Mini 456: Ultimatum Mafia - Game Over!

[Mr Stoofer]

OK, here are my thoughts.

There are two crucial mechanics in this game that our strategy should be based around.

1

. This game involves players unilaterally attacking others -- without the necessity of getting a majority of people to agree with you. Previous games of this sort (Bad Idea Mafia I & II; M.A.D. Mafia) have all gone the same way: the Townies kill off each other and the Scum coast to victory. Townies have less to lose and so are more reckless; the Scum are more cautious in a such a game, so that sit back, keep their heads down, and the Townies ignore them. We have to avoid doing that. DO NOT CHALLENGE RECKLESSLY.

2

. This is a speed game. So the oppurtunities to get info are limited. This means that EVERYONE MUST MAKE REGULAR SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS. If players are allowed to lurk -- and that includes Townies -- it makes it so much harder to work out who the Scum are.

With that in mind, I propose the following strategy for Day 1:

(a)

Nobody make a challenge. Instead we let the Mod enforce this rule:

If no one has volunteered to be the Challenger, then the person with the least recent post at deadline will be named the Challenger.

This will encourage everyone to post regularly. And it also avoids a jumpy Townie challenging another jumpy Townie (which is what will happen with any other strategy).

(b)

The Challenger challenges the person who has made the fewest

substantive

contributions.

I think that this strategy will give us a decent, information filled Day 1 to allow us to really hunt Scum on days 2+.

Thoughts?

[Mr Stoofer]

Also, I'm going to be watching for "active lurkers" -- players who post regularly but without saying anything substantive.

[Mr Stoofer]

I agree with The Fonz/mneme. We need something to talk about, and nominations for Challenger is a good idea. So I propose modifying my suggestion:

Stoofer strategy v2.0

(a)

During the Day, we nominate players to be the Challenger.

(b)

If a majority (i.e. 7+ players) nominate one player ("the Nominee"), he must become the Challenger.

(c)

If the Nominee does not make a Challenge, then we let the Mod enforce the rule below; and everyone will vote to evict the Nominee.

If no one has volunteered to be the Challenger, then the person with the least recent post at deadline will be named the Challenger.

(d)

If nobody gets a majority, we let the Mod enforce the same rule.

(e)

Unless

(c)

applies, the Challenger will challenge the person who has made the fewest

substantive

contributions.

This strategy will encourage everyone to post regularly. And it also avoids a jumpy Townie challenging another jumpy Townie. I think that this strategy will give us a decent, information filled Day 1 to allow us to really hunt Scum on days 2+.

Thoughts?

[Mr Stoofer]

OMGUS nominate: menme

just to get things going.

[Mr Stoofer]

I think that this, and other similar strategies, are fine for the first couple of days when we don't have much information and this sort of thing could help get the game going. Later on we will have a much clearer image of who is suspicious to the town, and who isn't, so anyone could challange one of those people. My main concern is that there is too much to talk about later on the game, and I don't think anyone will get a majority. Then the mod will have to apply the rule, and I don't think that would be desirable later on the game.

I completely agree.

[Mr Stoofer]

The scum don't want to either offer or receive challenges -- as both give scum a chance of dying that staying out of the limelight Van Damien's post is nonsensical.

Yes, various people have said this in various ways and I agree.

But I'm a little bit more suspicious of it than you guys. I think the Scum mindset will be cautious about challenging -- for fear of drawing attention to oneself -- so "a free pass" may represent VanDamien's thinking that this would be a useful way to select one of the two possible "victims", without looking scummy.

nominate: VanDamien

[Mr Stoofer]

Stoofer strategy v2.1 (

changes from v2.0 in red

)

(a)

During the Day, we nominate players to be the Challenger

and Challengee. Nominate up to 2 people. Also, please un-nominate expressly.

(b)

If a majority (i.e. 7+ players) nominate one player ("the Nominee"), he must become the Challenger.

(c)

If the Nominee does not make a Challenge, then we let the Mod enforce the rule below; and everyone will vote to evict the Nominee.

If no one has volunteered to be the Challenger, then the person with the least recent post at deadline will be named the Challenger.

(d)

If nobody gets a majority, we let the Mod enforce the same rule.

(e)

Unless

(c)

applies, the Challenger will challenge the person who has

made the fewest

substantive

contributions

the most nominations (apart from the Challenger).

[Mr Stoofer]

I'll also

un-nominate mneme

and

nominate dylan41985

Nomination Count

dylan: 2 (Yopsarian2, Stoofer)
Van Damien: 2 (mneme(2nd), Stoofer)
Mneme: 1 (Carrotcake)
Stoofer: 1 (Sparks)
Spinwizard: 1 (Mneme)
Stewie: 1 (Dan Monkey)

[Mr Stoofer]

We need to avoid using the terms town and scum.

Why, because you don't want to think of yourself us a scumbag?

un-nominate dylan, nominate DeanWinchester

[Mr Stoofer]

Actually, Yosarian2's analysis has persuaded me that DeanWinchester is probably completely clueless (and therefore his post tells us little about his alignment). My nomination on him stands though.

[Mr Stoofer]

Sorry I didn't have time to make a proper post during the weekend -- this thread demanded a proper read.

I've now read the thread, and unfortunately it seems to be taken up entirely by Sparks and his deluded nonsense.

Even if he's a townie, the I want him out of the game, for all he does is spout unhelpful, illogical crap. His reference to "HOMOSEXUAL NOMINATION SYSTME" [sic] encapsulates all the reasons why the Town can't win with him in the game. I completely agree with Yosarian2:

At this point, I want to lynch you just because I don't see us accomplishing anything else or making any progess in finding scum so long as you continue to rant and scream and insult people in long incomprehensible posts that ramble on about nothing.

