum, because your claim is dependent on each other...at this point the scum possibilities as far as i see are CKD and Lewarcher (highly unlikely) a combination of one of ckd / lewarcher and one of volkan / LMP (possible, but i still dont think if there are 5 scum in this game, they need the added kill) or Volk / LMP. I see LMP as the scummiest player so far, so this is the avenue i have to follow, yes?

vote: LMP

If you see LMP as scummiest, then yes. But I have looked over your ISO briefly and I can't find anywhere where you express suspicion of LMP. And the point that you say in your previous post "a lot of it based on his overenthusiastic wish to get me lynched" would seem to have applied equally to Jack who, if anything, was much more enthusiastic than LMP.

[vollkan]

Anyone who thinks I'm scum after how hard I pushed PD to the front of the lynch line is stupid.

Pure WIFOM

+2 LMP

And answer CKD.

[vollkan]

@Vollkan: Would you lynch CKD? Why or why not.

No.

I see no scumminess in his play. Your case against him is mostly gut and a conspiracy about SS.

you guys have had 4 NIGHTS and not once have you stopped a kill....what really are the chances?

Very good, if you take a closer look rather than simply saying "Four nights + no kill = suspect"

I've already explained this, but I'll elaborate:

N1 and N2, I was chosen on the conservative rationale that I was a good protection choice without any risk of being roleblocked. However, the kills on both those nights ended up being on claimed power roles, which I wasn't. When I was arguing for protecting you on N3 I actually made the point that I didn't think it was likely that LMP or I would be targeted, since neither of us had claimed. And I've already explained our thinking N4.

N1 and N2 it was unlikely that we would do anything, and that was partly the point. If scum did try to kill me, I'd be saved, but otherwise there was no risk of interfering in anything.

N3 we chose lew and we've explained our reasoning for doing so.

N4 we basically had to pick from Pacmnan, yourself or Jack. Unless you're suggesting that we would have been more useful if we JKed

you

, I can't see what you think we should have done.

Ok, something just occured to me. We know we blocked Lew two nights ago, and that is why his kill didn't go through. And we know that he chose not to kill last night. Now let me ask you this, what are the odds that scum with a kill would have chosen not to use it, just for the wifom of it? Does anyone else out there think this makes lew more likely to be town than scum? Why/why not?

As I said:

If lew is scum, his scumteam has two kills at his disposal. Now, last night it was 5;2. If scum used both NKs on town, they could have brought that down to 3:2 (LYLO). However, that would obviously mean that, come today, Lew would have been exposed to possible suspicion for the death of another townie. In short, there would have been a risk for scum in making two kills. At the same time, there was a very strong scum motivation for scum to only use one kill: it would put us into what is actually a LYLO situation right now (4:2 with two scum kills) and also would also carry the prospect that, if today we didn’t factor in this risk (eg by operating on the assumption that lew is town), we might actually No Lynch today (thinking it was MYLO when it is actually LYLO) and, thus, lose.

It's not about WIFOM.

If Lew is scum, a 4:2 LYLO is not appreciably different from a 3:2 LYLO, except that the former has less risk of him getting suspected. This is doubly so if a2 is lew's partner, since that would mean that he'd have to justify vigging somebody other than a2. Anyway, even after a scumlynch at 4:2, it goes to 4:1, then scum's NK makes it 3:1 or, if lew is the surviving scum (which becomes more likely if he doesn't NK since he avoids suspicion and being lynched at 4:2), it goes to 2:1.

Conversely, as I said in that same post, there is no town reason not to NK. Accordingly, I think it does make him more likely to be scum.

@Vollkan: Can I have a link to your two most recent scum games and your two most recent town games?

My wiki has an up-to-date list of all my games

But otherwise, some of my most recent:

Town:

Alternative Vote Mafia Vanilla. Survived until 3:1 LYLO. This game had preferential voting, and all three other players gave me their first preference, causing me to be lynched and us losing the game.
Popularity Mafia: Vanilla. Survived until 3:2 LYLO, whereupon one of the other townies voted the third, causing scum to hammer and win.
/in-vitational 8. Weak Doctor. I replaced in, on that same day pushed the lynch of scum, who then claimed Doctor so I countered, causing me to be NKed (so my involvement in the game was very short). Town ultimately lost.
Disgaea Mafia. Vanilla. Replaced in D1. Nightkilled N1. Scum won.

