Mini 482: Shrek Mafia - Game Over

[Zindaras]

The scum might have a good reason to vote for Nox, the town doesn't. That's why the scum might have voted for her when she is at lynch-2. It only makes sense to vote for her if the person voting is scum.

It's far more likely that the town might have a good reason for voting than that scum might have a good reason for voting. Why would two scumbags sacrifice themselves to kill one townie?

I was wondering why nobody noted inHim's fourth vote and I was happy to see Haschel do so in 44, amusingly enough immediately followed by Jex.

I think random-voting wagons (in Minis) start being serious at the fourth vote. If I saw the fun of it, I'd joke vote a third vote. I'd be a lot more careful about the fourth vote.

I am most definitely on the Mirth side in this particular discussion. She's right. However, I do not believe that this necessarily makes Grek scum. I'd like to see this game move onto other subjects as well.

Personally, the thing that really caught my eye was ben's vote in 37. Just saying "Good points, Vote". I think that was quite the scummy move. For me, I think I want to start there.

Vote: benhalkum

[Zindaras]

Newbie 431 is ongoing, it is Day One, and you are both alive. To cast a serious vote based on something as completely irrelevant as that is not just plain silly, it's scummy.

[Zindaras]

As I've said, I just have a feeling, (as in I DON'T KNOW if that might have anything to do with it, it's just a thought, and when I say influenced, I didn't particularly mean consciously influenced, but maybe, subconsciously, Grek's arguments just seem better to him).

Why are you so quick to assume scumminess?

Well, we do kinda have to start the game, you know. I don't

know

if ben's scum, but I think his move was scummy (and I think my beliefs are well-founded). So I don't really see your point here.

[Zindaras]

Well, with being just a good guy I am only having to go off of suspecions and randomness like you guys.

Appeal to emotion.

You think without a shadow of a doubt Mirth is Town, then tell me. I'll go with my fellow good guys

So you're basically saying that everyone here is a good guy (which is pretty much impossible, unless K-Scope decided to go with a no-scum game, something which I doubt he would), and that you'll follow anyone who tells you to do something?

As far as the explanation goes, well, I got that much from your original post. But that's not specific enough. Which points do you agree with? Which points do you find so scummy as to make you vote Mirth?

[Zindaras]

inHim: Which of the people voting ben do you think is most likely scum? Why do you want to keep your vote on Nox?

I'll have to say that I'm not really very excited with this 'wagon either. In a day, he's gotten 4 votes (including my own) and 2 FoSes, which seems a bit overdone for something like this. I'm going to

Unvote

for now so we can calm down and let ben respond in more detail.

[Zindaras]

I really don't need to explain a day one vote, no one does. NONE of us know who's who, and day one its never easy to choose.

If you lynch me, just look back to who pushed the hardest and who jumped right on the bandwagon

But if no one explains their votes, then what do we have to go on Day Two? Roles? For one, roles aren't very likely and the scum's nightgame has to be stronger than the town's (after all, the game wouldn't be balanced if it weren't).

There's also Mirth's point, which I heartily agree with.

Also, on the topic of Jester/Villiage Idiot/what have you. I do not believe we have one in this game based on the fact that this is a mini and its not a very common role. Also, I'm in another game with Ben, and he's acting pretty much the same way. (I'm not sure what to make of him in either game, but I'm going to keep my eye on him because he is most certainly not being helpful).

Scope's last Mini (I believe it was 426, Confusion in the Ranks was the name) had a Jester. I also believe Scope is fond of the role (I believe he enjoyed it when he was one). If there'd be a Mini with a Jester, it'd be this one.

Mirth, could you please explain why Grek deserves to die?

[Zindaras]

I don't know yet if I think Grek deserves to die. Don't put words in my mouth please.

You're voting him and he's at four votes. That seems like pretty far to push a lynch you're not very interested in.

As an aside, you are right. I used the wrong words here. It's something I have more often. I should've said "Why should we vote Grek?"

Your Grek case is nice. I think Grek is severely understating (or underestimating) the importance of the fifth vote in this case, instead taking the approach of putting the blame on the sixth and seventh votes. I'm personally leaning to underestimating, which puts him in my townie book. His gambit just really doesn't work.

[Zindaras]

Look, if you think someone is scum, call that person out, and are voting that person, I'm going to assume that you want that person lynched, or, at the very least, that that person is the one you would most gladly have lynched at that time.

[Zindaras]

Or I'm keeping my attention focused on the person who a) gives reason for suspicion and b) is likely to provide information in response to my actions.

You also haven't answered my question.

You want to know why I'm trying to get you to act like you're pushing a lynch on Grek? I'm not. I interpreted the situation in such a way. Apparently, I was wrong. But I do not see how it was clear and/or obvious that you did not want others to vote Grek, as making a case and subsequently voting usually does, in fact, mean just that.

If I ever get a signature, I am so quoting that (with your permission of course.)

I'd quote it, but without the "let's assume".

Lines get funnier when you brutally rip them out of context and even sentence.

>.>
<.<

[Zindaras]

If you think someone is scum, it is only logical to attempt to convince others to vote along. Making arguments and trying to convince people does not make independent thinking impossible.

[Zindaras]

I'm all for independent thought, but one cannot remove influences from other people's arguments except if you keep the arguments unstated. And even then, the very stated opinions will influence others.

[Zindaras]

Ben, I'd say that the Jester-discussion would be the least important of all to comment on, especially for you, whose input is completely irrelevant: Everything you say regarding that is completely irrelevant and WIFOM.

I am much more interested in your opinions on other players.

[Zindaras]

Yet there is something that doesn't add up with this theory. InHim is obviously an experienced player. So why would he be basically giving himself away like that if he is mafia? I don't get it.

So because he is experienced, he cannot possibly be caught?

It's a possibility, that's all. I think it was definitely good that Goldy pointed it out.