In fact, I do think he is probably scum. I think he really gave himself away in post 55. mneme speculated on whether scum could talk during the day, but Sparks obviously knows they can't. I think he knows that from his role PM. As The Fonz said:

Frankly, Sparks, I'm quite glad you look scummy. It gets me off the hook of a moral dilemma- you see, your homophobic and personally abusive comments are making this game much less enjoyable for me, but of course if they were combined with a general appearance of townishness, I'd have to weigh the desire to get rid of you with my duty to my town-mates to search out scum. Fortunately, I don't have to.

I feel the same.

Apart from the Sparks debacle, the only thing of substance in the thread is the matter of the lurkers, of whom dylan is the worst. Yes I know I didn't post over the weekend, but I was active before and you'll see I'm active now.

So who to vote for? Since my vote is irrevocable, I won't lay it down just yet, but I can't see that I'm likely to do anything other than vote to keep dylan. I've made the point about lurkers (active or otherwise) and I'm going to nominate him first thing Day 2 unless there is a significant improvement between now and then. But my desire to get rid of Sparks is so overwhelming that it trumps even that.

[Mr Stoofer]

If you do that, Stoof, I'm voting for him.

Remember, you vote for the one you want to save!

[Mr Stoofer]

The I don't understand your post. You said:

Challenging a lurker first thing is sooo scummy it's untrue. You completely curtail nomination debate, yet you've got a good shot at winning just because he isn't likely to defend himself properly.

Isn't that what Sparks did?

[Mr Stoofer]

Since my vote is irrevocable, I won't lay it down just yet, but I can't see that I'm likely to do anything other than vote to keep dylan. I've made the point about lurkers (active or otherwise) and I'm going to nominate him first thing Day 2 unless there is a significant improvement between now and then.

ah. I thought he said challenge. He said nominate. My bad.

The I don't understand your post. You said:

Challenging a lurker first thing is sooo scummy it's untrue. You completely curtail nomination debate, yet you've got a good shot at winning just because he isn't likely to defend himself properly.

Isn't that what Sparks did?

Nope, unless you think 'with the deadline nearing' is the same as 'first thing.' This doesn't mean I don't find Sparks scummy btw. But his last handful of posts have been a lot better imho.

OK, now I understand! We were just talking at cross-purposes.

The Fonz makes a valid point. Anyone who makes a challenge straight off the bat - in the first two RL days of a day - should be eliminated. From now on,

I will always vote to save anyone challenged in the first two RL days of a day.

You seem to misunderstand our argument. The reason I want him gone is because he is not only annoying, but illogical, puts little time into reading my posts and making his, and distracted the town from going after other people (such as yourself, so I can see why you'd want to save him) by making a long non-argument against a plan that is not only helpful in gathering information, but also flexible if mistakes are found in it. All these things together - including the annoyance factor, as you mentioned - are not only unhelpful, but actually hurt the town's chances. Therefore, getting rid of him is a benefit to the town, regardless of his alignment (which I think is scum, so it doesn't matter that much anyways).

Couldn't agree more with this -- just quoting it because there's is no point me saying the same thing in different words.

As for the Scum role PMs, this just confirms what I had said earlier. Sparks lept down mneme's throat for suggesting that Scum might be able to talk at night. How did he know that they couldn't? If he had read the front post carefully I am sure he would have pointed to that, especially after I had said this:

I think he really gave himself away in post 55. mneme speculated on whether scum could talk during the day, but Sparks obviously knows they can't. I think he knows that from his role PM.

If Sparks had got the information from the front post, he would have said so. I believe more than ever that he is scum.

FWIW, I think they're both scum. Sparks, dylan was a great choice, as someone who was acting about as scummy as you were (if in some very different ways).

wuldnt a better choice be challengin someone that was way more scummier than me ? if this was directed to someone else id think it was mafia trying to communicate during the day

Lol! menme's point is that

no-one

is acting more scummy than you -- you couldn't have picked anyone more scummy.

[Mr Stoofer]

I asserted 3 things in that post

-meme was scum
-meme was talking during the day
-scum couldn't talk during the day

How did you know that Scum couldn't talk during the day?

And if the answer is: "because I read it in the front post", then why didn't you point that out in response to posts 57, 61, 81 or 135?

[Mr Stoofer]

I think that Sparks' scum tell is slightly stronger than dylan's. But more importantly, of the two of them, I really want Sparks dead ASAP for his general obnoxiousness.

I'll be voting to "save dylan" (actually I'll be voting to kill Sparks) tomorrow (Wednesday) in the absence of something spectacular. I'll then be nominating dylan first thing Day 2.

[Mr Stoofer]

I guess it's just a matter of opinion which one you find most scummy. Whomever we lynch, I don't see the other one surviving past tomorrow.

In those circumstances, I'm going to

Vote: dylan41985

for the reasons given here.

[Mr Stoofer]

I don't really feel like campaigning in relation to this contest, but I note that Sparks has not yet responded to this:

I asserted 3 things in that post

-meme was scum
-meme was talking during the day
-scum couldn't talk during the day

How did you know that Scum couldn't talk during the day?

And if the answer is: "because I read it in the front post", then why didn't you point that out in response to posts 57, 61, 81 or 135?

[Mr Stoofer]

Ooh, this is getting quite exciting.

How did you know that Scum couldn't talk during the day?

it was a joke

Enough said.

I don't really feel like campaigning in relation to this contest,

aka "i want to lie low"

Roflmao.

[Mr Stoofer]

Just a heads up - I will be away for a few days, and certainly won't be able to post before Monday - see my signature.

[Mr Stoofer]

Sorry but I won't have time to do a proper post until tomorrow.

I have read the thread and obviously Sparks was mafia. Yosarian2 is dead right - we need to go after the Conservative Mafia now - the one-man liberal mafia is pretty much no threat at all to us now, as long as he gets killed at some point while we gun down the conservatives.

The most likely conservative is of course dylan.

Nominate: dylan

.

[Mr Stoofer]

I am definitely against trying to track down the last liberal mafia as a priority. The longer those damn conservatives are around the harder this is going to become.

