TV Mafia Game Over - Scum Win

[Banshee]

That's a pretty big "if", though. Imo Zinger is hostile/neutral third party more likely than scum based on his play here. I don't understand the point nor the possible win condition of a nonaligned Jailkeeper (please, point out if I'm wrong here) so I think he's lying about his role entirely.

Ok, so you think he's scum who made a completely fake Jailkeeper claim (ignoring the alignment element for the moment). What was his motive? And why make the claim when he did as scum?

The point of 3rd parties with alternate win conditions is to throw in some chaos into the balance of the set-up.

I understand the general point of third parties. Basically, my problem with Zinger is in two parts: 1) determining his alignment and 2) determining his truthfulness about his role within that alignment framework. I looked at it like this (some of this is from my notes, so please excuse the odd formatting):

If Zinger is scum, then he could be a scum Jailkeeper and target ZeL1nK-town to protect himself or, alternatively, be running a gambit with ZeL1nK-scum to semi-confirm power roles??? (looking for any possible motive)... but I would think that would require planning in advance, and I don't think sane players would go along with this gambit. If Zinger is scum but not a Jailkeeper (Roleblocker, etc) then he can't protect himself so it really makes no sense.

If Zinger is third party looking for his target then his weird name claims and comments that imo drew ZeL1nK's attention in the first place make way more sense. How to convince the wrong target not to waste time on you? Jailkeeper is a great choice. I don't believe the role though. Thinking lyncher.

If Zinger is town then why lie? Why the weird fishery trip with the name claim and the flavour claim and the series of soft/full/revised claims that he's making? Why would Town Jailkeeper act like this ever?

Okay. This is rough and I don't really have a lot of time to polish it up but I'm just going to let you have it, rough notes and all. If you need clarification on why I was thinking something please ask, and if you see huge errors/logical mistakes PLEASE point them out. But this is a snapshot of what I was thinking and why I was thinking it regarding Zinger and the claim issue.

[Rodion]

As promised, my case on Rodion. Still voting Zinger, not moving my vote today.

I need to reveal a portion of meta that I think clears someone else before explaining a part of why I think Rodion is scum. It's a specific paradigm I've seen before, with TheFonz (one part of Pappums Leather Jacket) defending a newb against an attack (My God, he's only a BABY!) and voting the person he perceives as persecuting the newbie on the thought that it's scummy to do that. In the case I saw, TheFonz was town, the person he attacked was town, and the newbie was, in fact, scum. This led me to look at Rodion much more carefully because I don't absolutely agree with TheFonz about not pressuring newbies, but I do think it's a towntell for him. So I semi-confirmed TheFonz as town and put an IGMEOY on Rodion for the reread.

The Magna of Illusion dispute was pretty inconclusive for me, though I did note that MoI looked like town and Rodion came off null. I can't usually tell when it's town-town or town-scum (though I'm pretty good at spotting the distancing scum-scum attack-retreat dance) so I just noted it. Rodion didn't seem to have good reasons but they didn't seem scum-beneficial either.

Then we hit this and the first thing that I can point to that was directly problematic after I started watching him.

Well, I am a mislynch. Period. Granted, scum would claim to be town as well, but I'm not appealing to emotion as much as stating a fact, fact being "I am town".

Apparently, he's town. And in the same post there's this self-serving parroting of TheFonz's argument that you shouldn't pressure newbs, except they might be scum, but then they might blow up and you'll get bits of newb all over you. Rodion expressly emphasises his own newbness.

1 - Did you read #96? It preceeds #98, so it's pretty problematic to conclude that I "parroted" the Leather Jacket in the "newbie defense".

2 - You misunderstood the aforementioned "newbie defense". It wasn't really a defense on the grounds that "I don't know how to play mafia and thus am prone to crack under pressure even if I am town", it was actually a warning to MoI and Vifam that their attacks on me could look scummy because they were grasping at straws against someone that had a join date that was below 1 week, so it sounded like an easy lynch. It didn't really matter whether I was/am a newbie or whether I'm the greatest mafia player in the world: what mattered was the perception of my experience/skills by those that decided to accuse me with so little and they didn't have a lot to base their perception from other than "he joined the site less than a week ago". Leather Jacket's ensuing attack/vote on MoI only confirmed the risk of attacking the "newbie", meaning my warning was spot on.