To be honest, the wagoning speed we keep building up keeps me off-balance. I'm not sure what to think of inHim's fifth vote there. I'd like him to elaborate on "wagoning for wagoning's sake" and I'll have to see if I like his explanation.

[Zindaras]

No, because he's experienced, it seems to be an even stupider move than it would normally be. Like he should know that voting like that would draw major amounts of suspicion.

Yet people are stupid. I think it would be too hasty to do it off. It's also too hasty to draw quick conclusions, I'm just warning for both extremes.

[Zindaras]

Mirth: I've been busy. With stuff. There are some games which I've let down. This is one of them. I intend to make up for it pretty soon.

[Zindaras]

Will post in the afternoon.

[Zindaras]

Rereading the game, the first thing that catches my eye is Pug's 10. Interesting there is the lack of random vote. In Post 14, inHim votes Grek for his random vote. Rather silly, that. The hypocrisy in inHim's 22 has already been pointed out. I personally find inHim scummier there than Grek, even if Grek casted a later vote. inHim actually makes it clear that he's voting Nox for the third vote, while I find Grek's explanation for his move acceptable if deluded. Rating initial reactions (on gut, mainly):

Mirth (24): +/-
Haschel (25): +
Adam (27): -
Pug89 (29): -
Jex (30): +
camisade (32): Eh, iffy. Slightly -

I think Mirth is very much right in her debate with Grek. However, I find his explanation believable enough that I don't think it warrants a lynch (He's not right in his suggestion that 2 scum would pile on the townie to kill him, but I can believe he would think that). ben's 37 still looks horrible. I like Pug's 39. I really like Haschel's 44, if only because it expresses the same feelings as I have, reading this thread. Same feelings regarding Jex.

But if that's the case, then they're distancing so hard...

Some people like hard distancing. I wouldn't say anything about this, especially if you don't know the people in question.

Mirth's 54 is rather weak. I don't see the point in denying distancing. Mirth doesn't find inHim's vote any more suspicion than Nox's or Jex's. However, Nox and Jex made it clear their votes were jokes (Care Bear discussion). inHim's vote was deadly serious. A third vote is also Lynch-4. Not even halfway, there. A fourth vote is Lynch-3, already a lot closer. In theory, a 3-player scumgroup could pile on at that point, making that move more dangerous. Minor defence of ben by Mirth in 63.

You think without a shadow of a doubt Mirth is Town, then tell me. I'll go with my fellow good guys

Another horrible post, in my opinion. Acts like a sheep, with an appeal to emotion.

We get a bit of a benwagon, in 76-78, with Haschel, Adam and Goldy expressing suspicion in Votes or FoSes.

More later.

[Zindaras]

A + is given for a post I found pro-town, a - for a post I found scummy.

[Zindaras]

Continuing my earlier analysis.

Grek leans heavily towards ben being scum (85). Good post by Jex (87). Ben makes a horrible post (92). Jester suggestion by Grek (93), not sure how much I like that. Ben says his vote was random (99), which I believed it was quite clearly not. Odd suggestion of breadcrumbing by Mirth (105). Nox suggests distancing between Mirth and Grek (108), and I have to say I can't see it. Odd suggestion. I still think Mirth's reaction to my question (109 and following) is odd. Reasonably good PbPA by Haschel (113). Haschel's second PbPA (121) is worse, in my opinion. His PbPA is clearly from a pro-Grek point of view, and that's not a good thing. Another strange post by ben (135). InHim wagons Grek (141). I still don't like this post. Ben defends inHim (145), in another post I find really weird. Ben's ignored most other posters, but now he suddenly has input to give. Hophop, Mirth onto inHim (146), also calling out ben. Ben quickly responds, also switching his vote (147). A very scummy post indeed. Mirth notes this (149). Another post that jumps out as scummy to me from inHim (162). Haschel (174) and Adam (175) are waiting for Apo.

More later. My personal suspicions at this moment lie with inHim and ben.

[Zindaras]

I don't random vote anymore. There was an incident where it got me a lot of suspicion so I just stopped doing it. It was in Stephen King mafia if anyone's interested. Why exactly is me not random voting interesting?

Because most people do make random votes.

What exactly do you find suspicious of post 29?

Focus on Grek, not on inHim.

[Zindaras]

Continuing from my earlier analysis. I find inHim's 176 suspicious. You can say what kind of vibes (town or scum) you've gotten, you can say where you got them from, there is nothing wrong with Grek's post here. I like Grek's interaction with inHim here and I think inHim's reaction is very scummy. I see some implicit defense of inHim by Mirth, don't like that. Riki's entry into the game is very solid, that takes away some of my doubts regarding ben (though I personally disagree with his analysis of ben's playstyle). I think Mirth is being overdefensive here and avoiding Riki's questions. The statistical analysis is completely irrelevant. Mirth pulls the same kind of trick here as she did when I asked her about Grek. She really avoids giving an answer. Seeing the massive amount of debate and aggression from Mirth regarding Grek, and her answer here is odd to say the least. She also completely avoids the LoE question and really doesn't help with opinions on other people. Noting responses to Riki's questions regarding Grek:

-Adam: Grek was wrong. No alignment read, unless I'm missing something. - for that. (213)
-Haschel: Misguided but Town (214). Eh, this links back to Haschel's earlier analysis on Grek/Mirth. I guess there's a small + for being consistent in his opinions.
-Jex: Scummy. I don't really like how she keeps her options open on this one, so a -. (218)
-Pug89: Scum. I think Pug is focusing too much on Grek's early play here, so a -. (223)
-Mexal: Town. Eh, the entirety of this post doesn't give me any good vibes, but not horrible ones either. So +/-. (226)

I like Mexal's 230 more, as I find myself agreeing with his points against Pug. Jex's 231 gives me good vibes. She's branching out and looking at people that weren't looked at by others. We finally get some opinions from Mirth in 237, but they all boil down to nothing, really. Some very minor things, that's it. Things I think necessitate a response from Haschel's PbPA.