There is no chance that dylan is liberal mafia, and good chance that he's scum, so I think he is the ideal candidate for today. He's head and shoulders above anyone else in terms of scumminess, so I'm going to find it hard to identify any other good candidates for a challenge while he is still around.

[Mr Stoofer]

I'm thinking at the moment, the

best move is to lynch VanDamien the day after we get the first conservative

. At the moment, he's a non-conservative body. However, there seems little point in waiting until there's one of each left to lynch VD, unless doing so would put us in LyLo.

Agreed. I also think that there is a very high chance that VanDamien is a Conservative - his claim makes much more sense as a Conservative gambit than a real Liberal claim. But either way, the correct play is to lynch him soon but not yet. I'd like to lynch dylan today and (if he is a Con) then VanDamien. If we do that I think we may have reduced both scum groups to 1 each.

Come to think of it, Dean's big scumtell is still around (ie, "no, we must not call the scum scum -- we must call them a 'group of three'" , and if dylan checks out as a tory, there's a case to be made that the stuff that lead to dylan's lying was him busing Dean and then getting caught at it.

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that you think Dean and dylan are scum together?

-----------------------------------------

After I wrote the above, I saw Battle Mage's challenge.

This is very, very bad play. BM was coming across as Townie to me, which makes me even more annoyed that he has done this.

I'm not going to doing anything without thinking it over, but my immediate reaction is that we

have

to make an example of Battle Mage. As the majority, we the Town have to control the challenge process and not allow it to be subverted by unilateral action (whether by over-eager Townies or by Scum). I am in favour of lynching Battle Mage on principle, so as to discourage both over-eager Townies and Scum from making challenges without the consensus of the majority.

It would be a real pity if Battle Mage is Town, but we are doing well enough to afford a mislynch; and the long term benefit in discouraging unilateral action will be considerable.

As I say, this is a provisional view -- I'd welcome the thoughts of others.

[Mr Stoofer]

I get more and more furious with Battle Mage each time I look at this thread. I don't think I can recall ever having been more p***ed off with a player in a game of Mafia.

I'm pretty sure that I am going to end up voting to save Van Damien, for two reasons.

First

: The nomination system is absolutely essential for maintaining discipline. If all the individual Townies simply act unilaterally as BM did,

then the Town will lose

. I am absolutely sure of that. As I have already said, and everyone (except Sparks-scum) agreed:

This game involves players unilaterally attacking others -- without the necessity of getting a majority of people to agree with you. Previous games of this sort (Bad Idea Mafia I & II; M.A.D. Mafia) have all gone the same way: the Townies kill off each other and the Scum coast to victory. Townies have less to lose and so are more reckless; the Scum are more cautious in a such a game, so that sit back, keep their heads down, and the Townies ignore them. We have to avoid doing that. DO NOT CHALLENGE RECKLESSLY.

This point is reinforced by the fact that there was a growing consensus in favour of keeping VanDamien alive for a little bit longer. At the time of the challenge Van Damien had

0

primary nominations (as against 4 for dylan) and only 1 secondary nomination.

It's quite clear that if BM is Town and he stays alive he is a loose cannon who is going to screw this game for the Town.

Secondly

: I don't think we can assume that BM is Town anyway. Quite the reverse. There are plenty of grounds for thinking that his challenge was a Scum gambit:

• Battle Mage's play screws up the nomination system which has so far been spectacularly successful at catching Scum. And if we don't lynch him for it, it threatens to do long term damage to the system as other players, Scum and Townie, see that they can get away with unilateral action.
  
• I don't think we should or can ignore that fact that Battle Mage challenged claim Scum. I have no doubt that he thought he would have no difficulty winning the vote in the circumstances. I could easily imagine that Battle Mage's tiny brain might think that he could make himself look pro-Town by killing a Scum bag.
  
• All the reasons why the Town wants to keep VanDamien alive for now are reasons why the Conservative Scum want him dead (assuming he is Liberal).

[Mr Stoofer]

"Disengenuous" is a concept that your little mind will never be able to cope with.

"Manny being Manny" is a line from Black Books. It just means that you are always stupid and always do stupid things.

I am so annoyed with you I could cry.

@Stoof-you can disagree with my actions all you want. The fact that nobody else thought VD was the play, doesnt mean that he wasn't. Much as Mafia is a team game, there are great benefits to thinking for yourself. I agree that it might have been better to let VD live, IF we could guarantee hitting a Conservative today. And we just cant do that.
So, rather than following a hair-brained scheme which i didnt agree with, i decided to do what in my mind, is the best option. Kill the confirmed scum first. You might consider my action detrimental to the town, but i think you'll be singing a different tune if he comes up Conservative.
And to be honest, if you are considering killing me today, you really have no grounds to criticise me for action detrimental to the town.

Ever heard the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
think about it.

I have thought about it. And I concluded that you are an idiot. Especially after you agreed that it might have been better to let VD live. Lots of people explained whu "Kill the confirmed scum first" was

NOT

the best play. But you went ahead anyway. That makes you either Scum or a Townie who so stupid that you are more dangerous to the Town than the scum.

This is not a case of two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless of VanDamien's alignment, it was very very very very very very very very wrong of you to challenge him. It was wrong because unilateral action hurts the Town. And it was wrong because the consensus was that VD was not today's play. So the right thing to do is punish you for it to make sure that no-one else does the same thing.

In addition to the two reasons given by me in post 315 above:

Thirdly

: Battle Mage is a complete idiot, who is bound to distract and hurt the Town regardless of his alignment, and the sooner he is dead the better. Further, as long as he is in the game I can't concentrate due to fury.

[Mr Stoofer]

As presently advised I want the following people dead in the following order:

1. Battle Mage
   - for the 3 reasons given above.
   
2. dylan
   - probably scum; definitely not Liberal.
   
3. VanDamien
   - definitely Scum, not sure of his alignment. Once we have killed the above, it will probably be time for him to die.