3 - Do not worry, you will not see me using the newbie defense in the way I described it in "2" (I'm too proud to imply that I suck and thus should be treated differently). The problem is that I don't yet know the

mores

of this site and that could lead to people reading "scumtells" where there shouldn't be. I'll give you some examples.

a) in my old site, we claim at L-2 or L-1. Here, there are people that not only think you should claim at L-1, but you ALSO should delay claiming until someone states that they are ready to hammer you. Had I gotten pressured up to L-2 and decided to claim at the spot I like (L-1 leaves you vulnerable to lynchers, mafia doublevoters, VIs, scum that might hammer anyway and then hope they are considered VIs), I'd have gotten more scummy in the eyes of some ("unprovoked claim" in the words of one of the players here).

b) since I don't know any of you, I was not aware that Vezok/Andrew were popular RVS wagons. Vezok had asked for a mass nameclaim during the confirmation stage and several players expressed their dislike on that. When the game started and he got several votes (with people pressuring others to vote there as well - I think it was Zelink asking David to hop on), I thought he was getting lynched for the scummy mass nameclaim request. Had I known how you guys play and make jokes and have your own most popular RVS targets, perhaps I would have realized earlier that it was a RVS wagon and not a retaliatory/policy wagon derived from his request.

A lot of my problems with Rodion center around claims and overreactions to wagons; any one of these things would not be a big deal by themselves, but taken together look like a pattern of behaviour. He wants a fullclaim during the Vezok RVS wagon, he wants to vote for Vifam but is afraid to hammer before a claim, he reacts to ZeLink and Zinger's claims oddly and starts asking for as many details as possible on those claims, and he asks about Mafia busdrivers, lynchers, and other weird and wonderful roles in a way that I very much didn't like.

Asking for a fullclaim on the Vezok wagon - check "3 b".
4 - "Afraid to hammer Vifam" - I do not see the problem of waiting for a vote count to make sure I'm not hammering prematurely (it's not like I used that as an excuse to not vote and avoid a D2 investigation after Vifam's flip -

I had already committed to voting

after the VC)
5 - Mind explaining how I reacted oddly to both Zinger and Zelink's claims?
6 - Please show where I asked for as many details as possible on those claims.
7 - "Asking questions about weird and wonderful roles in a way Banshee very much dislikes" - check "3". They are pretty common roles where I come from. Asking those questions here is just a way to adapt to this new mafia environment. I don't think it hurts to take the time to ask questions and adapt faster. Also, can you tell me what exactly is wrong with the "way" I asked those questions?

He defends Zinger for a while, and this actually made me reevaluate Rodion because his logic made sense to me and I was agreeing with a lot of his points. Then he started doing analysis of players, and that's when I lost all faith in his townness.

Rodion is conciliatory (my personal favourite scumtell) pretty much without exception. He dismisses a number of disputes as misunderstandings, notably here and here and helpfully informs others of how they can avoid such misunderstandings in future here, which is a pretty clear contrast to his I'm-just-a-newb excuses early on.

8 - On the "contrast" with the newb excuses: check "2". There is no contrast.

9 - Furthermore, I don't see how being new (either "new to mafia" or "new to this site") makes me unable to correct the misunderstandings I see. It just takes reading comprehension, not leet mafia experience. Do you disagree?

And these individual analyses are exactly characteristic of what I think scum would do, not offending anyone particularly and not offering much in the way of insight.

here and here

He gives ZeL1nK scum points for concealing his hydra. Yes, he does. The least useful and accurate scumtell ever.

Rodion is too interested in outing power roles as a general rule, too conciliatory in his analysis of the players and overall the scummiest player in my view. Counterarguments, angry flames and logical rebuttals are always welcome.

10 - Hydra - yes, I did. I don't see a pro-town reason to make yourself "unmetable" after you already claimed. If you've got nothing to hide, you should be willing to be read as an open book.

[ZeL1nK]

So I've read the last ten pages and I wish I hadn't. I am really uninterested in how this day turns out although I am interested in how much longer this Zinger wagon is going to stall at L-1.

Banshee and shotty are prob scum.

If this hasn't gone into N1 by the next time I check this thread, I'll try to post something a bit more meaningful than this.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I got on to hammer, but saw the above post.

@ZeL1nK- Why am I scum?

[Rainbowdash]

Part of saying that all third party claims should be lynched is that it stops ponies from eventually faking third party roles because they think it's clever or something along those lines. If you are claiming he is one of those ponies that need to constantly be given a pass because of his inability to do anything correctly, thats not going to fly either. I would be willing to lynch ponies like that regardless of alignment every time if it eventually teaches them to not be complete Derpy Ponies, or he leaves the site like he appears to be threatening for and I hope he does. If you want to call it a policy lynch, I would be fine with such as it is to a certain extent. His continued play of showing no intention to help later is enough to cement it as the correct move, especially when its up against silver. Maybe if it was Zinger vs Peregrine I would be willing to let this slide, but here no chance.

This entire paragraph = "it doesn't even matter if he's town, I'd still lynch him". Fair enough, you can choose to be like that but I choose to believe that is

sub-optimal play

. And I am judging you based on that.