Scum:

Prison mafia. Scum. Survived until 4:3 LYLO; however, the game was abandoned by player agreeement because the mod vanished and a heap of players either weren't posting or needed replacement
Scummies Invitational Scum. Vigged Night 2. Town won (very easily; it was a 15-player game and the game ended with 8 still left alive).

@Vollkan: In our QT you said something to the effect of (paraphrasing and not quoting the QT, for the record) "Even if Lew and a2 are scum buddies, Lew must shoot a2, because if he doesn't, he'll be caught by town for the backtrack". How do you feel about this given lew's no-shoot action?

I didn't consider the possibility of him no shooting in our QT discussion on it. I assumed he'd do it as town, and my frame of mind was "If he is scum, he can't shoot anybody else, so he has to kill a2", which didn't contemplate the prospect of a no kill.

[vollkan]

it is interesting, vollkan. I had shot a2 back on n3. I had no idea why it didn't work, you let me speculate about town/maf docs roleblockers for 6 pages, and finally it turns out that I was jailed by you. And now you contemplate the option of us being scumpartners?

I didn't say I thought it was likely that you were scum with him, but it was necessary to raise it in the context of my previous post addressing the question "Why might Lew not kill as scum?"

I did not shoot because I did not want to put town on 3:2 lylo. Already explained that.

And I've already proven that that makes no sense.

To simplify my argument to its bare bones:

In 4:2 MYLO we have two options: No Lynch or Lynch Scum. The former gives scum a free kill and puts us in LYLO. The latter, having to lynch scum, is indistinguishable from what we'd have to do in LYLO - except that because you didn't kill we are deprived of one flip that we otherwise would have in LYLO.

My qualm at this stage is basically whether I think you are a smart enough player to realise the above (and possibly also the fact that No LYnch really isn't an option for us, given the possbiility of you being scum), or whether you really would just play simplistically and think "LYLO is bad. Therefore I won't kill".

one last bit...vollkan is an awesome player...as scum, he has bested me 2-3 times...I just cant read him....if I were mafia (and I have seen this occured 1 maybe two times) I would have offed vollkan a long time ago....however he is still around...(thus the has anyone played with vollkan before" question.)..again doesnt mean jack in this game because no one is admitting to it.

Three points:
1) Look at the list of recent games above and the ones on my wiki (I list the night/day I died for most of them). It's not at all anomalous for me to survive.
2) As you say, nobody here barring yourself has played with me before
3) There has been a multitude of claimed power roles this game. Scum typically will kill for roles rather than players.

If there is a night that makes one of us (vollkan and me) more likely to be scum, it is that night. The fact that we JK'ed a vig and the scum killed the tracker instead, is pretty bad. I'd think they'd fear a vig much more than a tracker, so the tracker dying instead is curious. Does anyone disagree with this?

I'd normally agree, but then we have to explain the kill of Jack last night. There was no suggestion that Jack had a power of any sort, making him an even less likely death than silver. So I'm not sure what is going on.

CKD- I was pushing a Jack lynch hardcore from day one, even after most people considered him town. If I was scum, wouldn't I have foregone the lynch when there were better/ easier candidates and just NK?

(Yes, the above is WIFOM, yes, I still think it makes a point)

IIRC, most people didn't consider Jack town D1 or D2; and even after that it was more a lack of suspicion than anything else (ie. nothing glaringly pro-town). Pushing him hardcore has a big advantage for scum in that tunneling allows you to avoid having to juggle competing suspicions. I'm not saying that's what you did, but the point is that there is hardly no scum motivation for pushing Jack continuously during the day.

@ ALL, where do you stand on the A2 lynch.....I want firm stances and reasons!

Points-wise, he isn't my first choice; that would be Pacman but there are two reasons why I am averse to a pacman lynch:
1) The tracker and JK results
2) My points on Pacman come from vezok. I'm pretty sure I knew vezok was a VI when I gave him those points, but I can't be sure, and, in any event, I'm not sure whether I knew vezok was as hopelessly bad as he actually is when I gave those points. In short, my read on pacman is kind of iffy.

lol, fuck!!!

"killed jack"

What?

[vollkan]

Scum to town:

LMP
CKD
Volk (strict middle, can get no read)
Pac/Warcher

You have no read on Vollkan 5 days into the game?

Unvote
Vote: a2rude

This is too easy.

CKD has also said that he can't read me, and I'm fairly often told that I am unreadable. I fail to see what is scummy about a2 saying he can't read me, let alone to the extent that could possibly justify a LYLO/MYLO vote.

LMP+3

[vollkan]

You're going out of your way to sling me those scum points Vollkan. That's fascinating.