[Mr Stoofer]

Also, I am suspicious of Yosarian2 for not supporting Battle Mage's death. I would have thought that he would be as keen as anyone to deter unilateral action.

[Mr Stoofer]

You wont be surprised when i tell you that i rarely have opportunity to defend myself using an argument as strong as here

, but truly i feel that the choice SHOULD be obvious for townies. Even if you think i COULD, or even PROBABLY AM scum, you can always kill me tomorrow. However, the only reason you could have for lynching me is if you were MORE CERTAIN of me being scum than VD. If that is the case, fair enough, but in some cases people are voting for me just because.

This was exactly what I meant when I said this:

I have no doubt that he thought he would have no difficulty winning the vote in the circumstances. I could easily imagine that Battle Mage's tiny brain might think that he could make himself look pro-Town by killing a Scum bag.

Now that Battle Mage has said this expressly, I think it a real possibility that this was a Scum gambit to get an easy "win" in a head to head.

[Mr Stoofer]

Excellent catch, The Fonz. Both posts #316 and #326 from Battle Mage are written from a POV in which I am certainly Town.

[Mr Stoofer]

Many of his comments throughout the game prior to my replacing in, reflected my thoughts remarkably.

Well that is simply untrue. My main argument on Day 1 was that the Town should not act unilaterally. If you genuinely agreed with that you wouldn't have challenged VanDamien.

[Mr Stoofer]

m getting more convinced with every post that VD is Conservative scum. Unfortunately with his buddies protecting him, it will probably be too late by the time he actually gets killed.

Which buddies?

[Mr Stoofer]

Is that all you have to say on recent events, Yosarian2?

[Mr Stoofer]

you never lynch someone because of "policy", you lynch them if you think they're scum.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with this.

All the sensible players in this game (including no doubt some of the Scum who knew better than to argue) agreed with some version of the nomination system -- for good reasons which we all know.

IMHO the Town has to enforce the use of that system. Otherwise the sort of Townies who lost M.A.D/Bad Idea for the Town would simply act as they would anyway. I guess its a question of how worried you are about this, but I think we have enough lynches to be able to afford policy lynches. Indeed, I think we can't afford

not

to policy lynch -- otherwise the system breaks down and we know where that always leads...

The reason I expressed surprise was because I got the impression that you, as the Mod of M.A.D., would be vehemently in favour enforcing the nominations system. I was surprised that you weren't and I guess I was just speculating as to what your motives are. As I have said, I am genuinely surprised that you do not share my views on this.

As it happens, this may well be moot, since I think there are good grounds for thinking that Battle Mage is indeed scum. What do you think about that?

[Mr Stoofer]

@Yosarian2: I guess the difference between us is whether it is

possible

to enforce a system such as the nominations system; I suppose I am just more optimistic than you. I agree that it is Townies that are more likely to go off piste than Scum; but if we make it clear that going against the system=death, then the Townies should behave.

Of course, Battle Mage is such a player that the mere fact that he went off piste tells us nothing about his alignment.

However, there have been a number of positive points raised as to why Battle Mage might be scum. What do you think of those points? (This is the third time I have attempted to ask you that.)

[Mr Stoofer]

I was going to wait a few days; but it seems that timing of the voting may be important in the case of a tie:

With 8 voters total, the first to four is saved!

So I am going to

Vote: VanDamien

now for the reasons I have already given in detail -- in summary:

• I think it worth trying to enforce the nominations system.
  
• I think Battle Mage is likely scum.
  
• If Battle Mage is not Scum then he is a loose cannon, a danger to the Town, and the sooner he is dead the better.

[Mr Stoofer]

Albert:

As presently advised I want the following people dead in the following order:

1. Battle Mage
   - for the 3 reasons given above.
   
2. dylan
   - probably scum; definitely not Liberal.
   
3. VanDamien
   - definitely Scum, not sure of his alignment. Once we have killed the above, it will probably be time for him to die.

[Mr Stoofer]

Mod

: can you please confirm that the voting period will continue to the deadline, even after the result is not in doubt?

[Mr Stoofer]

I'd still like to hear Stoofer explain why he thinks battle mage is scum.

I've done this in my posts today: see 315 (under "Secondly"), 325, 329, 330 (pointing out an untruth). I'd quote them all again if he wasn't already dead. Can't you just go back and read them?

I will challenge mneme as soon as I can, once all the town decides it is time.

Battle Mage has just been killed for (amongst other things) challenging without the agreement of the rest of the Town. Don't make the same mistake.

Dylan is getting a major pass here. He should at the very least been involved in the debate today. I'm going to suspect anyone that challenges anyone, but Dylan.

I agree with all of that (though you, DeanWinchester, are a prime candidate for being dylan's scumbuddy). Dylan has not really contributed today, which is surprising -- if it wasn't for the Battle Mage factor he would be on the chopping block today. I think I'll be nominating dylan and Dean Winchester as soon as the next day starts.

[Mr Stoofer]

In fact, I believe everyone has voted now, so we can start Day 3 as soon as a Mod gets here.

[Mr Stoofer]

And Stoofer, some of your reasons for suspecting BM seem to contradict your other posts. Earlier, you seemed to suggest that you thought BM was scum trying to mess up the nomination system, while later you said that the fact BM did the nomination dosn't say anything about his alignment. The reason I wasnted you to specifically lay out your reasons now, before we find out BM's alignment, is because they didn't quite make sense to me...

I didn't contradict myself; I was trying to draw a quite subtle distinction. What I said was:

Of course, Battle Mage is such a player that the mere fact that he went off piste tells us nothing about his alignment.

What I meant by that was that the simple fact (without more) that Battle Mage didn't abide by the nominations system was not, without more, an indication of scumminess. Battle Mage really is that stupid.

