395: Big Lebowski -- game is dead :(

[Fircoal]

Yos, I hate no lynches, but there was no real case against anyone, and the deadline was apporching.

[willows_weep]

OOo...I need to do a read through. But I do know that B_k is dead. He was the inventor. And pro-town. The mod said so

[StallingChamp]

Was going through my past games and this one came up. Couldnt remember the game until I checked the thread.

Anyways, I just wanted to give a full apology to all of you, especially Atticus and Sherlock. I overreacted to what was said, and planned to give a full apology when I lost access to MS for a few months. I only remembered it now.

So yeah, sorry for being an asshole and all. I would have accepted to stay in when Sherlock PMed me, but I had lost access.

[Mastermind of Sin]

omg i'm in a game with willows! yay!

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm especally looking at Chaotic Diablo and Big Kahuna, as they're experenced players who should certanly know that a day 1 no lynch is bad.

fos: Chaotic Diablo, Big Kahuna

until they explain themselves, and I want the other people who voted for a no-lynch to explain as well.

I can agree that day one lynches are not favorable, but picking at the most obvious scumtell when the base for it is alreay false isn't something you should do. Bk is town, even with his experience. Picking at me because "I should know better" is baseless.

Riktus has already explained why we should no lynch.

In fact,

vote:chaotic diablo

, as his post where he voted for a no-lynch looks especally scummy.

I don't see how a no lynch will benefit us, but I'll see what happens after a bit.

vote no lynch

Scummy in what way? That I disagreed with the majority action, yet still went with it? Being a minority has little influence over the game, unless the argument is extremely well-done. However, keeping the game alive is my main priority and "stalling" for it's death isn't something I planned to do.

As much as I disliked a no lynch, quick lynching or random lynching were the only options, and just as scummy. To me, scum could have taken advantage and could actually force a mislynch. You can yell how "no lynches are bad" but until you can explain how "lynching for the hell of it" is a better option, I'm sticking with the one that benefits town, even if it's slight.

I'm surprised that you went for both BK and I for going with a no lynch. To me, you should have gone for the person who suggested it, CK. The bigger scumtell between riding a no lynch and suggesting a no lynch is the latter.

[Yosarian2]

Sorry about that ugly first page there. Seeing as that as mainly my quarrel with SC.

Glad It's back up, then.

Yosarian, with the deadline, half our people lurking, and very little information, killing someone would have been a worse choice, In My Opinion. Even on day one. There's my explanation f the No Lynch. Very generic, but I can't think any other reasons.

I'm not entirely seeing why you're voting for c_d, he apparently didn't think that a no lynch would benefit us.

Atticus: CD didn't seem to think a no lynch would benifit the town, but he voted for it anyway, which seems quite odd and rather scummy to me. I would like him to explain his reasoning there.

Anyway, even a semi-random lynch is much better then a no-lynch during day 1; you get more information based on who voted for who and such. If you do a no-lynch, then the scum just get to kill someone and you come back again tommorow without any more real information. We got lucky and a scum got killed last night, but you can't count on thta.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Ok, so no lynch was a bad idea, but we can't do anything about it now. We're lucky someone killed the godfather for us, that'll make things easier. I don't see why Yos is FoSing Big_K, isn't he dead?

[Yosarian2]

[I can agree that day one lynches are not favorable, but picking at the most obvious scumtell when the base for it is alreay false isn't something you should do. Bk is town, even with his experience. Picking at me because "I should know better" is baseless.

No, it's not baseless. Suggesting a no-lynch is a common newbie mistake, but I would expect a more experenced player to know that a no lynch on day 1 is always bad for the town. The fact that you went along with it makes me suspicious of you.

Riktus has already explained why we should no lynch.

Try explaining it yourself. Why did you vote no lynch?

Scummy in what way? That I disagreed with the majority action, yet still went with it? Being a minority has little influence over the game, unless the argument is extremely well-done. However, keeping the game alive is my main priority and "stalling" for it's death isn't something I planned to do.

If you disagree with a move, you shouldn't go along with it. Going along with the majority just to blend in when you know the majority is wrong is inherently scummy.

I also don't see how voting no-lynch "keeps the game alive". Games die because people don't discuss anything; if you want to keep the game alive, you should try to find scum.