The two instances of points I have given you are to scale:
+2 points for WIFOM defence.
+3 points for poor late-game vote.

I can't see why either of those is excessive

Unvote

Why did you unvote here?

Especially given that in your very next post you strategised for a2's lynch.

You really think there is nothing scummy about having a null read on someone on D5? Is there anyone in the game you have a null read on?

A null read really just means that you don't see scumtells or towntells, which is perfectly legitimate. Even disregarding the fact that I am generally hard to read, I'd also point out that so far I don't think anybody has adopted a read of me. If they have, please quote the post (Pacman doesn't count, for reasons that should be obvious)

I have null reads on CKD and lew. Both are at 50 points. Lew would be higher but for the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, I can't decide if he would be the type to analyse the game and kill or to look at things simplistically and No Kill, as he claims (though, understandably, he isn't describing himself as 'simplistic' )

[vollkan]

[vollkan]

@Vollkan, I hear lots of stories about how you are an awesome town player. Can you point me to some original cases you made this game against scum players? Everything I see is you joining other people's cases. As for my unvote, obviously I'm not ready for a lynch to happen, and with this few players in the game, leaving votes out can be very bad.

1) Open my ISO.
2) Press Ctrl+F
3) Type "+"

The vast majority of my cases against people are my own; though, of course, I've also agreed with points made by others.

What I think you are seeing as missing is the absence of any posts structured like this:

Vollkan's Read of X

Quote from X

This is scummy because...

Quote from X

This is scummy because...
etc.

Accordingly, I Vote: X. He is scum

But look through my recent town games and you'll see I don't make those sorts of posts. I use my points system and essentially make my cases on everybody as I go along. And, if you Ctrl+F my ISO for "+", you will see that the vast majority of attacks I have made against people are my own.

If there is a night that makes one of us (vollkan and me) more likely to be scum, it is that night. The fact that we JK'ed a vig and the scum killed the tracker instead, is pretty bad. I'd think they'd fear a vig much more than a tracker, so the tracker dying instead is curious. Does anyone disagree with this?

I'd normally agree, but then we have to explain the kill of Jack last night. There was no suggestion that Jack had a power of any sort, making him an even less likely death than silver. So I'm not sure what is going on.

I do not understand the connection, vollkan. LMP is referring to n3, not n4. So how is your comment an answer to the post you quote?

In a nutshell: that the result of N4 invalidates the argument that LMP is making in respect of N3.

To elaborate:

The argument he is making in respect of N3 is essentially:

On N3, scum chose to kill a tracker over a vig. This is weird because a vig is more dangerous than a tracker. Therefore, this suggests inside knowledge that the vig would be protected.

However, the following can then be said of N4:

On N4, scum chose to kill an unclaimed* over a vig. This is really weird because a vig is way more dangerous than a vanilla. Therefore, this...makes no sense

The reasoning on each of these two evenings is inconsistent. Both N3 and N4 were very strange choices for scum, but LMP is ignoring the fact that N4 was even more strange (ie. tracker over vig isn't manifestly absurd; but unclaimed over vig is) and instead using N3 as an argument for me being scum. If the vig is really that great a threat to scum that it casts suspicion on me, then it should have been targeted on N4.

I stress that the above is not an argument for lew being scum, since everybody knows the wifomic nature of the argument that "because a power role hasn't died, they must be scum". My point is simply that the reasoning that LMP is using is inconsistent.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, please post if you disagree with any of the characterization of what I just posted, since I couldn't quote it directly.

This isn't really a point of disagreement so much as elaboration:

He goes on to say that he still thinks that if it were between JKing one of us and CKD, CKD would be the better protect.

As I said in our QT, the reason for this was that, if CKD was town, he was a likely NK target and thus worth protecting and, if he was scum, then there was obvious benefit in potentially blocking him.

[vollkan]

step 1: from my point of view,

knowing my alignment is town, and from the point fo view of anyone who believes I am town,

n4 can only be explained by the fact that mafia must have believed that Jack was a PR. This is very likely (I ddi believe he was, for instance), because of his posts regarding "inside information" on silver's restrictions.

The above post (not just the underlined, I'll get to that below) just doesn't make sense. Jack hadn't claimed a power role and, while it is still unclear what his "information" was, nobody apart from silver has appeared to have a PR, so the notion that scum would have felt more threatened by Jack than yourself is highly implausible. Your argument rests on two very weak assumptions:
1) That scum would think that having information made it more likely that Jack had another power; and
2) That scum would perceive that power as being more of a threat than your vigilante power. This isn't a theme game so there aren't going to be any crazy/bastard roles, so I'm curious as to what you think scum would have believed Jack's role to be that would have been so dangerous as to justify them choosing the scum over you.