Sixth Post:

Here I have a slight disagreement on Mafia doctrine with Zindy: I'm not convinced that all first-day votes need an explanation. In fact, particularly on Day One, explaining a vote can defeat the purpose of pressuring. As for the jester, I'm not convinced we have one, but if what Zindaras says about our mod is true, then I suppose we can consider it. Briefly.

If I vote someone for pressure and am asked to explain that vote, I will say pressure. That's an explanation. It doesn't necessarily have to come with the vote, but an explanation is necesssary if asked for. That way, town can pressure, but scum can't get away with easy votes.

Seventh Post:

The thumbscrews are off of ben and are now subtlely being applied to Mirth. However, he states that

Your Grek case is nice.

even though he has been pasking Mirth about it. If he already understands the case, I'm not sure what the point of his questions were. I agree with his conclusion about Grek, but, we already knew that.

I think the underestimating was not a sufficient reason to vote Grek, or at least at that point (and I didn't even see it as much of a scumtell to begin with). So I wanted to hear more from Mirth and see if she had anything else.

Mirth's logic was good, but that doesn't mean her conclusions are necessarily good as well. After all, Mafia isn't rocket science. This isn't mathematics or game theory, with expected utility and function-maximizing.

Nineth Post:

Complete aside, but it's ninth.

Gotta go home now, more later. My suspicion on ben has gotten a lot less, inHim's still there, Mirth, Pug and Adam are also giving me slightly scummy vibes. Haschel, Jex, Riki and Grek are giving me good vibes, to some degree.[/dice]

[Zindaras]

Pug's claim presents us with a conundrum. Merlin is hardly the most obvious doctor role. However, I am personally opposed to an immediate on-the-spot lynch of power roles. There's flat-out too much danger involved. And, while I find Pug scummy, I have better targets, so I'm going to vote those.

Unvote

(if applicable, which I believe it's not),

Vote: inHimshallibe

I know he's inactive, but I think he's scum and we shouldn't let people off the hook simply because they're inactive.

[Zindaras]

Skimming the latest posts, Oman is giving me scum-vibes, I'll have to look that one up.

[Zindaras]

One of my meta-tells is that the first one who uses the NK target to accuse someone is, himself, scum.

My suspicion falls on the people who lynched Grek yesterday: Glork and Pug. Also:

unvote

I don't really know where I want to vote atm. I'll place a vote in a little while. I will say though that it won't be for inHim as he's been requesting replacement in all his games for quite some time.

Hi. Your failure to vote looks very scummy.

[Zindaras]

I also happened to be the first person to post. So while you might think it's scummy, it's simple deduction and generally the truth. If I was really trying to set someone up, I highly doubt I'd be so damn obvious about it, but that's just WIFOM. I'll just have to trust that eventually you'll see that I'm smarter than you take me for. But by all means, find me suspicious. I enjoy the attention.

Your entire argument was WIFOM. It doesn't matter that you were the first one to post at all, good townies avoid this line of thought.

As for not voting, yes it makes me look scummy. I didn't realize when the deadline was. For some reason I thought it was 4:00pm and I was in 4 other games, one where I was the SK on another site with 28 hour deadlines. Simple fact is, I missed it but then again, so did 5 other people. Definitely something that can get me lynched but something I'm not surprised you looked at.

I did a quick skim back to see whose late actions were suspicious. That would be you and Mirth.

Deadline is in 8 minutes, I believe. Unless I'm mistaken, I think that InHim is sharing a majority with Goldfish, but got it first.

Failure to act is as bad, or even worse, than acting wrongly.

[Zindaras]

There are a multitude of things that come to my mind before your logic. In no particular order:

-Aww, bugger, I thought she was town.
-Hmm, interesting, we seem to not have a role-reveal.
-We only had one kill. Less likely we have an SK with that.
-I like kittens.
-Rawr, Glork! *mad hugglez*

It makes no sense for me to avoid a lynch as scum if someone gets lynched regardless if they have majority or not, even more so considering the person lynched was town. Again, WIFOM but your whole argument is meta related and it's impossible to argue against that without venturing into WIFOM territory. So if you want to bring up something more substantial, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you but in an effort to avoid WIFOM, I'll stay away from the meta comments.

Avoiding the lynch is a scumtell. Scum don't like to responsible for someone's death. They don't want to be the ones casting deciding votes, they don't want to be the ones in the spotlight.

Town always want to cast votes.

[Zindaras]

Why didn't the scum kill Pug? He claimed healer so it doesn't make sense not to kill him unless of course they feel like they can get him lynched pretty easily today. Uh oh, WIFOM!

In general, scum will kill the claimed Doc. This is more of a realistic thought (and it should actually have been on my list of thoughts, since it crossed my mind a bit) than killing for suspicions. Why? Because it's not pure WIFOM. WIFOM implies an equal choice: the glasses of wine are exactly the same. Not killing a claimed Doc isn't true WIFOM anymore.

[Zindaras]

I'd prefer it if you did post it, Faerie. It can only help us, really. At least post a short summary of your thoughts regarding all the other players.

As far as Mexal goes, I can't really continue arguing with someone who seems to want to agree with me. But I've got my eye on you, Mexy.

[Zindaras]

Vote: Zindaras

Thirty bucks says he's scum. Any takers?

I'll take it. And you'll need to explain why.

How, exactly? (I miscounted, yes, and missed one of the votes on Grek.)

Yes. In word, you voted inHim, saying that he was going to die but not doing anything about it. In reality, you voted Grek, as you did nothing to stop his death.

Not acting is a similar choice to acting. And it's one that scum loves. It's avoiding responsibility, avoiding getting in trouble the next day.

I'm of the philosophy that our doctor, if Pug is an effective doctor, gave us a head start.

So what? This is irrelevant.

We don't know how many scum we have and I didn't like any of the options being voted.