As much as I disliked a no lynch, quick lynching or random lynching were the only options, and just as scummy. To me, scum could have taken advantage and could actually force a mislynch. You can yell how "no lynches are bad" but until you can explain how "lynching for the hell of it" is a better option, I'm sticking with the one that benefits town, even if it's slight.

Lynching even semi-randomally is better then a no-lynch, because it gives you information. You're right that the scum might push for a bad lynch, but in the process it gives the town information based on who voted for what bandwagon. Now, because the town didn't lynch anyone yesterday, the best lead I have at the moment is the scummy way everyone followed the bad no-lynch suggestion.

I'm surprised that you went for both BK and I for going with a no lynch. To me, you should have gone for the person who suggested it, CK. The bigger scumtell between riding a no lynch and suggesting a no lynch is the latter.

Um, I am CK. That is, I replaced him. I know he's pro-town, obveously.

Besides that, it's quite common to see a newbie suggest a no-lynch on day 1. You see it in nearly any newbie game. What is quite uncommon, and possibly scummy, is to see more experenced players like you follow the no-lynch suggestion.

[Yosarian2]

And yes, BK is dead. My bad.

[chaotic_diablo]

No, it's not baseless. Suggesting a no-lynch is a common newbie mistake, but I would expect a more experenced player to know that a no lynch on day 1 is always bad for the town. The fact that you went along with it makes me suspicious of you.

It's baseless. The fact that BK was experienced and he went along with it already makes your point moot. Since he turned up town, being experienced has no place in your argument.

Being experienced does not mean I have to follow a set rule of conduct. Being experienced means I will try to make better calls and judegments on particular issues. It doesn't mean I will make the same decisions on the same things over and over again.

Try explaining it yourself. Why did you vote no lynch?

I already have in my previous post. You have answered and tried to argue with them.

If you disagree with a move, you shouldn't go along with it. Going along with the majority just to blend in when you know the majority is wrong is inherently scummy.

You should know better than to just state the usual basic logic. Disagreeing doesn't mean I shouldn't go along with it. You can disagree with lynching a lurker, but be okay with jumping on one when nothing else happens.

I also don't see how voting no-lynch "keeps the game alive". Games die because people don't discuss anything; if you want to keep the game alive, you should try to find scum.

Keeping the game alive is a team effort, not by one person alone. I have already attempted to keep discussion alive, so you can't blame me for letting it die.

Lynching even semi-randomally is better then a no-lynch, because it gives you information. You're right that the scum might push for a bad lynch, but in the process it gives the town information based on who voted for what bandwagon. Now, because the town didn't lynch anyone yesterday, the best lead I have at the moment is the scummy way everyone followed the bad no-lynch suggestion.

Random bandwagons only give out information based on the people who are on it. However, no idiot will try to bring random bandwagon into fruition. Random bandwagons are baseless and can easily be excused as "an attempt to obtain information". All it does it is give scum an opportunity to justify a lynch without attracting suspicion. Even if the lynch happens, it can just be justified as "It was better than nothing!"

Um, I am CK. That is, I replaced him. I know he's pro-town, obveously.

Besides that, it's quite common to see a newbie suggest a no-lynch on day 1. You see it in nearly any newbie game. What is quite uncommon, and possibly scummy, is to see more experenced players like you follow the no-lynch suggestion.

You're being repetitive. Your post isn't any different from your past paragraph.

No, it's not baseless. Suggesting a no-lynch is a common newbie mistake, but I would expect a more experenced player to know that a no lynch on day 1 is always bad for the town. The fact that you went along with it makes me suspicious of you.

[Yosarian2]

It's baseless. The fact that BK was experienced and he went along with it already makes your point moot. Since he turned up town, being experienced has no place in your argument.

No, not really; if I'm right and an experenced player voting no lynch at that point of the game is a scumtell, that only increases the odds of the people doing it being scum, it dosn't mean that they absolutly are scum. BK was town, yes. You might be town as well, but I think that move you made makes it more likely you're scum then a random vote would be, so I'm voting for you.

Being experienced does not mean I have to follow a set rule of conduct. Being experienced means I will try to make better calls and judegments on particular issues. It doesn't mean I will make the same decisions on the same things over and over again.

Nope, but it does mean that I would expect you to know some basic pro-town stratagy and act on it, if you are pro-town.

You should know better than to just state the usual basic logic.

What...I should know better, because I'm an experenced player?

Disagreeing doesn't mean I shouldn't go along with it. You can disagree with lynching a lurker, but be okay with jumping on one when nothing else happens.