This, again, is why LMP’s argument makes no sense (the reason I am bringing this up again will become clear later on in my post, at the bit where I talk about the "real issue"). In respect of N3 he is saying that the choice of tracker over vig is so inexplicable that it suggests scum had inside knowledge that the vig would be protected. However, on N4 when, on LMP’s argument, scum should have had inside knowledge that the vig was not protected, the scum instead chose to kill Jack, who not only couldn’t possibly be seen as more threatening to scum than a vig but, moreover, was objectively far less threatening than a tracker.

I'm also not sure why you included the underlined. What people think of your alignment is absolutely irrelevant to the argument I am making. My point is simply that, regardless of your alignment, the NK results aren't evidence against LMP or myself.

step 2: killing a claimed tracker was a risky move for scum. In fact, even though the jailers had not claim, scum could not easily assume that town had no protective roles. A doc would have been enough to stop their kill. It was a risk, still they took that risk anyway, and they succeeded.

step 3: wouldn't it be more likely for scum to attack a PR if they knew that this PR was not protected? Knowing that there were jailers, would have made a town doc unlikely to exist, and knowing that jailers were jking vig and not tracker would have meant that scum could safely target the tracker.

Scum routinely kill power roles even if there is the risk of a protective role existing. It’s always a risk, and I don’t think you can seriously argue that it is scummy in this particular game when the risk is taken all the time by scum (and, don’t forget, that they were able to kill power roles on Nights 1 and 2 which, if anything, would have made them less likely to think that there were protective roles).

In short, the real issue is whether the fact that silver was chosen rather than you is scummy (LMP’s argument). But, as I indicated under Step 1, that argument is untenable for its own reasons.

Looking at things from this point of view, the idea that one of the jailers may be scum becomes very attractive. I find LMP townier than vollkan, as I already said. Moreover, according to the report by LMP, which was not contraddicted by vollkan, it was vollkan who:
1) first suggested to jk me;
2) seemed pretty sure jailers would not die.

On point 1):

That’s

absolutely wrong

. Quoting from LMP’s very own report-

Anyways, back to the discussion, Vollkan then says that since CKD has no power (since he was a 1-shot) and the only town killing role (Pom) says she thinks he is town, he is still a good block because scum could still want to kill him. That or, we should continue protecting one of ourselves, although he didn't think we were likely to be targeted for NK since we hadn't claimed.

I then said that I disagreed that we wouldn't be likely NK targets, since we're both pretty pro-town players and scum do go for kills on good pro-town players,

but I pointed out that I thought the scum would most likely shoot Pom (or rather Pom's replacement), and I asked if sacrificing Pom was worth it to let Pom's slot get 1 more kill, or if we should JK the slot and hope to stop the scum kill at the cost of the vig shot.

I then said that if he really thought CKD was the optimal play, I would back him, but I felt like CKD (if town) was very unlikely to be the scum NK target. I then observe that there is a claimed tracker as well, so it seems really unlikely the scum would go for CKD.

Vollkan then says that since Pom's slot is getting a replacement, the opportunity cost of the vig that night (since the replacement would be new to the game and may not be able to make an optimal shot) is lower, and that he would be happy with a lewarcher (at this point lew had been announced as replacing) JK. He goes on to say that he still thinks that if it were between JKing one of us and CKD, CKD would be the better protect.

As is very clearly shown in that report, I advocated either targeting CKD or ourselves (in the first paragraph quoted).

LMP

then raised the suggestion of JKing you. I then agreed. To paraphrase more closely, in the same QT post as where he said the bolded, LMP then said: (paraphrasing)

If you believe CKD is best, then I’ll go along with you. But I think that you, or me, or Pom are better choices

. As LMP says, in my next post I agreed with the reasoning for JKing Pom.

On point 2)

: I think this assumption was justified. Scum typically prioritise roles over player skills, and the choice of NKs thus far had perfectly reflected that so I had absolutely no reason for thinking it was likely that we'd be targeted.

[vollkan]

@LMP:

As is very clearly shown in that report, I advocated either targeting CKD or ourselves (in the first paragraph quoted). LMP then raised the suggestion of JKing you. I then agreed. To paraphrase more closely, in the same QT post as where he said the bolded, LMP then said: (paraphrasing) If you believe CKD is best, then I’ll go along with you. But I think that you, or me, or Pom are better choices. As LMP says, in my next post I agreed with the reasoning for JKing Pom.