You have full permission to judge me based on that, but im not about to start allowing anything like this to become a standard of play given how much more difficult it will become to read someone as any botched play as scum can be met with the call that a gambit occured. In this situation though it was messed up in such a way that I really can't believe that its a town claim. I can see town be willing to oversell or undersell something, pretty sure that everyone has done that play at some point in their careers. What I have the hard time with is the unprompted third party claim, followed by changing it to a new claim, and then a new claim again. Town mindset when getting called in a gambit is along the lines of "Now I need to explain why I made this move logically" and not "Whats the fastest way to get out of being lynched".

First if he was third party and his original claim was right, it actually WAS the correct move for him to claim like he did as there was a win option for him that would remove him from the game. The thing though is we get to where we are now, where everypony just decides to give him a pass because no scum would make this move. It is a gambit but are you honestly saying you have never seen scum claim third party to try and escape a lynch? It happens, about at the same rate town thinks its a cute gambit to try and then gets torched for. These types of claims are WIFOM since its the quote unquote incorrect move to make for any alignment.

I honestly can say I have never seen it (or if I have I can't remember it). Why, if he was scum, would he not have just said "town jk" instead of "3rd party jk". There is literally no reason that I can see. If a scum claims 3rd party they have ensured there is 0% chance for them to survive throughout the game. Him actually being 3rd party is just as unlikely as that claim was mooted when it was pointed out it was unfairly difficult for him to reach his alleged win condition.
It is actually not

necessarily

the incorrect move to make for town, however. In this case if he had survived the lynch (possible but unlikely) mafia would not have wasted a kill on him, knowing that we would eventually lynch the claimed 3rd party. It was still

stupid

, don't get me wrong, but it has the best (only) motive of any alignment.

I

have

seen scum win a game on a third party claim because town bought it, seen them come very close a couple times as well. Claiming third party is a gambit for every alignment, town can possibly get out of being in the lynch pool, scum can too. If it gets bought, its a ticket to mid-late game where they have to do nothing really to stay around. In some sense, its almost the same as the fake miller, or fake PGO, or fake anything like that claim. If bought by the town and made by scum, they just got a one way ticket deep into the game. It has its inherant risks of drawing a policy lynch, but has a high reward and most people are willing to go off judgement of the slot.

[Pappums Leather Jacket]

--

1. Why it is possible that Zinger's claim is a scum gambit.

Firstly, your assertion that he was not under pressure is false. He had four votes, was tied for the lead, and two of those votes had accrued pretty quickly when

he first hinted he might not be town.

No, that’s absurd. 4 votes when 14 are required to lynch is hardly significant pressure. In a game this size you can fall into 4 votes via RVS quick as a blink. Being tied means that at least one other person was under the same ‘level’ ( I use the term loosely) pressure so that hardly causes a rational player to panic.

Sorry, is your argument that Zinger is a rational player? Also seriously, what part of 'Leading wagon' did you not understand?

In context 4 votes is less than 1/3 of the votes required to vote today. Put into context of a 13 player game …. it would be the equivalent of making his claim with 2 votes Day 1. Hardly pressure at all.

The bolded actually further undermines your argument. You state he got half of those 4 mighty votes for hinting he wasn’ Town. Thus outright claiming 3rd Party isn’t a good survival tactic for scum to use if hinting you were not Town earns you votes.

No, that isn't what we said. We said he already had four of those votes when he first hinted he might not be town. That's clearly what 'He had four votes... when he first hinted he might not be town' means.

Question

– why would scum even hint they were not Town, as you report, in the first place?

I'm confused. Why would town even hint they were not town? It's at least as stupid for town as it is for scum.

You are arguing that it’s beneficial to scum to pull a gambit Day 1 that resulted in a massive wagon because on the off-chance it works they may be able to slide by through the game. That’s absurd logic. The risks in that scenario outweight the rewards greatly when

JUST NOT CLAIMING 3RD PARTY

in a Large game means he was much more likely to skate by for days even if he active lurks.

1) You're assuming he knew it would result in a massive wagon. If he knew it was going to result in a massive wagon, I don't think he does it as any alignment. Clearly, he must have thought that claiming third party would defuse some of the pressure on him.

2) He was getting directly pressured for active lurking. He'd just gained two votes in quick succession. Someone had threatened to vig him in a manner that, at least, wasn't entirely clear it

wasn't

serious. The idea that he would definitely get away with it sounds like a huuuuuuuge stretch.

3) If you're town in that position (trying to active lurk to look a little scummy) and you start feeling the heat, would it not be better just to start doing a little scumhunting to relieve the pressure?

4) The result of the gambit, if it 'worked' IE didn't result in him getting pushed to death's door, would be allowing him to go on active lurking like a mofo. There is a scum motive for that. There is a third party motive. There is no town motive.

Not putting yourself on the radar as any sort of Target so trumps actively making yourself a Lynch and possible SK / Other Mafia target (since the SK or Other Mafia, if they exist, can’t know that they aren’t the subject of Claimed 3rd party JK’s search).