But there were additional considerations that made me suspicious of his motives for challenging VanDamien:

• This was not just a case of not following the system; the specific question whether VanDamien should be lynched was being discussed in the thread and the emerging consensus was that we should leave him for later. So Battle Mage seemed to be deliberately trying to do the opposite of what the Town wanted. This is what I had in mind when I said that he might be Scum trying to mess up the nomination system.
  
• VanDamien is confirmed Scum. An "easy lynch" (although not as it tuirned out). This made me think that Battle Mage might be trying to win "pro-Town" points by killing a Scumbag.
  
• This feeling was strengthened by the way that Battle Mage argued for VanDamien's lynch. Comments like this:

Of course, in my mind, the choice is clear. You can either lynch guaranteed scum, or potential scum. Im not Liberal, nor am i Conservative.

Is it worth wasting a day that we need in order to catch the Conservative scum, or would it be better to get rid of the certain scum, and maybe deal with BM tomorrow.

Kill the confirmed scum first. You might consider my action detrimental to the town, but i think you'll be singing a different tune if he comes up Conservative.

That last one I found particularly scummy. If (as many people suspect) VanDamien is Conservative; then Battle Mage's bizarre action can be explained as a gambit: to take credit for killing his buddy (who is a dead man anyway).

Of course I have other reasons, independent of his challenge of VanDamien, for thinking Battle Mage is scummy (outlined above). Plus I want him dead for policy reasons (a matter which we disagree about but which is now moot).

[Mr Stoofer]

In summary: if Battle Mage had just challenged (for example) me, I would have put it down to Battle Mage being an idiot. But the fact that he challenged VanDamien, and the way that he did it, strikes me as scummy.

[Mr Stoofer]

I'd like mneme (or some other volunteer) to set out the case against dylan in full, please.

[Mr Stoofer]

To clarify, are there any points against dylan other than:

• He has consistently lurked.
  
• He piled a third vote onto DeanWinchester (as a bandwagon was groing on him) then later claimed that this was merely random.

[Mr Stoofer]

Hmm... The reason that I asked was that I did a re-read of dylan's posts in isolation and started to think "is he really being scummy, or just a Newbie?"

You've certainly got some good points there. It's just that I'm suffering from Battle Mage-effect: what do you do when even the most blatant Scum tells are sometimes perpetrated by poor pro-Town players?

For example, I normally think this sort of thing is particularly telling:

Fonz, I really don't know how else to convince you but to say that later in the game you won't regret keeping me here. I can promise you that.

Finishes by promising that I personally won't regret keeping him around. Since if he's a townie, he can't know my alignment, that would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to say. Makes more sense as scum, flailing to try to stay alive.

But then you and I made exactly the same point against Battle Mage...

Having said that, I still think I'm going to

nominate: dylan

for the lie about his vote on DeanWinchester. It's the combination of piling onto a bandwagon and then trying to disassociate from it that I don't like.

[Mr Stoofer]

I agree with Yosarian2 on the VanDamien issue.

Anyone wanting to kill someone other than dylan today had better set out a convincing case, for me at least...

[Mr Stoofer]

dylan, if I were you I'd concentrate on providing reasons and content yourself, not badgering other people to do it.

[And yes Albert, I'd like to hear this "voluminous case" too.]

[Mr Stoofer]

i could easilly point out why dylan should be lynch and why I should be saved.

Please do this now.

[Mr Stoofer]

Otherwise, I'd probably like to see Stoofer challange Dylan, because as I mentioned Stoofer's behavior yesterday seemed iffy to me.

I explained what you perceived to be a contradiction. It wasn't. What was wrong with my explanation?

[Mr Stoofer]

Yosarian, you seem to have missed this post.

And to answer your question, I'd like to see Dean Winchester or Albert B Rampage challenge dylan.

[Mr Stoofer]

I explained why Battle Mage did more than just "go off piste" in numerous posts already, especially the one I just referred you to.

I don't understand what you mean by "I was hoping would happen would be that you would specifically lay out your spcific arguments for why BM was scum in one seperate post, as a series of coherent arguments, and then we could discuss your reasons". Apart from being spread in numerous posts, I had set out all my arguments in detail, coherently, with numbering and bullets for ease of reference already. If you wanted to attack them they were all there, laid out nice and clearly, for you.

As for ending the day prematurely, the day would have gone on until everyone had voted. If you had wanted it to continue until deadline, you could have waited until (just before) the deadline before you voted yourself. You didn't. I told you the reason why I voted when I did: the timing of votes matters when we have an even number of voters. I was in no doubt about where I would be putting my vote, so delaying my vote just made it more likely that it would not count.

[Mr Stoofer]

I'd actually like dylan to pick his challenge without the benefit of the Town's input. I'd like to see who he chooses off his own bat rather than having him just follow the Town's consensus. I think we'll get better info that way.

[Mr Stoofer]

This is easy-peasy. In fact, it's annoyingly easy because we are not going to get any sort of useful debate from this. Because we have an odd number of voters, the timing of votes is not critical, so I'll hold off voting so as to avoid The Wrath of Yosarian. But I don't see any basis that I would have for voting dylan.

[Mr Stoofer]

Albert, your continuing statements that mneme is/might be scum, without explaining your reasons, are beginning to annoy me. You have been asked numerous times for reasons. Please give them now.

[Mr Stoofer]

I still think it might be possible Dylan is scum with mneme tough...maybe.

*giggle*. That would require a really big bus. Maybe a fleet.

Surely the more you have pushed him, the smaller the bus that will be needed?

[Off-topic posting since there is no debate to be had on this challenge.]

[Mr Stoofer]

Very busy at work at the moment. Hopefully I'll be able to make a substantive contribution tonight, but I had better

Vote: Stewie

now just in case I can't.

[Mr Stoofer]

This is hard. I can think of 4 people who have been acting very pro-town all game: participating well, making pro-town points etc etc etc.

They are mneme, Yosarian2, Stewie and The Fonz. At least one of them must be conservative scum (from my POV). Probably more than one. I think that there is a lot to be said for trying to get a "hard" lynch today. So far we have made "easy" lynches, with a hit rate of only 1 in 3.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'd also put myself into the "hard" lynch category. I'm not saying the Town should just ignore me.