I'd also point out that, if the priority for scum was getting rid of lewarcher as your argument rests upon, then vollkan-scum's acceptance of your proposal to JK lewarcher rather than CKD makes no sense.

[vollkan]

Final post, I promise.

I just thought of a useful analogy that might better illustrate my problem with the N3/N4 argument:

Country X and Country Y are at war. X has 10 nuclear missile bases (numbered B1 to B10). X also has an anti-missile defence system (MDS) able to protect 1 base at a time. Only Mr Smith, a defence specialist of X, knows which base is protected by MDS.

In June 2009, Smith decides to use the MDS to protect B1, In that same month, Y decides to make an attack on X's nuclear capabilities and decides to bomb B2, despite it being the second-best base.

In July, Smith becomes fearful that there may be enemy agents working in B10, so he decides to travel to B10 and personally investigate its staff, leaving no base protected. That same month, Y decides to launch another attack, this time bombing B6, a mediocre base, of far less strategic value than B1.

In August, the media learn the background to the June attack. Smith is accused of being a traitor, on the basis that it makes no sense that Y would decide to target B2, an inferior base, over B1 - unless they knew that B1 was protected, which could only mean that Smith was guilty of treason.

Smith, fearing mob retribution, receives permission from The X Defence Department to go public with the information that, in July, Y destroyed B6, even though B1 was unprotected. In a press conference, Smith makes the point that if Y was being informed about the MDS's location and considered B1 a high-priority targeted, then they should have targeted B1 in July. As such, Smith argues, it makes no sense to hold Smith responsible for the June attack and, moreover, it appears that B1 is not considered a high-priority target.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: If it wasn't clear from the analogy, B1 is the strategically best base.

[vollkan]

unvote

oh, dear. I misread LMP's post and thought you were the very one who suggested to jail me. This does not invalidate the rest of my post and I would like the others to comment on what I have written there. But the biggest reason to assume that the supposed scummy jailer falls with my mistaken assumption he pushed for my jailing.

What is your position on the rebuttal I gave of the rest of your case?

[vollkan]

also, when you told vollkan that you thought I was scummy because of your "gut" what was his reaction?..

I grumbled as usual and expressed my disdain for gut play. On the specific issue of LMP's theory that you killed SS, which seemed to be the main driver of his gut, I said that there was too much WIFOM to make it a reliable basis for suspecting you, though obviously at face value it looks bad.

LMP then said he thought it was strange that I would say I don't like gut since he thought I'd made gut arguments...before actually reading my ISO and retracting that

After that I also made one of my standard theory rants against gut.

[vollkan]

stopping during my reread to ask this question (I want an answer from everyone):

Do you believe lewarcher is town?

Behaviourally, he's a 50, leaning downwards given the Espy kill. I also think that balance-wise, the game becomes very choppy with a scum-vig (as in, it isn't inherently unbalanced, but it can easily become that way)

still reading, but I can't help but wondering if we're not just making this more difficult than it is. a2 and pacman may indeed be the remaining scum.

I think it's more likely balance-wise than lew's slot being scum, especially given the design choice of using neighbours rather than masons (ie. paranoia weakens the role).

This makes no sense considering Y didn't know that Mr. Smith had the ability to protect any base. Unless he supplied that with that information and was, in fact, a traitor.

Exactly! If Y (scum) really wanted to destroy B1 (lew) and was being kept informed by Smith (me/LMP), then in July Y (N4) Y should have bombed B1.

[vollkan]

I am confused. Say CKD is not mafia. Even if he convinced town to vote CKD, there are two possible outcomes:
1) CKD turns out to be a visiting role: he lied about part of his claim, but he is town;
2) CKD is now just a VT.
In both cases, Snake gets lynched the following day. Or, more likely, I will shoot him at night. What was the advantage? Does it even make sense?

I am fairly convinced that CKD is town, too, and I think that this was just a noobish attempt by mafia watcher. But still I would not define it a proof of CKD's innocence.

Just thinking, at the point when Snake claimed was he in imminent risk of lynch?

Of particular interest is vezo/pacman parking his vote uselessly on CoolDog before moving it to NC.

What's your point here?