Again, in what way is this not true for a town power role? If your motive is to preserve your role so you can help the town at night, doesn't 'Not making yourself a target' seem like the best move there, too? You've not presented ONE reason why it would be UNIQUELY bad for scum to do that gambit that doesn't also apply to town.

So you are using conjecture about Xylbot and EpicMafia (neither of which Zinger has indicated he has ANY exposure to) as support for your argument. No, that doesn’t fly.

We know, because Zinger has said as such, that he plays elsewhere. The majority of sites where mafia is played seem to have more in common with EM than here. You are assuming that he is thinking in a 'Mafiascum style' and would be aware that claiming third party would be most likely to result in his swift demise. I am arguing for the possibility that he thought claiming 3p would boost his survival chances. Because, again: SUICIDE IS NOT A GOOD MOVE FOR TOWN EITHER!

Fourthly, the 'Claim Doc' part of his string of claims doesn't make sense from the 'avoiding NK' perspective, and is dangerous for town (possibility of counterclaim outing real doc) whilst useful for scum (same reason) and is not much more likely to keep you alive than merely a town JK claim.

First off my reading of the ‘Doc’ claim was a frustrated joke by Zinger. When it was made his ‘gambit’ had blown up in his face and he was being sarcastic, IMO.

Didn't read that way to us, but whatever. Not an important issue.

Second that you didn’t bother to worry about a counterclaim from a Town blocking role (RB / JK) but only worried about a Doc counterclaim rings false.

So now you're actually making up arguments and putting them into our mouth? Holy shit. The point we're making is that for someone who has a genuine town PR claim to fall back on, wouldn't your first instinct if your gambit is busted be to claim

that

role?

I went to Superhero Mafia (and I find it frightening that the entire game was only 57 pages long) and the Neighborhood QT we were in together to pull quotes from Pappums about Zinger that game. Here is everything I found –

Second, Zinger is entirely wrong about not being told you are roleblocked, no one ever gets told they are roleblocked on this site (AFAIK). He has said nothing about what action he may have taken that, in it's absence, would let him know if he was roleblocked, and until he does it says nothing about diddin.

..

I agree with Reck that the diddin wagon is bad, Zinger, Meransiel, and dana all have bad reasons for being on this wagon.

Hmmm. Bad reasons for being on a wagon is decent scum-hunting?

Either you're being intentionally dense here or you're scum. How good someone's reasons are is irrelevant to whether or not they're scumhunting. Smart people have decent sounding reasoning as any alignment (you in this game being an obvious exception) dumb people have bad reasoning. As we have now explained twice, when Pappums said 'Decent scumhunting' he was talking about the fact that Zinger was making cases, taking stances etc. We have made it clear that he was not saying that Zinger's

arguments

in that game were

good

.

So yes, presenting cases and taking positions is 'decent scumhunting' even if the arguments themselves we disagree with.

Seventhly, as a result of Khan's game of mafia, where Iamausername as scum deliberately lied in such a way to make it look like a town gambit in order to gain towncred, Fonzhead is incredibly reluctant to suffer any known liar to live.

Hmmm, what happened to Sixthly?

What the fuck? How is this kind of argument even relevant to anything, apart from mudslinging? I think what happened is I thought of another point i wanted to insert, so changed sixthly to seventhly and left a gap, then forgot what it was by the time i'd finished that point.

Give me specifics here? Did Iam claim in a similar manner?

Iam claimed in a massclaim to be a limited-shot cop. I called him on inconsistencies in his claim, and he changed to 'even night cop.' He later admitted that he was planning to switch to 'even night' all along, in order to look like a town player who was gambiting.

Are you seriously suggesting that Zinger’s gambit was made in a way to appear like a Town gambit? If anything Silver’s “He’s a better lynch than me” screams “Get me Cred” posting much more than ANYTHING Zinger has done.

You Policy Stance (which is basically a modified version of Lynch All Liars / Gambiters) is noted.

Since the Fonz head of this hydra is known to be the single most consistent advocate of lynch all liars on the site, we're not sure why this is a revelation. LaL is a good policy. People who lie about their roles are overwhelmingly scum.

But yeah, of course. In the current meta, if you do something antitown in a derpy looking manner and anyone at all attacks you on it, there will always be a significant number of people leaping to your defence and accusing your attacker of being scum. Great way to start a townfight if you can pull it off. It doesn't make a ton of sense - but in our opinions, playing as Zinger has as town doesn't make ANY sense.

If Iam turns up scum, I am

never

letting another liar off the hook, though.

As for the 'I'm a better lynch' thing, that's scummy enough, for atE reasons and other reasons we don't wish to discuss. We don't get that feel off Silver in general though.

[Junpei]

I skimmed a lot and I'll reread at n1, but just to point another thing out to a few of the naysayers of the Zinger wagon: If he's scum... then his little gambit worked on you, didn't it? I mean hell, look, it may be because it is such a stupid thing to do, but in the end he convinced you that he is town because of his gambit. Isn't that interesting how it worked on a good number of you? Of course it's possible he's town, or even third party, but food for thought.