That's true, but the reason that you can be ok with jumping on a lurker bandwagon if a deadline's coming up and nothing else seems to be happening is that

lynching a lurker is better then a no-lynch

.

Keeping the game alive is a team effort, not by one person alone. I have already attempted to keep discussion alive, so you can't blame me for letting it die.

I don't, but your justifaction for voting no-lynch was that it was to "help keep the game alive", and I don't see how a no-lynch does help keep the game alive.

Random bandwagons only give out information based on the people who are on it. However, no idiot will try to bring random bandwagon into fruition. Random bandwagons are baseless and can easily be excused as "an attempt to obtain information". All it does it is give scum an opportunity to justify a lynch without attracting suspicion. Even if the lynch happens, it can just be justified as "It was better than nothing!"

Well, perhaps. Random bandwagons aren't great, although they do occasionally hit scum. But it sounds like you already do have an idea for how, why, and when scum are likely to join a random bandwagon, which means that if there had been a random bandwagon, you might have some idea about who to suspect today. Tell me, when would you expect scum to join a no-lynch wagon?

[chaotic_diablo]

No, not really; if I'm right and an experenced player voting no lynch at that point of the game is a scumtell, that only increases the odds of the people doing it being scum, it dosn't mean that they absolutly are scum. BK was town, yes. You might be town as well, but I think that move you made makes it more likely you're scum then a random vote would be, so I'm voting for you.

Then you're wrong. An experienced player voting no lynch isn't a scumtell.

Nope, but it does mean that I would expect you to know some basic pro-town stratagy and act on it, if you are pro-town.

And that is what I did. Again, I don't have to make the same decision on the same points over and over again. There is always room for deviation.

What...I should know better, because I'm an experenced player? Laughing

Actually, you should know better because you are sane enough. Half the scum community are insane, insane, or

insane

sane. The other half goes with insane, insane, and insane.

That's true, but the reason that you can be ok with jumping on a lurker bandwagon if a deadline's coming up and nothing else seems to be happening is that

lynching a lurker is better then a no-lynch.

Same goes with a no lynch. I wouldn't normally go with one, but I'm okay with it since nothing else seems to be happening.

I joined mafiascum when the games started Night one, not day one. As a result, no lynching isn't that big as a deal to me as to others. You might say that it gives scum an extra kill, however, that was what was happening back then. It did nothing to lower the effectiveness of the town.

I don't, but your justifaction for voting no-lynch was that it was to "help keep the game alive", and I don't see how a no-lynch does help keep the game alive.

Perhaps I used the wrong reasoning. Okay, how about this. Whichever action I took, the game would die because a deadline was coming. At that point, a random lynch can just as easily harm us. As a result, no lynching is only option since there is no way in hell are we going to have enough time to agree with lynching randomly.

Well, perhaps. Random bandwagons aren't great, although they do occasionally hit scum. But it sounds like you already do have an idea for how, why, and when scum are likely to join a random bandwagon, which means that if there had been a random bandwagon, you might have some idea about who to suspect today. Tell me, when would you expect scum to join a no-lynch wagon?

My point is that a random bandwagon makes no differentiation between town and scum. As a result, I can expect scum to jump on as much as I like, but I can never catch them because they are playing under the same conditions as everyone else. It's like knowing one of the ants on an anthill is poisonous, but not knowing which one out of the million because they all look the same.
If scum were to act protown, then they wouldn't jump on and would try a random bandwagon instead. Ironically, it just means the people who don't jump on the no lynch are most likely scum.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Why don't you do the honors?

[spectrumvoid]

Weighing in here.

I do not like Yos's attack. Rather obviously, he's replacing the person who made the biggest scum-tell because his predecessor suggested the no-lynch. Then he chooses to go after C_D because of the same no-lynch issue. That smells of hypocrisy. With that said, I don't blame anyone specific for the no-lynch and for the lack of activity yesterday. The way I see it, the ex-town (before the replacements) as a whole was responsible. Yos suggested the no-lynch, yes, but the rest supported it. I don't like Yos not because he suggested it, but because of his attack on C_D.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Why don't you do the honors?

This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Done.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Why don't you do the honors?

This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Done.

Fixed.

[Yosarian2]

Weighing in here.