The problem with this logic is that Y has to survive longer than just bombing B1, and Y could not kill B1 N4 without pretty much confirming all doubt to Smith that he is a traitor. In other words, you are a smart enough player for me to wonder if you chose to not kill lew for exactly this reason. So killing a player who has demonstrated solid scumdar (if not exactly a paragon of pro-town play) in Jack serves a double purpose (removes a player whose reads have been pretty spot on, while increasing the wifom quotient in the remaining neighborhood, doubt to your alignment).

But at that point your whole initial argument falls apart because you are no longer assuming that scum would prioritise vig over tracker, thus making N3 non-anomalous.

[vollkan]

Nope, he was not. It was day start and he decided to claim with his result. He prolly got the report at the end of the night - although I cannot be sure of that, because my role gets no reports - so he prolly had no chance to discuss a strategy with his team.

Which makes it even more likely that CKD is in fact town. Why bussing when no votes have been cast?

That's exactly why I was asking. I was thinking that if it was early day, it makes no sense as a bussing strategy. Thus, it does make CKD more likely to be town.

CKD-5

. It would be an even greater "-" (or smaller if you must be mathematically pedantic ) were it not for the fact that no matter what CKD's alignment it looks like a noobish move so there's a risk (but not, I think a particulalry high one) that Snake might have thought it would be a good bussing idea, but I find it hard to believe that CKD-scum would approve of something like that.

At this point, I would like to know what both jailers - in particular LMP - think of evilpacman.

My problem is basically this: he has 57 points but those points were entirely from vezok. I know that Vezok is essentially one of the worst VIs ever. But I can't remember the extent of my meta knowledge of him at the time. I know when I first assigned him points I referred to our previous game together So, my assumption is that my points are probably valid (I go back and look at my points on Vezok, and even now I think that they were entirely justified even given his meta). So, there's a question-mark over my pacman read, given vezok being a VI, but the read is probably valid.

This is logically incorrect. They still would prefer a vig kill N3 than tracker, but given the opportunity to block the vig and kill the tracker, they're happy with that result. It doesn't mean they don't think killing the vig is not important.

That makes sense. I wasn't thinking that blocking the vig could be considered a tradeoff for not killing.

Of particular interest is vezo/pacman parking his vote uselessly on CoolDog before moving it to NC.

What's your point here?

It seems like an odd thing to do. Why was it moved to CD (who OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to be the lynch with deadline looming large) before going with the flow where everyone else was moving. Since it was vezo (who bandwagons UNMERCIFULLY in every game I've played with him) its curious that he just didn't follow the leader straight to Nero Cain. Since the slot is still in the game, strange behavior is certainly relevant.

Does Vezok have a meta for not BW-ing as scum?

[vollkan]

@Vollkan: I've played a number of games with Vezok, unfortunately none of them has he been scum. It's entirely possible this behavior is null. It still looked noteworthy to me.

Yeah, it's noteworthy and would normally probably be a scumtell. That said, this is vezok; since it's a point of playstyle difference rather than something more solidly scummy (eg contradiction), I won't consider it a scumtell without meta.

a2's play is a lazytell

So you do know the difference between alignment and playstyle

If you refuse to support this wagon, why did you need to know what the L number was?

@Pacman: Answer this.

Question for EVERYONE: When i get lynched, and flip town, who is going to be your top suspect?

Question for YOU: Why did you ask this?

[vollkan]

Volky- Because I want to know who else, if anyone, people suspect.

You are at L-1 in MYLO/LYLO. Why is it of any importance right now who other people suspect?

[vollkan]

At this point, it was either going to come from Volkan or Pacman. It isn't like there's a large difference in which of them does it, you still have 5 days worth of analysis.

I would have hammered you just for this attitude. There is no way that you can have this sort of perspective as town, even if you are playing lazily, so it pretty much confirms you as scum.

[vollkan]

Bah!

Well done lewarcher.

[vollkan]

vollkan town = dead in the first couple of days...got it, thats how I am reading you now buddy.

You know I'll just scream WIFOM about that

The whole game, vollkan was saying a lot but moving very little. It was like his posts arrived nowhere on purpose. That's how I knew he was scum. Too bad I was ignored the whole game. And I think even if vollkan was lynched, the outcome wouldn't have changed. Lew destroyed us.

There's such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons.

In almost every game I am in, regardless of alignment, at least one person will attack me for "saying a lot, but doing very little". It's just how I play: I think all towntells are crap; I think most scumtells are crap; and it takes a lot of talking for me to be comfortable with a scumtell.

yeah that was brilliant

It's the first time I've ever been able to say to tell a townie in advance that I'm going to kill them