[Junpei]

Also I wanted to say: Andrew I meant NO disrespect by that comment. I am probably just bad at understanding non-simply articulated English and that's what caused the confusion. I guess I'll try to understand you better next time. However you still need to pots more content because you still have contradicted yourself and still need to respond to my posts.

[MagnaofIllusion]

Sorry, is your argument that Zinger is a rational player? Also seriously, what part of 'Leading wagon' did you not understand?

No, my argument is that Zinger is a self-admitted DERP who made a stupid move (regardless of his alignment) and you seem to be attributing ONLY scum motivation to it. And that I don't lynch uncounter-claimed Town PRs in Large Games Day 1.

I laugh at the second line. You posted the following later in your response –

What the fuck? How is this kind of argument even relevant to anything, apart from mudslinging? I think what happened is I thought of another point i wanted to insert, so changed sixthly to seventhly and left a gap, then forgot what it was by the time i'd finished that point.

You can’t be ‘outraged’ about mudslinging when you actively do it yourself. Nice double standard you have going there guys.

No, that isn't what we said. We said he already had four of those votes when he first hinted he might not be town. That's clearly what 'He had four votes... when he first hinted he might not be town' means.

No, that’s not what you said. I’ve requoted your exact words and bolded the part where you directly say he acquired two of those votes AFTER hinting at anti-Town.

Firstly, your assertion that he was not under pressure is false. He had four votes, was tied for the lead,

and two of those votes had accrued pretty quickly when he first hinted he might not be town.

You can’t double back on that. It is clear as day what you originally said.

I'm confused. Why would town even hint they were not town? It's at least as stupid for town as it is for scum.

For a dumb-ass gambit. I see Fate derp it up directly claiming scum as Town all the time. It’s stupid as hell but it happens.

1) You're assuming he knew it would result in a massive wagon. If he knew it was going to result in a massive wagon, I don't think he does it as any alignment. Clearly, he must have thought that claiming third party would defuse some of the pressure on him.

And you are saying that active lurking would get him a massive wagon when this game is rife with lurkers and active lurkers. I’m sorry, but I’ll stand by my belief that it’s so vastly ludicrous a play to gambit as he did. And once again, he only really got momentum of votes once he hinted / claimed to be Not Town.

2) He was getting directly pressured for active lurking. He'd just gained two votes in quick succession. Someone had threatened to vig him in a manner that, at least, wasn't entirely clear it wasn't serious. The idea that he would definitely get away with it sounds like a huuuuuuuge stretch.

Not nearly the HUUUUGGGGE stretch you are making by saying claiming 3rd party is a viable ‘defense technique’.

And are you seriously suggesting that Zel1nk’s Vig claim should be taken seriously?

3) If you're town in that position (trying to active lurk to look a little scummy) and you start feeling the heat, would it not be better just to start doing a little scumhunting to relieve the pressure?

Of course it would. Are you saying that by making a sub-optimal play he must be scum?

4) The result of the gambit, if it 'worked' IE didn't result in him getting pushed to death's door, would be allowing him to go on active lurking like a mofo. There is a scum motive for that. There is a third party motive. There is no town motive.

No, that’s stupid. The proper play for scum in that position is just the same as Town … do a little (faked) scum-hunting. The gambit is inordinately stupid and doomed to fail.

Again, in what way is this not true for a town power role? If your motive is to preserve your role so you can help the town at night, doesn't 'Not making yourself a target' seem like the best move there, too? You've not presented ONE reason why it would be UNIQUELY bad for scum to do that gambit that doesn't also apply to town.

Hey, speaking of making putting arguments in people’s mouths. I’ve claimed any of what you are saying above. It’s bad regardless of alignment.

You have not presented one UNIQUELY credible reason why it would be a good move for scum. Seriously your “If it works” argument ignores that it isn’t going to work in almost all situations.

We know, because Zinger has said as such, that he plays elsewhere.

The majority of sites where mafia is played seem to have more in common with EM than here.

You are assuming that he is thinking in a 'Mafiascum style' and would be aware that claiming third party would be most likely to result in his swift demise. I am arguing for the possibility that he thought claiming 3p would boost his survival chances. Because, again: SUICIDE IS NOT A GOOD MOVE FOR TOWN EITHER!

The bolded I disagree with 1000%. Most non-MS sites I see have more in common (gameplay wise) with MS than with EpicMafia.

As to suicide being not a good move for Town – why state the obvious?

Either you're being intentionally dense here or you're scum. How good someone's reasons are is irrelevant to whether or not they're scumhunting. Smart people have decent sounding reasoning as any alignment (

you in this game being an obvious exception

) dumb people have bad reasoning. As we have now explained twice, when Pappums said 'Decent scumhunting' he was talking about the fact that Zinger was making cases, taking stances etc. We have made it clear that he was not saying that Zinger's arguments in that game were good.