Again, so what? We know we have scum (unless Scope decided to make this a joke game), so what's the problem? We

have

to catch scum. There are two possible ways to view the situation, and both of them lead to a vote:

1) I don't like any of these votees. I'm going to vote my main suspicion instead.
2) I don't like any of these votees, but since one of them is going to die, I'm going to vote the scummiest from the set.

2 is the generally used train of thought (and, in my opinion, the correct one, assuming ceteris paribus, in other words, no one else is going to change his vote). 1 is a possiblity. But there is

no

reason not to vote.

I'm also not going to vote if a) my main suspect has nothing to do with an established bandwagon in a deadlined situation and b) I don't like who the bandwagons are on. Any vote other than on Inhim, Goldfish, or Grek at that point would have been meaningless.

If nobody votes their main suspect if there is not an established bandwagon on him, we will never get a lynch, because no one will vote.

If your main suspect is not on the chopping block, it is your duty as townie to try to make sure that he gets on there.

Also, I don't agree with your attacking Mexal for posting first. It's a crap!logic argument you have. A townie could just as easily try to trace the night kill.

There's a lot more to this than just tracing the night kill. Mexal drew conclusions from it, as seen in his post:

So for now, that's where I'm going to be looking.

And, as far as townies tracing the nightkill goes, it's equally senseless. I'll give you a nice example. In Newbie 321, I killed ChannelDelibird on Night 1. In the end,

scum won the game

based on this logic (for clarification, I had figured out Stoofer was Doc at the end of Day One and pretty much posted it in thread):

Erg0's reluctance to talk about the N1 kill started my scumdar pinging again. The kill made no sense for ZindyScum. Why not take out the Doc? Why leave the Doc alive? Sure it was easy to surmise that Stoofer would have not protected CDb, but the kill didn't make any sense if you knew the Doctor's identity. Your best bet as ZindyScum would have been taking out Stoofer N1, then putting it all on CDb.

Using nightkills to draw any conclusions is an extremely dangerous business. And this wasn't even a WIFOM-decision anymore: the choices (killing doc, not killing doc) weren't equal.

[Zindaras]

Glork, I'd like to hear your thoughts about inHim's play in this game.

You're right. It's an incredibly dangerous business but it's a place to start. If I look into Goldfish and decide that nothing she has said really bothers me, then problem solved. If I find things I don't like and I add the night kill to it, then it's someone to put pressure on. If I don't like her response to the pressure, then it's someone to seriously look at as scum. If I'm wrong and she turns out as town, then that leads to another place to look. I understand exactly what you're getting at and I agree with you to an extent.

No. The place to start is Day One behaviour. Had you posted an expansive case on Goldfish, yeah, no problem. Had you raised other reasons to suspect Goldfish (like Jex's points), bueno. But you didn't. This was, as far as I can tell, your first real mention of Goldfish at all. Jex died, and you immediately saw this as a reason to suspect Goldfish, to go after her at the very least. That's a fairly classic set-up.

But there are several different ways to go about it and remember, not all of us are newbies. While a situation might happen in a newbie game, lets trust the fact that the situation might not happen when you have more experienced players. I've seen analyzation of night kills both be a positive and negative thing. I tend to trust myself so I'm not all that worried. But as I said, it's a place to get started just as pressuring Pug is another place to get started.

Mr Stoofer cleared me in that game on that logic. Completely sure I was town. And he's not a newbie.

And, besides, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who makes the argument. It is an inherently flawed argument and this doesn't change when it is made by someone else.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument by both sides. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw based on my reread (which I haven't done yet) then just simply say so. I'll start looking at one avenue, you can start looking at another. Hopefully we'll arrive at scum

For someone who talks about pressuring people, you're pretty eager to not be pressured yourself. There's also an appeal to emotion here.

[Zindaras]

Zindaras, I stand by my position. Especially since voting someone just for the sake of a bandwagon strikes me poor play.

This part doesn't even make sense. Nowhere do I talk about voting someone just for the sake of bandwagoning.

Also, I'm pretty sure that at the moment, the only people with any suspicion toward Haschel were me and Oman, so the lynch wouldn't have changed.

This is a defeatist attitude. Additionally, this is completely irrelevant. How do you ever expect Haschel to die if you don't vote him? No, really, how? Do you think it is good play to only vote people who are likely to be voted by others? Because that's a pretty ridiculous position to take.

Also, I agree with Mexal that the nightkill is a place to start. No, it's not solid proof of anything, but it brings out information.

You think that the information from a complete WIFOM train of thought, based on motivations we

don't know

is more relevant than the information of 15 pages of thread ending in a three-way tie?

No, Mirth, this is

not

the place to start out.

[Zindaras]

Zindaras, you mention jumping on a bandwagon to lynch. Same thing.

1) I don't like any of these votees. I'm going to vote my main suspicion instead.
2) I don't like any of these votees, but since one of them is going to die, I'm going to vote the scummiest from the set.

There is no bandwagoning in here.

Not deafetest realist. Note my vote now.

Then why not yesterday? Why didn't you make your suspicion clear? And why didn't you vote the top suspect from the three possible lynch targets? Because, from here, it looks like you didn't care who got lynched, which is a scumtell.

I'm also not saying NK speculation is absolute, just that it is a place to start. See how people react to it. Not blow off discussion of it completely. No, speculating isn't definate, but not speculating might miss some things too.

There are much better, much more productive, places to start.

By the way, Zindaras, what's your opinion of what Pug just said? I'd like to also have answers to that one from both Oman and Haschel due to where their votes are.

I'd expect him to raise that point from both sides of the alignment spectrum. I am still fairly suspicious of him, but he's not first on my list right now.

IT IS a place to start because it starts the focus. 15 pages of information is absolutely wonderful but spending an hour and half doing a full reread without any kind of focus tends to be rather pointless. I like having people to look at. I like looking through their interactions and trying to determine where they stand. To just look at everything with a broad stroke tends to lead to inadequate cases and to be honest, that's not something I plan to do. So if I want to focus my first reread on Goldfish because of the NK, so be it. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw, then say so.

