Mini 456: Ultimatum Mafia - Game Over!

[Yosarian2]

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.

Lynching townies just because they're going against "the system" is anti-town, Stoofer. It's unfortuante, but townies WILL sometimes ignore the town and go off and do what they think is best. Attempts to deter them from doing that by saying "kill anyone who ignores it", like you were doing, is only of limited effectivness as townies will often be willing to put themselves at risk in order to do what they think is good for the town.

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.

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.

Besides that, if we just let it be acceptable for everyone to say "well, BM broke the rules, let's lynch him", then that discussion creates much less information then the discussion I wanted to see, a "who's more likely to be conservative scum, Battle Mage or Van Damien".

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

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?

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.

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. [/qutoe]

Actually, I did not actually defend Battle Mage before the lynch happened, unless you consider my "let's vote for whoever's scummier" argument a "defense'. 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. I've played and am currently playing a lot of games with Battle Mage, and he didn't really feel scummy to me in this game, but I was keeping an open mind. And then the day ended prematurly before I got a chance to DO any of that, which was incredibly frustrating, and I would also argue anti-town.

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.

[Yosarian2]

Hmm. Interesting argument, mneme. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, though; you're assuming you're not scum, for some reason you're assuming Dean's not scum, you're assuming Van is liberal scum, and you're assuming that scum would never attack each other (which I don't see, especally in a game like this where it's probably safer to do distancing then it would be in a normal game, considering the way debates work and such.)

So, while I can see where you're coming from, I'm not really convinced just on that. But let me go back and re-read The Fonz's posts; offhand, I can't remember any major things he's done, which could be a sign he's been flying under the radar.

[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?

[Yosarian2]

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.

Yes, there are times when it's approperate to pressure someone to stop acting in an anti-town way or, if all else fails, even to lynch them for it. However, IN THIS CASE, the best thing for the town to do WOULD HAVE BEEN to ACTUALLY have a debate about the alignment of the people involved, because that's the only way we were going to get any information from day 2.

In this case, the REAL anti-town action was hammering BM before we had finished the discussion.

The fact that enforcing discipline has never worked before is not a good reason not to attempt it here.

The fact that it's never worked isn't enough reason to focus more on lynching scum then on enforcing disipline? I would think that the fact it's never worked is a GREAT reason to not prioritise it higher then "trying to lynch scum".

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.

I was in Bad Idea Mafia II, breifly, and what happened in day 1 of that game is exactally one of the reasons I think that focusing on trying to enforce game dicipline is futile.

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.

Oh? That's not really a fair reflection?

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.

You were so opposed to actually discussing the matter that you actually attacked me for "not supporting Battle Mage's death".

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.

Yes, you directed me to the posts in question, AFTER Battle Mage was already dead. So of course I didn't bother to adress them THEN. And not only that, some of those reasons you pointed to were either very weak, or illogical. 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?

The fact you've been so hesitent to do this, both during the lynch and later, other then by pointing to some old posts, is NOT a point in your favor here.

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.

Um, no, that's stupid. Suspecting that someone is probably a townie would certanly be enough reason to not want to lynch them. And again, I didn't "try to save" Battle Mage, although I might have if you hadn't cut off discussion so quickly, I just disagreed with your bad "we should lynch him to enforce disipline" argument.

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

...and they would be?

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.

Yes, that's absolutly true, which is why your entire attack on me based on my so-called "defense" of Battle Mage is absolute rubbish to start out with. First you're attacking me for "defending" Battle Mage, and now you're attacking me because I didn't defend Battle Mage? Real consistant there.

And I already pointed out that your main reason for claiming to think BM was scum, which claimed that a scum would be more likely to challange in that situation then a town, is basically completly untrue and actually contradicts other things you've said.

[Yosarian2]

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?

"Brining the nomination discussions to an early close?" That's just dishonest; he challanged on the 19'th, the day that the challange had to happen as the deadline was 20'th-21'st. I guess you could say he brought the discussion to an early close on the grouds that he could have waited a few hours first, but that was the day the nomination had to happen.

And, sure, the timing of votes could have been important. So what? Did you not think your argument was strong enough to convince a 5 vote majority of the town to lynch BM on their own? Was that important enough to lose the information by shortening discussion?

And what I said was, was that he disagreed with the town and went off and challanged someone else. The town wanted Dylan to challange or be challanged, but he thought it was better to challange Van Damien. And again, I'm not sure how you can catagoraclly declare that anti-town without knowing what Van Damien's alignment was. You later claimed that it was scummy because he "thought he would win" by challanging an admitted scum, but that's silly, as there was no reason to think Battle Mage would have been challanged at all that day if he hadn't challanged.
No one was suspicious of him at all before that point; I can't believe you really thought a scum would risk himself like that for no real gain, and that you didn't even consider the more probable "he was a townie who just thought the claimed scum needed to die" explination.