So yes, presenting cases and taking positions is 'decent scumhunting' even if the arguments themselves we disagree with.

In regards to the bold – Nice ‘insult the others intelligence to throw them off’ scum-tell. Thanks for that. It always makes my day when people have to go to that well.

You’ve ‘explained’ that twice. I’ve asked you to actually link / quote / reference posts in that game where you see evidence of scum-hunting. You’ve yet to do so.

Also I notice you dodge completely the rest of the quotes I posted where you DIRECTLY criticize Zinger’s play as bad post game. Nice.

Iam claimed in a massclaim to be a limited-shot cop. I called him on inconsistencies in his claim, and he changed to 'even night cop.' He later admitted that he was planning to switch to 'even night' all along, in order to look like a town player who was gambiting.

Oh, so the situation was not analogous to this one at all (ie Mass-claim assuming late in the day versus Day 1 before a single flip) and you are basically falling back on personal policy. Gotcha.

Since the Fonz head of this hydra is known to be the single most consistent advocate of lynch all liars on the site, we're not sure why this is a revelation. LaL is a good policy. People who lie about their roles are overwhelmingly scum.

This reminds me of Kingdom of Loathing Mafia where someone ran with what was they claimed was Fonz’s “Town Promise” policy that included not gambitting. It was then pointed out that the game in which said player had seen said policy Scum were the number 1 supporters of said policy and used it to win the game.

Strict policies are stupid. Sorry, they are. You only have to look no further than Superhero Mafia for evidence. I specifically mis-represented the nature of my role (I presented as a Tracker not a Cop) as a means of further trapping scum. And it was effective and successful. But no, under your policy I would have been lynched the Day I revealed I was gambitting and a Cop not a Tracker. That would have been an inordinately stupid play.

--

I skimmed a lot and I'll reread at n1, but just to point another thing out to a few of the naysayers of the Zinger wagon: If he's scum... then his little gambit worked on you, didn't it? I mean hell, look, it may be because it is such a stupid thing to do, but in the end he convinced you that he is town because of his gambit. Isn't that interesting how it worked on a good number of you? Of course it's possible he's town, or even third party, but food for thought.

More food for thought – you do understand that anyone who disagrees with the wagon Day 1 doesn’t have to believe he’s Town right. I’m not certain at all whether he’s Town or Third Party. I just know it’s a bad move to lynch an un-counterclaimed Town PR (even if it was a stupid and elaborate path that got him to that claim) Day 1.

This little Appeal to Fear (look, you could be wrong) is noted.

[Rodion]

Are you saying there are 2 neighbourizors in the same neighbourhood, not 2 distinct neighbourhoods?

No. There are two Separate and distinct players who during the day today have recruited me into separate Neighborhoods. The mechanics by which they claim to Neighborize are identical, at least as far as they have shared so far.

Alright, I reread your post on that. Am I right in assuming you let neighbourizers know the identity of one another so that if you + 1 (town) neighbourizer die the other is forced to refrain from using his power on other townies since this remaining neighbourizer would be topping the scumcharts?

So I've read the last ten pages and I wish I hadn't. I am really uninterested in how this day turns out although I am interested in how much longer this Zinger wagon is going to stall at L-1.

Banshee and shotty are prob scum.

If this hasn't gone into N1 by the next time I check this thread, I'll try to post something a bit more meaningful than this.

Before the day ends, care to explain why:
1 - you softclaimed vig?
2 - you picked Zinger as your N1 vig target?

@Meransiel

- awaiting reply to #908.

I think a hammer right now would not be good. We've just got 3 replacements and they can contribute before the day ends. Drmyshottyizsik didn't say much and we should get some of his insights before ending the day.

I'm fully updated. Going to decide who deserves my vote after I finish my discussion with Meran (one more reason not to quickhammer).

[Junpei]

Appeal to fear? Ugh, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. You think that my post is going to scare them into voting Zinger? You really think that? And you didn't even address what I said as a legitimate possibility of what happened, you completely ignored it.

Appeal to applesauce noted.

[Zinger2099]

@MOD:

V/LA until Monday.

Mod: Confirmed

[Pappums Leather Jacket]

Sorry, is your argument that Zinger is a rational player? Also seriously, what part of 'Leading wagon' did you not understand?

No, my argument is that Zinger is a self-admitted DERP who made a stupid move (regardless of his alignment) and you seem to be attributing ONLY scum motivation to it. And that I don't lynch uncounter-claimed Town PRs in Large Games Day 1.

If he's a derp, he's a derp. That's not an argument for him being town. We're trying to point out that it requires at least as much derp to do it as scum as it does as town.

I laugh at the second line. You posted the following later in your response –

You can’t be ‘outraged’ about mudslinging when you actively do it yourself. Nice double standard you have going there guys.