[Mr Stoofer]

As yet (pending re-read) I don't have any evidence against any of the "hard" players.

What I was trying to say was that we need to look carefully at them, rather doing somehting easy. It would be the easiest thing in the world to just kill off one of Albert, DeanWinchester or Van Damien without any real thought. Each of them has said plenty of stupid things that would justify lynching them. What is needed is a more careful, critical approach to the other players.

I haven't yet had the chance to go back and do a careful re-read of

all

players, but I think it essential that everyone does that. That was my real point.

[Mr Stoofer]

@VD: Can scum talk in scum-chat?

See, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. DeanWinchester has said plenty of things that would justify lynching him. But it is plain from this question that he is inattentive and quite clueless.

At the moment, out of that list of hard to lynch players, the one who looks most suspicious to me is you, Stoofer, for reasons I pointed out during and after that Battle Mage lynch.

That's a coincidence. Out of the hard players, you are the most suspicious for your baseless accusations against me. I explained the misunderstanding but you have refused to acknowledge my explanation, let alone take it on board. Second on that list is Stewie. Not for anything he has done, but because I have this strange feeling that dylan might have challenged his scum buddy for distancing purposes...

[Mr Stoofer]

Actually, there is another reason why I have been suspicious of Yosarian2: his behaviour on the Battle Mage wagon. Yosarian2 was very pro "the System", and yet he seemed to regard Battle Mage's subversion of it with equanimity. And, when Battle Mage started acting scummy (quite apart from subverting the System), he defended him, going after me instead.

Yosarian2 is in favour of lynching pro-town people who are harming the Town: as this post demonstrates:

That being said, while I won't vote someone just because they're not playing well, there are times I vote for someone because of anti-town play; if a person is acting in such a way that it directly harms the town, which could be lurking, or hammering people without giving them a chance to claim, or some other anti-town behaviors, then the town needs to make them stop doing that, either by pressuring them with votes or if they won't stop by lynching them, even if you're not sure of their alignment.

So why didn't he adopt this policy with Battle Mage, who clearly fell into this category?

I have a suspicion that the reason Yosarian2 was defending Battle Mage was that he knew he was a Townie, but knew equally well that Battle Mage was going to get lynched. He did it to look pro-Town. If you look back at his play yesterday, it seems to me that he is making it clear that he does not support a Battle Mage lynch, but he doesn't make any real effort to push to Town in any other direction.

Any experienced player knows that defending a doomed Townie is a win-win situation for Scum -- as long as they don't defend them too hard, of course. After everyone started screaming for Battle Mage's blood yesterday, I think I might well have done exactly what he did if I were Scum.

A lot of this is gut instinct of course. Yosarian2 is too good a player to give off scum tells.

[Mr Stoofer]

Not for anything he has done, but because I have this strange feeling that dylan might have challenged his scum buddy for distancing purposes...

WTF? Dylan came up town!

Sorry, old note that needs deleting!

[Mr Stoofer]

Could you just explain the logic a bit more please, mneme. I don't understand how the data leads to the conclusions.

[Mr Stoofer]

Lynching townies just because they're going against "the system" is anti-town, Stoofer.

Not at all! You yourself said, in the Mafia Discussion post I just quoted, that sometimes the right thing to do is a kill the person who is hurting the Town, even if you don't know whether they are scum. I assume that you were being honest in the Mafia Discussion thread, which makes me suspicious of your inconsistent view in this thread.

Find me ONE example of a game where the town was able to "enforce disipline" of the type you're suggesting, and I'll consider it. As far as I know, that's never actually worked, and it's been tried many times.

The fact that enforcing discipline has never worked before is not a good reason not to attempt it here. In Bad Idea Mafia II, at least one person was killed for bringing the day to a premature end. Something which you would no doubt applaud, given your recent post in Mafia Discussion.

Not only that, when I disagreed with you, you actually attacked ME for disagreeing with you, trying to suggest that me just saying "don't vote to lynch BM unless you actually think he's scum" was somehow scummy. I don't trust people who call me scummy because I disagree with their stratagy.

Not really a fair reflection. It's not that just you disagreed with "my" strategy (I wasn't the first to say that BM should be lynched on principal). Unless you are scum, I don't understand why you thought BM should be allowed to get away with it. Your apparent reason ("enforcing discipline has never worked before") just doesn't stack up.

And by the way, how, exactally, was Battle Mage "starting to act scummy quite apart from subverting the system"?

I was still waiting for you to put together a single coherent argument for why Battle Mage was scum (Note: NOT "why we should lynch him" but "why he is scum"); when you had done that, I would have considered it, responded, disagreed with any points I didn't like, and then said what I thought.

For F**k's sake! I set out the reasons why BM was scummy apart from (perhaps "in addition to" would be a better description) subverting the system. When you asked for them again, I directed you to the posts in question. But still you never addressed them.

Any experienced player knows that defending a doomed Townie is a win-win situation for Scum -- as long as they don't defend them too hard, of course. After everyone started screaming for Battle Mage's blood yesterday, I think I might well have done exactly what he did if I were Scum.

Ok...as soon as you start trying to take WIFOM that far, and trying to make it sound like your attack on a townie was pro-town and my "defense" of a townie was anti-town, it just makes me more suspicious of you.

Yes, it is a little bit WIFOM. But to me there were so many good reasons to lynch Battle Mage and only one reason to try to save him: namely if you

knew

he was a Townie.

And despite what you say with one exception you never addressed the good reasons to lynch Battle Mage.

The only reason that you addressed was: "We should lynch Battle Mage as a matter of policy". And even in relation to that reason, your response ("enforcing discipline has never worked before") was rubbish.