I do not like Yos's attack. Rather obviously, he's replacing the person who made the biggest scum-tell because his predecessor suggested the no-lynch. Then he chooses to go after C_D because of the same no-lynch issue. That smells of hypocrisy. With that said, I don't blame anyone specific for the no-lynch and for the lack of activity yesterday. The way I see it, the ex-town (before the replacements) as a whole was responsible. Yos suggested the no-lynch, yes, but the rest supported it. I don't like Yos not because he suggested it, but because of his attack on C_D.

(shrug) If you want to attack me because my predicessor suggested a no-lynch, then go for it. It's not "hypocracy"; I wouldn't suggest a no-lynch on day 1, and I have no idea why CK did. The most basic rule in mafia is if you do something that hurts the town, it makes you less likely to be pro-town, and from what I can see everyone on that no-lynch wagon did something to hurt the town, including my predecessor. I think his move looks more like a basic newbie mistake then anything else, but then again I already knew he was pro-town when I did the read so I might be biased.

I've got to go with what I see; so little happened day 1 that I can get any kind of read from, so I had to find some scum-tell to attack someone for in order to hopefully help something more happen today, and chaotic diablo's post where he voted no lynch while also looking like he was consious that a no-lynch wasn't a good pro-town move was the best scum-tell I could find in that 6 page day 1. I'm attacking Chaotic Diablo because that's the only thing I can find in the game so far that's worth attacking, and if people don't start attacking and scum-hunting the town is in deep trouble. If you can find a better lead to follow up on then the no-lynch thing, then please share.

[Atticus]

Was going through my past games and this one came up. Couldnt remember the game until I checked the thread.

Anyways, I just wanted to give a full apology to all of you, especially Atticus and Sherlock. I overreacted to what was said, and planned to give a full apology when I lost access to MS for a few months. I only remembered it now.

So yeah, sorry for being an asshole and all. I would have accepted to stay in when Sherlock PMed me, but I had lost access.

Thanks, that's really nice. I'm sorry for making an arch-rival on MafiaScum.
_____________
I'm with Spectrum here. Yos's attack is not only hypocritical, but well, stupid? He basically accused C_D for joining something he thought was a bad idea, and a dead guy.

There was not much of a better choice, a random lynch is worse. Oops, we just killed the cop. Well so and so suggested it let's lynch him. A lurker lynch is the same deal.

And in any case should Yos have any spot to say what experienced players should do? When he himself admits (jokingly) that he's not experienced? This seems entirely out of place and irrational. He expects something from experienced players, like you expect a person in their first game not to know precisely what they're doing.

But he expects them to... always make the same decision. Always do what

YOSARIAN

thinks is the correct play! It make-a no sense-a!

And that's how we weigh in, ATTICUS style.

[Atticus]

I think his move looks more like a basic newbie mistake then anything else, but then again I already knew he was pro-town when I did the read so I might be biased.

Colonel Kurtz is a newbie now?

[Yosarian2]

I'm with Spectrum here. Yos's attack is not only hypocritical, but well, stupid? He basically accused C_D for joining something he thought was a bad idea, and a dead guy.

...huh? I accused him of doing something that was bad for the town. And he did. What's your point?

There was not much of a better choice, a random lynch is worse. Oops, we just killed the cop. Well so and so suggested it let's lynch him. A lurker lynch is the same deal.

Wrong on both counts.

The lynch is the town's only real tool to get rid of scum. Each time the town no-lynches, the scum gets to kill a townie, and the town gets nothing except possibly some night results if they're lucky enough to have an investigative role. Each day that passes without even an attempt to lynch lowers the town's odds of winning quite significantly.

Random lynches or lurker lynches are much better then a no-lynch, because they at least have a chance to hit scum instead of the town just sitting around and letting the scum kill them off one by one, they get more information, and they're mathmatically better for the town then a no-lynch. If the person being bandwagoned is a power role, he'll generally have time to claim before the lynch happens, if he's paying attention at all, which means that even a fast last-minute lynch will probably be better then random. And of course you don't vote randomally; you try to put together a bandwagon on someone that looks scummy rather then just sitting back and let a no-lynch happen, or even worse actually help CAUSE a no-lynch to happen. And no, of course you don't just lynch the person who suggested the lynch just because it was wrong, that would be dumb.

A no-lynch is pretty close to the worst thing that can happen to the town on day 1.

And in any case should Yos have any spot to say what experienced players should do? When he himself admits (jokingly) that he's not experienced?