[Stewie]

The town wanted Dylan to challange or be challanged, but he thought it was better to challange Van Damien. And again,

I'm not sure how you can catagoraclly declare that anti-town without knowing what Van Damien's alignment was.

I'm not sure I understand this point. We didn't know (and still don't know) VanDamien's alignment, but neither did BattleMage. The fact that VanDamien could be conservative scum does not change the fact that we did not have that information at the moment, and not having that information the best thing to do was to let him live for the moment.

[mneme]

"Brining the nomination discussions to an early close?" That's just dishonest; he challanged on the 19'th, the day that the challange had to happen as the deadline was 20'th-21'st.

Er. He challenged at 5AM on the 19th.

That basically cut us off of 19 hours of useful discussion.

[Yosarian2]

"Brining the nomination discussions to an early close?" That's just dishonest; he challanged on the 19'th, the day that the challange had to happen as the deadline was 20'th-21'st.

Er. He challenged at 5AM on the 19th.

That basically cut us off of 19 hours of useful discussion.

Ok, fair enough, he should have waited until later that day.

I'm not sure I understand this point. We didn't know (and still don't know) VanDamien's alignment, but neither did BattleMage. The fact that VanDamien could be conservative scum does not change the fact that we did not have that information at the moment, and not having that information the best thing to do was to let him live for the moment.

Well, BM went against the opinion of the town because, he said, he though Van Damien was likely to be a conservative scum. I was just saying that I'm not sure you can call his challange an "anti-town" action when we still don't know if BM was right or not; without knowing that, I'm not sure you can catagorally say that his challanging Van Damien rather then, say, Dylan, is an "anti-town" action. After all, even in bad idea mafia, if you ignore what everyone else says and suceed in hitting a scum, you can't really call that an anti-town action, right?

[VanDamien]

Okay, back from my trip, and recovered from the illness it caused.

First of all, Dean, as I clearly reminded everyone earlier, scum cannot communicate in this game after it started, we could only discuss strategy before it actually started. Unfortunately for me, my side didn't get many messages back and forth to do that.

Secondly, I am liberal - as I stated earlier. At the time I came out, such a gambit would have been completely idiotic, and would have gained nothing. If I had waited until the game was in the situation it is in now, then maybe there would be reason to suspect otherwise.

I really am beginning to think we saved the wrong person during the last challenge.

[Yosarian2]

Secondly, I am liberal - as I stated earlier. At the time I came out, such a gambit would have been completely idiotic, and would have gained nothing.

Would have gained nothing? It's kept you alive this long, and because of your liberal claim, you're not likely to get lynched today either. So, it certanly did "gain you something", no matter what your alignment is.

I really am beginning to think we saved the wrong person during the last challenge.

Oh? Why is that?

[Stewie]

I'm not sure I understand this point. We didn't know (and still don't know) VanDamien's alignment, but neither did BattleMage. The fact that VanDamien could be conservative scum does not change the fact that we did not have that information at the moment, and not having that information the best thing to do was to let him live for the moment.

Well, BM went against the opinion of the town because, he said, he though Van Damien was likely to be a conservative scum. I was just saying that I'm not sure you can call his challange an "anti-town" action when we still don't know if BM was right or not; without knowing that, I'm not sure you can catagorally say that his challanging Van Damien rather then, say, Dylan, is an "anti-town" action. After all, even in bad idea mafia, if you ignore what everyone else says and suceed in hitting a scum, you can't really call that an anti-town action, right?

Yes, but he didn't know he was right either. If he had some sort of outside information which lead him to believe that VD was conservative. Let me try to put it in another way: if I am a policeman and I see a young guy walking around and think "this guy might be a criminal" and arrest him, were my actions correct if he actually turned out to be scum?

My point is that you have to judge the pro-townness of an action by the information known at the moment, not the information which gets revealed after.

[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?

[DeanWinchester]

I asked the question to VD because i did not find his earlier response. My bad.

As far as the current discussion goes i think it has gotten pretty circular. Yosarian's defense of BM does bother me. It seems a little too... perfect. The way everything played out seems to have made Yosairan look really pro-town.

[The Fonz]

At Dean: you think Yosarian might be scum because he looks really pro-town?

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?

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.

Stoof thinks BM looks town, yet wants to 'make an example' of him anyway.

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.

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

Again, it's quite clear that Stoof doesn't

care

whether BM is town or scum.

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?

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

Well, I fundamentally disagree with this.

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).

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?