We had a three-way tie yesterday. Ties are the most information-rich lynches you can think of. If you want to see who you have to focus on, the lynch is the best place to start. inHim and Pug were, whatever else you want to say about them, responsible for Grek's death (I'd put the blame with some other players as well, through inaction, but that's not relevant right now). Is the logical place to start not with the people who killed town? Look at their motivations, at their reasons, at their behaviour? You can use this logic on other things as well: look at the wagons in the game and look at the people on them.

But, noooo, instead, we'd better take a complete and utter WIFOM argument and take that as a basis for scumhunting! Because who doesn't like iocane powder?

But you're setting me up rather quickly as scum for looking at Goldfish when I haven't even done so yet. I don't like how your argument is an attempt to completely invalidate any conclusions I draw BEFORE I draw them. Pushing this line of thinking isn't really productive to anyone unless your attempt is as I outlined above. You can call me scum, but you have no substantial basis behind it except for a meta related tell that you believe is associated with all scum.

This is a completely over-the-top reaction. Where did I say you were scum, that you deserved to be lynched? I didn't FoS you, I didn't vote you. All I did was pressure you. All I said is "I've got my eye on you". And, last time I checked, my looks didn't kill.

As for pressure, please pressure me. I'm not uncomfortable with it, I love it. The problem is, your pressure consists of nothing. It's an argument based on playstyles, not based on substantial evidence of being scum. So if you want to pressure me, go through my posts and make a case. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time unless of course you're doing as I said above.

You are using a flawed and scummy playstyle.

So again, I ask myself, why would you bring this up instead of doing a reread? Why point this out like it's clear proof that I'm scum? And at the moment, I'm not liking the answers.

Yeah, why would you bring that up instead of doing a reread?

(Oh, yes, I am aware that's not the intention of your post, but it is still a good question)

I'm not saying you're scum, again. And I'm very much amused that you say that I should do a reread when you don't want to do one yourself.

You attacked Goldfish. Your train of thought was completely ridiculous. There is no reason to think that the scum killed Jex based on her interaction with Goldy. None whatsoever.

I attacked you for using flawed logic to accuse someone of being scum.

Note the differences. I attack you for something which is relevant. Your attack relates to what would be better called a subgame. A subgame with imperfect and incomplete information.

[Zindaras]

Then look at the trains. I'm not stopping you from finding your own scum. If you want to try to destroy my playstyle, please do this after I've posted my conclusions. Thanks.

Conclusions that come from inherently flawed logic are inherently flawed themselves.

Over the top? It's funny that the ONLY thing you took from that paragraph was the fact that I said you were setting me up as scum. The point of that quote wasn't the fact that you were setting me up (and by setting me up doesn't necessarily mean you have to call me scum. You can make an argument then let others draw the conclusion you want them to draw. Yes, I know how to play this game too) but the fact that you were trying to invalidate my conclusions BEFORE they were drawn based on my method of deciding who I wanted to look at first. You're attacking my playstyle and at the same time keeping me from looking at Goldfish. Interesting.

I'm attacking your playstyle because it's flawed. And how am I keeping you from looking at Goldfish? What's keeping you back?

That's your opinion. I tend to think differently and since you haven't played with me before, I'd appreciate if you stop trying to meta-game me.

So because I don't know you, you can chalk everything up to playstyle and then say that I can't possibly think you're scum because of it?

When you jump from one conclusion to the next, do you ever fill in the gap with evidence? Because I never stated I didn't want to do a reread. I said I don't believe in doing COMPLETE rereads of the thread. I approach this by looking at individuals, rereading their posts then rereading the posts surrounding their posts. I'm sorry if it's not your playstyle but it is unfortunately mine and you're unfortunately going to have to put up with it.

why would you bring this up instead of doing a reread?

I basically asked you the same thing to point out how flawed your question was.

This is my unbelievably flawed attack based on my horrible way of thinking.

You know what's funny about this? I never FOSed her. I never called her scum. I never even suggested she was scum. I simply said my first thought was Goldfish and it's where I would be looking. I then justified that thought with my line of thinking. At no point did I ever attack her. Yet you come at me like a whirlwind proclaiming I violated your scum meta-tell. At the same time, you take a single line in one of my paragraphs and attribute it to me assuming you were calling me scum. Does anyone else see the contradiction there?

When I attack someone, you will know it. To think that was an attack just shows how ridiculous your entire meta argument is because you do not know me.

You said "This is where I'll be looking". Which implies suspicion, or at the very least, focus. Focusing on someone with a flawed argument is a flawed focus. Focusing on weird or wrong people is a scumtell.

Does the fact that Jex died have any influence at all on Goldy's perceived alignment?

You're basically saying "you had your choice of bandwagons, why didn't you jump on one." Because I didn't like any of them. I missed Grek's due to an oversight (I forgot to count Pug's vote, because for some reason I thought he unvoted) and I didn't like the ones of InHim and Goldfish because InHim wasn't playing for Darwin knows how many pages, and with Goldfish, everybody keeps saying that's her playstyle. I don't think it's a town tell, but I don't think it's a scum tell either. If anything, it's a null tell and an insufficient case since she only speaks up when someone attacks her. I would like to hear more from Goldfish, and I keep asking for it, but I'm not going to vote for null tells.

But which one did you like least? In a situation like this, it is perfectly possible to vote on the least of all evils.

I also don't see the point in voting when my opinion will not alter a pending lynch, especially a couple minutes before deadline.

It makes your opinion, your preference, clear.

Zindaras, you are just arguing playstyle right now, but I will throw back your own opinion at you. If you think a move is scummy, why not vote for the person who made it?

Because I prefer to vote my highest target.

To clarify, I was asking what you thought of Pug saying he protected me.