We didn't say we were outraged. Also, the accusation that we are mudslinging ourself is simply not true.

No, that isn't what we said. We said he already had four of those votes when he first hinted he might not be town. That's clearly what 'He had four votes... when he first hinted he might not be town' means.

No, that’s not what you said. I’ve requoted your exact words and bolded the part where you directly say he acquired two of those votes AFTER hinting at anti-Town.[/quote]

No, that is exactly what we said. "He had four votes, was tied for the lead, and two of those votes had accrued pretty quickly when he first hinted he might not be town." When he first hinted he might not be town, he had four votes, was tied for the lead, and two of those votes had built up quickly.

You can’t double back on that. It is clear as day what you originally said.

Oh, it's incredibly clear, but it's clear that it's not what you are saying it is.

I'm confused. Why would town even hint they were not town? It's at least as stupid for town as it is for scum.

For a dumb-ass gambit. I see Fate derp it up directly claiming scum as Town all the time. It’s stupid as hell but it happens.

Right, so if a town player could derp it up, why couldn't a scum?

1) You're assuming he knew it would result in a massive wagon. If he knew it was going to result in a massive wagon, I don't think he does it as any alignment. Clearly, he must have thought that claiming third party would defuse some of the pressure on him.

And you are saying that active lurking would get him a massive wagon when this game is rife with lurkers and active lurkers. I’m sorry, but I’ll stand by my belief that it’s so vastly ludicrous a play to gambit as he did. And once again, he only really got momentum of votes once he hinted / claimed to be Not Town.

No, we didn't say that at all. Yet another MoI misrepresentation. We're saying that he was starting to feel the heat, and claimed third party in the hope that some of the heat would dissipate. The fact is, of the active lurkers, he was in the spotlight at that point.

Not nearly the HUUUUGGGGE stretch you are making by saying claiming 3rd party is a viable ‘defense technique’.

The question is not whether it

is

. The question is whether Zinger

thought it was

. If Zinger was not afraid the wagon on him legs, and did not think that claiming third party would take some of the heat out of it, then claiming third party does not have any benefit as

any

alignment. I refuse to believe his thought process was simply 'derp.'

And are you seriously suggesting that Zel1nk’s Vig claim should be taken seriously?

Didn't have any particular indication of being a joke.

3) If you're town in that position (trying to active lurk to look a little scummy) and you start feeling the heat, would it not be better just to start doing a little scumhunting to relieve the pressure?

Of course it would. Are you saying that by making a sub-optimal play he must be scum?

No. As we said, we think it is most likely he is third party. The claim seems too detailed to be entirely invented. That said, we cannot see his actions as the result of any town thought process. There are certain scum thought processes that might lead to it. Hence, most likely third party (and third party liable to be detrimental to town) but an outside chance of scum, pretty much no chance of town.

4) The result of the gambit, if it 'worked' IE didn't result in him getting pushed to death's door, would be allowing him to go on active lurking like a mofo. There is a scum motive for that. There is a third party motive. There is no town motive.

No, that’s stupid. The proper play for scum in that position is just the same as Town … do a little (faked) scum-hunting. The gambit is inordinately stupid and doomed to fail.

I don't think that anyone is disputing that Zinger is stupid. Yes or no: getting a free pass to active lurk is more beneficial to scum than town? Doing genuine scumhunting does not hurt town, but having to fake scumhunting can be detrimental to scum.

Again, in what way is this not true for a town power role? If your motive is to preserve your role so you can help the town at night, doesn't 'Not making yourself a target' seem like the best move there, too? You've not presented ONE reason why it would be UNIQUELY bad for scum to do that gambit that doesn't also apply to town.

Hey, speaking of making putting arguments in people’s mouths. I’ve claimed any of what you are saying above. It’s bad regardless of alignment.

Right, and that's what I said. You've not shown any particular reason to think him town. Liars do not get the benefit of the doubt.

You have not presented one UNIQUELY credible reason why it would be a good move for scum. Seriously your “If it works” argument ignores that it isn’t going to work in almost all situations.

But I am convinced that, if Zinger was SURE it wasn't going to work, then he wouldn't have done it. The only way in which it makes any sense for him to do it is if he thought it might work. Surely that's obvious?

As to suicide being not a good move for Town – why state the obvious?

Because it seemed to us you were trying to push 'If it's stupid, it must be town.' The point is that the gambit is unlikely to work as town or scum. However, if it did work, that would be scum-benefiting. Therefore, since it seems geared to a scummy end, it's not likely to come from town. The thought process that makes most sense is a third party - tried to lurk, got called on it, thought claiming his actual role would

In regards to the bold – Nice ‘insult the others intelligence to throw them off’ scum-tell. Thanks for that. It always makes my day when people have to go to that well.

Your arguments are objectively stupid. I don't expect saying that to 'throw you off' if rational argument won't.