[Mr Stoofer]

We won't actually know if Battle Mage's actions WERE pro-town or not until we find out if Van Damien is conservative scum. If he is, then Battle Mage was actually correct in going off "the plan" and challanging him.

Now, if someone was challanging people right at the start of the day before any discussion had happened, that would be anti-town. But that's not what happened. On the other hand, I do consider the the early votes that cut off discussion on Battle Mage prematurly to be an anti-town action, just like a quick hammer in a normal game would be.

Actually, this is the worst bit of your post. You say that the people who voted Battle Mage early were being anti-Town (and you ignore the fact that the timing of votes was potentially critical); but you say that Battle Mage's actions in subverting the system and bringing the nomination discussions to an early close was not necessarily anti-town? How can you possibly say that voting for Battle Mage early was worse than what Battle Mage did?

[Mr Stoofer]

Stewie and mneme have responded to most of Yosarian's nonsense, so I won't bother.

This makes me cry though:

So, again, if you're going to keep attacking me for "ignoring the reason BM was scummy", could you please say what those reasons are?

I think I am going to put the following in my sig so that it appears in every post in this thread:

I'd still like to hear Stoofer explain why he thinks battle mage is scum.

I've done this in my posts today: see 315 (under "Secondly"), 325, 329, 330 (pointing out an untruth). I'd quote them all again if he wasn't already dead. Can't you just go back and read them?

[Mr Stoofer]

Stoof: I have a few questions. Firstly:

As presently advised I want the following people dead in the following order:

1. Battle Mage
   - for the 3 reasons given above.
   
2. dylan
   - probably scum; definitely not Liberal.
   
3. VanDamien
   - definitely Scum, not sure of his alignment. Once we have killed the above, it will probably be time for him to die.

Well, your first two died in order. Do you now want VanDamien dead? If not, what is it that has changed your mind?

I have changed my mind because:

• Neither Battle Mage nor dylan were Conservative scum. At the time I made that post I had a high degree of confidence that at least one of them was.
  
• My subsequent, growing, gnawing suspicion of Yosarian2.
  
• My recent realisation that we need to look harder at the "hard" players.
  
• My spat with Yosarian2.

Note that I said "As presently advised..." We have a lot of new information since then.

Stoof, if you genuinely thought Battle Mage was beyond a shadow of a doubt the right lynch at this point, which is what your arguments clearly imply, why did you not put your money where your mouth is and vote him?

My fundamental point here is: if you wanted Battle Mage dead for policy reasons, and that constituted sufficient grounds for a lynch by itself, why did you feel the need to go to such lengths late in the day, when you find yourself being criticised for advocating a 'policy lynch' to demonstrate that you thought he might also be scum? This to me seems to betray a lack of courage in your convictions, as if you're covering your arse by giving as many reasonable-sounding justifications as possible.

I really wanted Battle Mage dead (in real life, not just in the game) as soon as he challenged VanDamien. Of course I didn't vote straight away: knee-jerk reactions are a Bad Thing, and anyway I was so furious I wanted to calm down before I did anything. You can't criticise me for not voting earlier (especially since Yosarian2 has criticised me for voting too early!). As the day wore on I came to think more and more that Battle Mage was actually Scum - so of course I posted my reasons. I especially wanted to convince those such as Yosarian2 who were not willing to take the "policy" into account when choosing who to vote for.

Also, yesterday, you seemed very in favour of lynching the people who looked scummiest, the 'easy lynches' as it were.

I think I'll be nominating dylan and Dean Winchester as soon as the next day starts.

Now, today, you seem to have been converted to the idea of going after 'hard lynches.' (After going after 'easy' lynches for a couple of days yielded a couple of townie lynches).

My point exactly. I was about to make a post just nominating the two easiest lynches, when I suddenly thought: "this is too easy, there must be scum amongst the players whom I have been regarding, up to now, as pro-Town." And as you say, going after "easy" lynches for a couple of days had yeilded a couple of townies. That's why I made the post about "hard lynches"

When I ask you if you had a particular 'hard lynch in mind, you responded:

As yet (pending re-read) I don't have any evidence against any of the "hard" players.

But oh, look, as soon as Yos expresses suspicion of Stoof, lo and behold:

At the moment, out of that list of hard to lynch players, the one who looks most suspicious to me is you, Stoofer, for reasons I pointed out during and after that Battle Mage lynch.

Yos is top of his list since two days ago.

Well I didn't have any evidence against Yosarian2. All I said was that he was "most suspicious" out of the "hard players", based on what was a gut feeling about the way he played the Battle Mage lynch.

His posts since then, coupled with further thinking by me, have hardened my view.

[Mr Stoofer]

Isn't it easy to argue that someone is a Townie when the Mod has already revealed their alignment?

[Mr Stoofer]

You did, though, make several fairly long posts outlining a case for lynching BM on policy. Were you fuming whilst writing all of them?

I certainly was! I still haven't forgiven Battle Mage; and I'll never play another game with him as a result of what he did in this game (click here for example.)

You still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

You wrote this a full day after BM's challenge, and again you're asserting that we absolutely must lynch him. You, presumably, had at least a little time to reflect on it, you still appear convinced that BM needs to die, and yet you don't vote.

Casting my mind back, I believe the reason that I didn't vote at this point was that there was no need -- since unvoting is not allowed, there was every reason to wait and no reason to rush. Then I noticed that we had an even number of players, and the rule that in case of a tie the first to the required number of votes is saved, so I put my vote on.

Presumably, you thought they were easy lynches because they looked extremely scummy to you, right? And equally obviously, you must have had some reason to think those four town. 'There must be at least one scum amongst these four' is no argument at all, since one in four is a lower proportion than you'd get by picking on someone at random (3/7), if indeed you are town.

So, in short, you're going after a group you admit to be more town-looking than the set of those you've decided to ignore, based on the application of crap maths.