To each his own. It wouldn't have been my choice, but I don't really think it's scummy.

Your first focus is on the Grek lynch. The problem with that is there was a tie and Grek was chosen. How do we know who was going to be chosen? inHim made his vote on August 16th and he's been gone from this game since August 27th. Today is September 18th. Do you really think you're going to get a ton of information off of inHim? Now you also mention Pug's vote, which makes sense to mention. You can go ahead and pressure him if you want.

It is a coincidence that the people I am focusing on happen to be the ones on the Grek lynch. Yesterday, I was suspicious of these two, and I still am today.

Another thing that I thought of is the fact that you were attacking Mirth and I for not voting. Our actions were considered the most suspicious right? Why didn't you attack Goldfish though? So now we have you attacking Mirth and I based on reasons that you're not applying to everyone at the same time as you're trying to cast suspicion on me for even looking at Goldfish.

You posted near-deadline. That sets you apart from the others.

Had you tried to invalidate my conclusions after I drew them (should they even point to scum) then that's one thing. I expect innocents to do that at times. But the fact that you're derailing me before I even start and attacking me based on an action yet ignoring the person you're derailing me from makes me think that you're protecting her.

I will point out any bad logic. Doesn't matter where, when, what it's about.

The next logical step is why are you protecting her. I was hoping you could answer that question.

I'm attacking you.

And finally, we have EVEN MORE rereading and guess what, still no Goldy. I've noticed that in all of your posts this entire game, you might have mentioned Goldfish maybe twice and it's in passing. Not once have you asked her a question or even so much as thrown out a random comment in her direction.

That's rather interesting isn't it? It's also interesting that your two main suspects at the time, Ben and inHim, were also Goldy's main suspects. I guess great minds think alike right?

I even went back and reread through Goldy's posts to see if there was any kind of interaction with Zindaras. There wasn't a single even mention of him. In a month and a half, they felt absolutely no need to comment on each other.

While I know this isn't conclusive proof of anything, I find it rather interesting, especially in conjunction with the fact that Zindaras tried awfully hard to keep me away from looking at Goldfish.

Dude, have you even

thought

this train of thought through?

You: [bad logic]
Me: That's bad logic.
You: You're scum deflecting attention away! OMGZ!

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying I'm scum because I'm defending Goldy, who is my buddy (if you say scum would deflect attention away from town to make themselves look better, you also accept that town would deflect attention away from someone, which also partly invalidates your train of thought saying I'm scum).

First off, this assumes I'm a bloody idiot who doesn't know the meaning of the word "bussing". Secondly, and most importantly, this is completely backwards reasoning. "Goldfish is scum, so Zindaras is scum." Seeing how your "case" depends completely on Goldy being scum, you must first prove Goldy is scum, something you haven't even

tried

to do.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP: Additionally, I seriously doubt that everyone has posted so much about Goldy.

[Zindaras]

Then you add in the fact that they had similar suspects

Says nothing about alignment.

and neither of them felt the need to even mention each other except very rarely in passing (though Goldfish didn't even do that).

Again, if you go through people's posts, you will find that this holds true for a lot of combinations.

On top of that, you have Zindaras doing a COMPLETE reread which includes a section where Goldfish even gets some heat yet he still doesn't put a single mention of her in that reread while at the same time he talks about every other player in this game. Doesn't that seem rather strange to you?

My reread was not complete. That seems fairly obvious, if you read it.

We could even go further and say his insistence that inHim was scum based on 5 posts, the last of which was 3 weeks ago seems like a rather easy thing to do considering inHim couldn't even defend himself.

Complete and total misrepresentation. How am I saying inHim is scum based on 5 posts? How am I even insisting that he is scum? I said he was my main suspect and I voted him over it.

Does the fact that he wasn't around to defend himself make him less likely to be scum?

Inactivity is no excuse and no reason not to lynch someone

.

[Zindaras]

To prove my point, these are all the instances Mexal used "DG" or "Gold" in the first day:

I happened to agree a lot with Mirth on the Grek issue. There were several times at the begginging of the game were I noticed something while reading and was going to post something about it to find that Mirth had already said the same thing; there's nothing I can do about that. The reason I only FOS'd ben is because my main suspicions are with Grek and a few people had mentioned that his play was similar in other games and so didn't necessarily indicate he was scum.

Ok. So you agree with what most people say yet you play off the thoughts as your own. They are not. If you agree, you say you agree then you go looking at other people. But you don't. You focus on the people that others focus on without truly looking yourself. We call those people parrots.

So lets hear some thoughts. What do you think of Zindaras? DR? DG? HC? Jex? Nox? How about thoughts on people who are NOT under direct suspicion of others. You don't have to post about all of them but at least make an attempt to contribute some original thoughts to the discussion.

I didn't realize that we were going to start doing a PBPA on everyone. I find it interesting that Grek randomly started doing a PBPA after Haschel started doing them. I also don't like that Grek decided to do a PBPA on delicious right after I brought her up as a suspect. He seems to send his attention wherever he thinks he can sway the most votes, and delicious is his new target.

I forget who pointed it out as I just did a quick read-through of the last posts, but I agree that Zin is kinda sketch with posting everywhere else but not in this game. I'll do a reread of him and a few other players that I haven't really looked at a little later today.

As for mexel's question, I still find HC pretty protown. However, I would like to hear more from him besides PBPAs.

Delicious I don't really know what to think of yet. I've played with her in past games and she acts similar to what she is now. I also know that's she's really busy. I've been an RA...the first month sucks

Jex is me, so I'll leave that up to other people to analyze.

Zin and DR I'll do a read-through of later on in the day.

Now I'm off to set up utilities for my house...more money to spend...woot

I don't believe Grek's pbpa to be all that suspicious. I mean, when I brought up Pug89 as a suspect, you immediately went back and reread him. What's so suspicious about Grek doing the same thing to DG? Seems hypocritical to criticize Grek for doing the exact thing you did, albeit in a different fashion.