You’ve ‘explained’ that twice. I’ve asked you to actually link / quote / reference posts in that game where you see evidence of scum-hunting. You’ve yet to do so.

Also I notice you dodge completely the rest of the quotes I posted where you DIRECTLY criticize Zinger’s play as bad post game. Nice.

Well, Pappums is V/LA at the moment, but I will go and look. I simply took his word for it, him being town and all. I have no doubt from what my partner has told me that Zinger did scumhunt in that game. Nice use of 'dodge' to smear 'removing the parts that weren't particularly relevant to anything, because the post was long enough.'

This reminds me of Kingdom of Loathing Mafia where someone ran with what was they claimed was Fonz’s “Town Promise” policy that included not gambitting. It was then pointed out that the game in which said player had seen said policy Scum were the number 1 supporters of said policy and used it to win the game.

That's simply untrue. For one, the major pusher of it was, oh, me, and I was nightkilled night one. Secondly, no-one was at any point lynched for failing to abide by the contract. Furc was wagoned because of it, but he townslipped, which made him town in my eyes (the same townslip I thought Zinger dropped). Multiple roles were outed D1 (there were two dead town power roles on day two of a large normal, and another townie had needlessly outed his role), and a townie self-hammered, both of which the contract was designed to prevent. Looking back at the game, pretty much everyone who engaged in the discussion surrounding the contract on either side at the beginning of the game was town.

I'm not going to get into the game theory argument. Suffice to say, no one believes LAL applies to confirmed town.

[David Xanatos]

(NOTE: THIS IS NOT ME SUGGESTING THIS, THIS IS SIMPLY AN ANALOGY FROM AN OFF-SITE GAME I PLAYED).

Had to include that just on the offchance someone misunderstands..

Anyway, one of the best gambits (If you can call it that) I've seen was a D1 mass roleclaim. It was a ~30 player game, and the results were awesome. I was Mafia in it, and when it gathered weight, we had absolutely no idea how to handle it.. we didn't know if there were any role-cops, and we couldn't be seen as being the last to chime in. It made for some frantic discussion in the QT.

Sorry, slightly random but what Pappums said brought it to mind.. thought I'd share it for a little light relief.

[Pappums Leather Jacket]

On that note, a good mod makes it such that if all the scum claim vanilla in a d1 massclaim, the scum are at the very least not harmed.

[David Xanatos]

And as another minor aside, I did consider if that would be a viable tactic here, it seemed it would be, due to the lack of daytalk for most games (Or so I gather, they're the exception rather than the rule), but on the other forum, there was no update on preview, so the standard thing was pairing up and same-time claiming. By which I mean, both claim at 21:00:00 on the dot, so there's no chance of correcting a fake-claim. The lack of a recorded second on the posts here (As in, you see hours and minutes, no seconds) would make that much harder, as would the preview thing..

PEdit: A few of us worked that out, we ended up going with something like 2 vanillas, a Nurse claim, a Vig and a Jailkeeper (Vig was Assassin, Jailkeeper was Roleblocker). If we never had Daytalk though it would have descended into chaos.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I'm hammering tonight.

[hipaddict1]

I'm hammering tonight.

What is stopping you form hammering right now?

NA1

[Meransiel]

@Rod:

backhanded stuff

1. That is bullshit. I have nothing else to say.

2. Your post 404 is scummy because it is you parking your vote on somebody who you admit that you don't know it's scum, with the possibility of shifting it to someone ELSE you admit you don't know is scum if need arises. Basically pure pressure/convenience votes.

3. Your 908 is scummy as well. Because it clearly implies that if I am scum then Zinger is town. However, your vote is not on me. Wonder why...ow yeah, because the other wagon is at L-1?

[Meransiel]

I'm hammering tonight.

Why?

[Rodion]

@Rod:

backhanded stuff

1. That is bullshit. I have nothing else to say.

2. Your post 404 is scummy because it is you parking your vote on somebody who you admit that you don't know it's scum, with the possibility of shifting it to someone ELSE you admit you don't know is scum if need arises. Basically pure pressure/convenience votes.

3. Your 908 is scummy as well. Because it clearly implies that if I am scum then Zinger is town.

However, your vote is not on me. Wonder why...ow yeah, because the other wagon is at L-1?

Be clear as to what you implied here. I want no margin for misunderstandings.

[Meransiel]

I don
t really feel like it, I think I made myself clear enough. If you scumslip by accidentally misunderstanding me, well then, go town .

[drmyshottyizsik]

I'm hammering tonight.

What is stopping you form hammering right now?

NA1

Well it seems like people are having some good talks and I don't want to cut them off.

[Pappums Leather Jacket]

Meh, we should have lynched 17 pages ago.

The silver wagon seems to be MOI, and a bunch of low-volume or low-content voters afraid of what an aggressive policy of stamping out antitown and scum-favoring behaviour might mean for them.

[David Xanatos]

Isn't MOI voting you right now?