Take a look at my 2005 join date. Or take a look at my profile and the hundreds of games I've played in. What on earth made you think I'm not experenced?

This seems entirely out of place and irrational. He expects something from experienced players, like you expect a person in their first game not to know precisely what they're doing.

But he expects them to... always make the same decision. Always do what

YOSARIAN

thinks is the correct play! It make-a no sense-a!

No, I just expect them not to make terrible mistakes like voting no-lynch on day 1.

If you do something that hurts the town, I vote for you, it's really quite simple.

[chaotic_diablo]

The lynch is the town's only real tool to get rid of scum. Each time the town no-lynches, the scum gets to kill a townie, and the town gets nothing except possibly some night results if they're lucky enough to have an investigative role. Each day that passes without even an attempt to lynch lowers the town's odds of winning quite significantly.

The lynch isn't what helps town win, it's the effort a townie puts into the game.

Random lynches or lurker lynches are much better then a no-lynch, because they at least have a chance to hit scum instead of the town just sitting around and letting the scum kill them off one by one, they get more information, and they're mathmatically better for the town then a no-lynch.

They also have the same chance to hit a power role.

If the person being bandwagoned is a power role, he'll generally have time to claim before the lynch happens, if he's paying attention at all, which means that even a fast last-minute lynch will probably be better then random.

Generally, it hurts town to reveal a power role day one before a last minute deadline. Again, I'm seeing the "It's okay to lynch this power role because it's justified" rationale.

All it does it is give scum an opportunity to justify a lynch without attracting suspicion. Even if the lynch happens, it can just be justified as "It was better than nothing!"

And of course you don't vote randomally; you try to put together a bandwagon on someone that looks scummy rather then just sitting back and let a no-lynch happen, or even worse actually help CAUSE a no-lynch to happen. And no, of course you don't just lynch the person who suggested the lynch just because it was wrong, that would be dumb.

A bad plan that is followed can put town into a worse situation, especially a last-minute one.

[Yosarian2]

They also have the same chance to hit a power role.

Again, that generally dosn't happen, because the person can claim.

Generally, it hurts town to reveal a power role day one before a last minute deadline. Again, I'm seeing the "It's okay to lynch this power role because it's justified" rationale.

Look, it is bad to reveal a town power role, yes. But if you no-lynch, you're just giving the scum a free kill, and the scum are probably going to either kill a townie or a pro-town power role, and then you start off the next day in the same situation but with one less good guy alive. How does that help?

A bad plan that is followed can put town into a worse situation, especially a last-minute one.

It might, or it might not. You've got a chance. With a no-lynch, you've got no chance, it just wastes a day and brings the town one day closer to losing.

Are you seriously trying to argue that no-lynch was the correct move yesterday? Because the post you made then didn't make it sound like you thought it was then.

[Atticus]

You should know better than to just state the usual basic logic.

What...I should know better, because I'm an experenced player?

I didn't say I never thought you weren't experienced. I've always viewed you as an experienced player. This however, makes me think you have some weird definition of experienced. Calling Colonel Kurtz a newbie. Using the emoticon when talking about your own level of experience.

Again, that generally dosn't happen, because the person can claim.

NOt if they're rather someone who is currently absent from the game, which would quite possibly explain why they HAVEN"T POSTED AT ALL. Prehaps? Perhaps!

[chaotic_diablo]

Look, it is bad to reveal a town power role, yes. But if you no-lynch, you're just giving the scum a free kill, and the scum are probably going to either kill a townie or a pro-town power role, and then you start off the next day in the same situation but with one less good guy alive. How does that help?

If we reveal a power role before a deadline and lynch someone else, we have a much highly likelihood of hitting another protown player

and

losing that power role over the night. I'd rather have scum make that uninformed kill. If the power role isn't a doc, that's just one less person within scum's target range to hit the correct role.

It might, or it might not. You've got a chance. With a no-lynch, you've got no chance, it just wastes a day and brings the town one day closer to losing.

Misinformed lynches can do so as well. One mislynch just brings town

that

much closer to a losing. In fact, mislynches are the leading cause of town deaths and mafia wins.

Are you seriously trying to argue that no-lynch was the correct move yesterday? Because the post you made then didn't make it sound like you thought it was then.

A last-minute plan made at the nick of time is a bad plan. We should have time to go over it and at least decide to how to approach it. A no lynch is basically a move that does nothing, but doesn't follow any one path. I'd rather stay on that path than go with a bad one.