Impressive.

[Zindaras]

If I had based my entire case around the night kill and said Goldfish was scum because of that, then maybe you would have a point. But if I don't even use that as a basis for my conclusions, then your logic is flawed along with your attack. The fact that you attacked me before I even formulated any opinions says to me you don't want me to formulate opinions on the specific person. You made the assumption that my case would be based on the night kill which gave you an easy way to try to invalidate any conclusions I made before they were made. Now should I make any conclusions, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the night kill, you will have already clouded people's judgement. It's a smooth tactic but I'm not impressed.

If I say that I'm going to take a look at Mirth because she doesn't have an avatar, what are you going to say?

You're keeping me from looking at Goldfish by constantly arguing with me over how I choose a focal point. You're trying to invalidate (I sound like a broken record because you keep asking questions I've already posted about) my conclusions before any of have been made. As a result, you're protecting Goldfish.

I'm saying your logic for choosing to attack Goldy is flawed, then you say that I'm invalidating your conclusions.

These things do not match. I'm invalidating your choice, not your conclusions.

It's perfectly clear how I play.

Yeah, like scum.

I said your reasoning for taking a look at Goldy was flawed. You say that that decision was a matter of playstyle, then say that I can't possibly think you are scum because of it because I don't know how you play.

Still don't get this.

You didn't start off with a reread, but you asked me why I didn't start off with a reread. If you expect someone else to start off with a reread, then why didn't you yourself do it? And if you didn't, then what is the point in asking?

You quoted exactly what I said and I meant every word. I tend to do that. I didn't say, this is where my suspicions lie. I didn't say, I find Goldfish suspicious because Jex died. I said this is where I'm looking for now. Yes, it implies focus and that's the whole damn idea of this game. You focus on people, reread them and discover if they're suspicious or not.

I think "I'm going to look there" implies suspicion, and if it didn't here, then, meh, I was wrong on that one. But it doesn't invalidate my argument.

It doesn't matter how you arrive to the point of focusing on a person. What matters is the conclusions you draw and how you back up those conclusions with evidence. If my conclusion was that Goldfish is scum because Jex died then you have ever right to trash it, but if you start claiming that my conclusion isn't valid before I even make a conclusion because you don't like why I even started looking in the first place, it looks like you're protecting her. And again, the next logical step after you assertain that is why are you protecting her.

Actually, it

does

matter how you arrive to the point of focusing on a person. Scum tend to focus on people for irrational reasons, especially on their scumbuddies.

I have no idea if Jex's death has anything to do with Goldfish. I've been so busy arguing with you I haven't done a real reread of Jex or Goldfish to assertain if it's likely she was scared of her. Because you prematurely jumped on me to distract me from doing that, I have no clue.

If Jex's death has nothing to do with Goldfish, then why is it a reason to focus on her?

Yes, one is a claimed healer

And this makes him town how?

and the other hasn't posted in 3 weeks.

And this makes him town how? (and, additionally, inHim has been replaced by Glork)

Yes you are, yet at the same time, you're defending her.

No, that's the way you twist it.

I'm a bloody idiot because I don't know what the meaning of the word "bussing" is.

Distancing yourself from your teammates by attacking them.

And yes, my case depends completely on Goldy being scum.

In which case voting me is a nonsensical move.

I will likely not be able to spend too much time around comps the next two days, so a next big response will take a while.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP: I also intend to finish my original reread and then look into some more people.

[Zindaras]

Gotta go home now, more later.

As is clear from my finished analysis, I didn't get any farther than Haschel's PbPA of me on Page 10, when she hadn't had any pressure on her yet. So everyone going all "WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GOLDY'S OMGUS?", you're flat-out wrong. I didn't ignore Goldy, I just didn't get there yet.

I have limited time, so while I'd love to respond to the other points, I've got to go now.

[Zindaras]

Sneaking a post in while I should be working:

This is a really weird claim. I'm not sure why Goldy even claimed to begin with.

[Zindaras]

Again, a shortie:

No, I am not NK-immune. And since I apparently was targeted for vigging, I feel obliged to claim. I am

Puss-In-Boots

, masons with Donkey/Dead-Rikimaru. (That's the other reason I

know

that Ben/Riki isn't scum.)

Confirmed innocence? Or do you just believe it? Also, Riki, could you confirm that claim?

It's ridiculous to target a lurker/inactive for vigging simply because they are likely to be replaced (as inHim was) by an active player (such as yours truly). Was there even a case against inHim aside from his lurking? I saw at the start of day that Zindie mentioned being suspicious of the people who lynched Grak, but I felt that this was terribly misleading, as when I read, there was a substantial wagon on Grak, and inHim went active back in

AUGUST

. To pin the mislynch on inHim seemed ridiculous, which is also why I suspected Zindie coming into today.

It was more of a funny coincidence. If you look at my posts yesterday, you'll see that I found inHim and Grek suspicious. The Greklynch was simply an additional small point to make.

[Zindaras]

Queen Lillian, doc, says hi.

I protected Riki last night.

I think this is likely a doc-game, a game filled with docs and doc-related roles. It makes sense with the no role reveal.

[Zindaras]

I'm still sneaking in my posts while I should be working, but I've managed to finish pretty much everything by now. I should be able to post more expansively this evening.

Zindaras: ...I am so confused...are you counter-claiming me?

No. If anything, I'm doing it to lend credibility to your claim. With quotes like this:

I can not see three docs in this game.

I think it was a good play to claim at this point.

Also, who did you protect the first night?

Oh, yes, sorry. 007flash failed to send in a target.

Impressive, isn't it? Failing to send in a target on Night 0?

[Zindaras]

I think Oman is very likely scum.

I can not see three docs in this game.

I am dragon, anti-doc. I target a doctor and make their protection void...or I target a player and make doctors on them void...I don't really know, the role PM uses the word player too much. I have no idea of my predessesors N1 action.