Yes, the "easy players" did look scummy and the "hard players" looked pro-Town. But then, dylan looked extremely scummy and so did Battle Mage -- and look what happened when we lynched them. And although DeanWinchester looks scummy, it's equally clear that he is a poor player who is bound to seem scummy whatever his alignment (just like Battle Mage and dylan).

I am

not

saying that we should ignore the "easy" lynches, and that we must lynch a "hard" player today. My point is that we should

not ignore

the "hard" players, since some of them have to be Scum.

That is all.

I asked you this:

The aim, as ever, is to lynch the person most likely to be con scum. If you think one of us you've placed in the 'hard lynch' category fits that bill, by all means, argue for that lynch.

And your response conspicuously neglected to mention any particular suspicion of Yos, and instead cast blanket suspicion over four players. Then Yos attacks you, and, whoops, he's at the top of your list. This strikes me as being about as blatant an OMGUS as an experienced player such as yourself would ever dare attempt.

I don't know who the scum is. So when you asked me who out of the four I thought was suspicious, I said that I didn't know. Then Yosarian2 attacked me with points that I think are crap points - CrapLogic if you like. It's not at all surprising that I have responded accordingly. When a superb player like Yosarian2 uses bad reasons, then I start to think that they are Scum.

[Mr Stoofer]

If you are genuinely convinced of the utility of a particular lynch, what benefit is there from waiting?

Because something might happen to change my mind. And I never said I was 100% convinced anyway. Just because I thought that it was right to lynch Battle Mage, doesn't mean that I didn't have any doubts. That was why I was so furious - I knew that Battle Mage could be Town, but I felt that we ought to lynch him to enforce discipline.

The last part of your post is inaccurate. You seem to be suggesting that there is an inconsistency between me saying that I didn't have any evidence against the "hard" players, and me beeing suspicious of Yosarian2 for something he did prior to that. In fact:

• What I said in post 510 was this: "
  As yet (pending re-read) I don't have any

  evidence

  against any of the "hard" players.
  " At that stage I wasn't thinking about any particular player, I was just making the point that we shouldn't ignore hard players.
  
  
• I haven't done a full re-read, but since then I re-read the whole Battle Mage fiasco and thought more about things. The result was that I became more concerned about Yosarian2.
  
  
• I said in post 540 that my suspicion of Yosarian2 was a "growing, gnawing suspicion... based on what was a gut feeling". That is another reason why I didn't make the point in post 510.
  
  
• Further, I had already said way back in post 324 that I thought it suspicious that Yosarian2 didn't support a Battle Mage lynch. So this is not a case of me "
  suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago
  " (your words)
  
  
• Yosarian2's recent bad posts have given me more confident in my earlier gut reaction.

[Mr Stoofer]

There is no inconsistency between saying that 4 players are not very suspicious but that one of them is more suspicious than the others.

[Mr Stoofer]

Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am being irrational refusing to play with Battle Mage ever again. But that is how furious I am with him.

[Mr Stoofer]

albert challenge who you think is scum. Than explain why you think they are scum. Trying to pick someone you think you can out debate is a scum move in this scenario.

QFT.

[Mr Stoofer]

Now set out your case against mneme, please.

[Mr Stoofer]

I'm afraid I'm going away for a week, so I'm going to have to vote today.

None of Albert's points cut any ice with me at all. However, I really didn't like mneme's post 522 which (to the extent I understood it) contained all sorts of assumptions and logical leaps that I didn't get. For example, I never said that Dean was "too clueless to be scum"; and although I know that Yosarian2 and I are not bussing each other (because I am a minority candidate), I don't like the way mneme ruled that possibility out so readily.

I've asked for an explanation but got none so far. I'd like to see that post explained in more detail before I cast my vote [although that may not be possible].

As for Albert, he is a classic "easy" player. There are plenty of reasons why he might be scum, just as there were with dylan and Battle Mage...

As I say, I'll have to pick someone in the next few hours, but I'd really rather here from mneme before I do.

[Mr Stoofer]

~sigh~

Vote: Albert B. Rampage. If I were a betting man, I'd say neither of them were scum. But since I have to vote someone, today, or else I'll get modkilled, I'm going to vote mneme for post 522 and (more importantly) not justifying it when called on to do so.

[Mr Stoofer]

[/b]Vote: Albert B. Rampage[/b]

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

[Mods, feel free to delete these last two posts and just put the bolding on post 572.]

[Mr Stoofer]

Just got back. I had left instructions that I would challenge Yosarian2, so I would not have been modkilled.

Well played scum, and thanks to our mods for a fun and interesting game. I had you

so

caught, Yosarian, but I guess you would have still won the vote against me even if I had challenged you.

More comments later...

[Mr Stoofer]

I think it only fair to tell all you guys that

Sparks is an alt of ShadowLurker

. I have only just found this out.

ShadowLurker is not a bad player, so I can only conclude that as "Sparks" he was deliberately screwing with this game and the players. For the record, I believe that his behaviour was totally unacceptable.

[Mr Stoofer]

Battle Mage, menme is absolutely correct in what he says. You need to listen more to experienced players who are saying things only because they want to help.

[Mr Stoofer]

Battle Mage, menme is absolutely correct in what he says.

You need to listen more to experienced players who are saying things only because they want to help.

[Mr Stoofer]

It wasn't coincidence that ALL the pro-towners voted to kill BM.

QFT x 1,000,000

Indeed, it was so obvious that pro-towners would vote to kill BM that I (correctly) figured out that Yosarian2 was scum because he voted to save BM.

[Mr Stoofer]

Battle Mage, think about this.

All the pro-town players voted to kill you. Every single one. So either:

1. Every single one of the pro-town players was being illogical, and you are the only one playing the game logically,
   or
   
2. You played so badly that every pro-town player wanted you dead.

Which do you think it was?

[Mr Stoofer]

It's far too strong to blame the entire loss on you, BM, since three mislynches occurred after your death. But I don't think you've got anyone else to blame for your own lynch.

√

It's incredibly frustrating the way that you attack anyone who tries to give you advice.

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√