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'd have been considerably less concerned about your conduct had you stuck to 'Battle Mage had to die regardless of alignment.' It's not a position I like: I believe I made clear at the time I am opposed to policy lynches. But I find genuine conviction in a flawed position to be more town than this kind of equivocation.

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).

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.

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.

@ Mneme: I don't think for a second we can rule out Stoof/Yos bussing. My current theory is Albert, Stoof, and one of Yos/Dean.

[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.

[Yosarian2]

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?

For like the twenty seventh time, I've over and over again wanted you to sum up why you think/thought BM was scummy because the reasons for thinking he was scumyou gave in those posts don't make a lot of sense; the only decent point was in 329, where you were agreeing with a minor possible scum tell The Fonz pointed out. I was kind of hoping you would actually explain WHY you thought BM was scum, because reading those posts most of your reasons for thinking he's scum sound like either great streches of the imagination on your part or just bad logic, and all in all it really just sounds to me like you were going after BM because he was an easy lynch after he made the mistake of challanging against the town's will. I was trying to give you a chance to re-state your arguments, both that day and later every time you've tried to say "Oh, there were good reasons to think BM was scum!" because your arguments as written were just not very logical, and most could have as easily been explained by a town BM as by a scum BM.

For example, most of your post 315 argument for BM being scum does not really stand up:

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.

That's not an argument for him being scum, that's just you continuing to argue that we should lynch him for policy reasons.

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.

That dosn't really make any sense either; did you really think BM was trying to make himself look pro-town by challanging against the town's wishes? Also, the fact that VD is a claimed scum is actually why I wouln't be surprised if a townie decided to challange him.

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).

And that's just silly. Obv, conservative scum want anyone who's not one of them dead. The best way to ensure that that early in the game would probably be for them to sit back and let townies challange each other.

Post 325 was just you saying "Oh, look, Battle Mage says we should kill the 100% claimed scum, that obveously proves he's scum going for the easy kill". Um, or else it means he's a townie who honestly thinks the town should kill the claimed scum?

329, like I said, agrees with a possible minor scum tell noted by The Fonz, with BM acting like you were pro-town. And 330 was just silly; BM said he thought you were pro-town because agreed with a lot of things you said, and you called him a liar, saying he couldn't possibly have agreed with anything you said because he didn't follow the plan.

Again; I've read your posts, multiple times. I wanted you to actually state why you thought BM was scum, in a coherent argument, because those posts all put together do not MAKE a coherent argument for why BM was scum, at all. I was kind of hoping you would actually state your reasons again, because your argument as written was incredibly weak. The fact that you've over and over again refused to do so makes me think you've known all along that your argument for BM being scum was incredibly weak and so didn't want to have to re-state it. .

[Mr Stoofer]

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

[The Fonz]

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.

OK, this answers the question fairly well. Thankyou.

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.

That's not an implausible explanation, I suppose. You did, though, make several fairly long posts outlining a case for lynching BM on policy. Were you fuming whilst writing all of them?

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.

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.

In fact, you were so convinced of the need for a BM lynch, that you expressed suspicion of Yos for the very act of defending Battle Mage:

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.

And you

still don't vote!

You can't criticise me for not voting earlier (especially since Yosarian2 has criticised me for voting too early!).

Actually, I can. I'm not Yosarian, and I can find different things scummy to him.

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.

Except that a lot of your attempts to 'convince' Yos came after Battle Mage's lynch was inevitable, and you didn't need his vote.

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."

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.

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"

The charitable view is that this statement implies you to have lost any confidence in your own ability to find scum. The negative one is that you have either run out of 'easy lynch' townies, or are afraid what you might look like if you pushed another 'easy lynch.'

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.

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.

[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.

[The Fonz]

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.

There's no reason

not

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

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.

So your suspicion of Yosarian was brand new then? It's funny, because I could have sworn you said:

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.

I didn't bother quoting the whole post, but it's more of the same. So you suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago?

[The Fonz]

]

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.

There's no reason

not

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

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.

So your suspicion of Yosarian was brand new then? It's funny, because I could have sworn you said:

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.

I didn't bother quoting the whole post, but it's more of the same. So you suddenly became suspicious of something Yosarian did two days ago?

[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.

[The Fonz]

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.

You say 'Battle Mage needs to die ASAP' and you're not convinced yourself?

[*]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)

Yes, you did. But if you were suspicious of Yos all along, why did you say this:

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

Implying that you found Yos no more suspicious than any of the other three in that list at that point? You didn't say 'I have three players I find to be generally pro-town, and Yos, who although he hasn't done anything majorly scummy, I have a bad feeling about.'

Two posts, from,

[Yosarian] has been participating well all game, making pro-town points, etc etc

To

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.

[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.