I didn't use my power last night, simply because I didn't want to mess with doc protects if I didn't KNOW there was a scumdoc.

These two statements do not match, in my ever-so-humble opinion. Oman's claim is that of a limited role which interacts only with another specific type of role. So why would there not be three of this type of role? Additionally, how does this role make sense as town? Docs are associated with the town because their ability is one that is more relevant, more positive, for a townie than for a scumbag. I do not see a role like this as town. What could it possibly do? Stop the Mafia doc from protecting his buddy who is being killed by a Vig or SK? This role is generally better off not doing anything at all.

I also know for a fact that, long ago on another forum, KScope modded a Harry Potter themed game in which all of the obvious/main good guys from the movie were also good guys in the game. An early massclaim broke the game open because everybody who had a weak/obscure claim was killed. I survived last, claiming my role of Snape and asserting that I was protown, but we as a mafia never stood a chance.

Aw, man, I wanted to bring up that story. >.>

I was the one who came up with the whole idea. <.<

Scope usually designs his games to be completely unbreakable by character mass claims. Shrek, Fiona, Puss in Boots, Donkey (though, in this case, the last two are likely confirmed due to mason claim) are all possibly scum.

Glork: I protected Riki because I thought that a) Riki was likely town, b) Riki was possible nightkill.

[Zindaras]

2 is the generally used train of thought (and, in my opinion, the correct one, assuming ceteris paribus, in other words, no one else is going to change his vote). 1 is a possiblity. But there is no reason not to vote.

:badposting:

See: Mafia 60, Day Two.

I don't really get this reference.

Meh, with no deaths N1 (I didn't realize it was night-start), Zindie's "There's probably no SK" comment isn't as uber-scummy as I initially thought. I still don't like it. What's the point of bringing it up, Zindaras?

It and all other "thoughts" were things that came to my mind before "Goldy" when I saw that Jex had died. I would not normally post those things. Except role-reveal (maybe. I think pointing that out could possibly have a point) and kittens.

No, I fail to understand how a bandwagon clears someone of being scum. An easy lynch on an anti-town player is just as possible. I'm not particularly suspicious of DR, but I most decidedly don't like your certainty about him. What is your hunch based on exactly? Please elaborate?

Really easy 'wagons tend to be on town. There are exceptions (Battle Mage in Board Games jumps to mind) but it is generally true.

I reject this theory that not voting for someone to overtake the wagon means that Mirth is responsible for the Grek lynch. I'd say the people on him are more responsible (even then 2 votes at deadline doesn't give us much).

Of course they're more responsible, but people like Mirth also had the ability to switch their votes and they didn't. In that sense, they are also responsible for Grek's death.

Ouch, I heavily disagree with this. You don't vote the scummiest of A or B, you vote for who you think is scummiest. Nothing should control a pro-town vote.

Note the huge strawman here. My original post:

1) I don't like any of these votees. I'm going to vote my main suspicion instead.
2) I don't like any of these votees, but since one of them is going to die, I'm going to vote the scummiest from the set.

By quoting only 2 (and even leaving the 2 out), Oman tries to make it look like I said this was the only possibility I raised.

FoS: Oman

Glork's 484 is good.

I think Goldy is likely not Mafia, but possibly SK.

Oh, and one other thing, the people most convinced that I'm town are you and Oman. Also the people most convinced that Goldfish is lying. Coincidence?

That's rather interesting isn't it? It's also interesting that your two main suspects at the time, Ben and inHim, were also Goldy's main suspects. I guess great minds think alike right?

The irony is staggering.

Anyway, I am Pinocchio, and I am the cop. Camisade investigated inHim N1 which is why I believed Glork and refused to lynch him D1. I investigated Haschel N2 and he is town therefore I believe his claim.

Why target Haschel N2?

Followin question to Zindaras and Haschel (since I already gave my logic): what were your thoughts when Pug claimed?

Eh, I mainly wanted to not be outed as doc myself, hence why I voted inHim over him. This is also why I kept thinking and saying Pug was scummy.

I didn't use my power last night, simply because I didn't want to mess with doc protects if I didn't KNOW there was a scumdoc.

So, basically, you're going to wait until someone claims Mafia Doc before blocking them?

Given the fact that Oman's first vote on Day 2 was on Pug, a claimed Doc, you'd expect him to have blocked Pug the night before. Scumdoc, right?

Oman's claimed target does not fit in with his behaviour.

I just realized that masonry doesn't clear all masons, as mixed mason groups can exist. I'll post my complete thoughts on that one later.

Glork has claimed confirmed innocence.

Well obv you would protect him due to thinking he was town, Zindaras, but I want to know what protown tells he had given off on D1 that made you think he was protection-worthy.

As I said before, I found his entry to the game very solid. I thought the way he questioned Mirth and generally brought activity to the game was townie. This post was also one of my major considerations. Since I knew myself to be doc, I had a pretty good reason to believe Pug was lying. Which made me think Riki was town.

Scumdoc, thats the only reason. Also would have been a good idea (I see now) to come out D1 and say "Doc heavy game?" so that info could've helped. I dunno.

And this from the guy who said he didn't believe there could be 3 docs in the game.

Confirm Vote: Oman

Die scum.

[Zindaras]

Why target Haschel N2?

I explained why already.

Yeah, sorry, that's what you get for writing up posts while reading.

@Mirth. I cross dress?

Yeah. It's pretty funny/awesome.

[Zindaras]

Mod

, vote count?

I think all the docs should use weighted probabilities for their protections, like Glork said he'd use in Scrubs (if my memory serves me well). That way, the scum will never know who to hit.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP: I also think that the Vig kill should be led. The Tracker should investigate one of the docs and the Cop should do whatever the hell he wants.

[Zindaras]

Why are you buying Haschel's claim and not mine, Mirth? And what do you think about using a weighted probability set for determining doc protections? (Note: even if we determine a probability set, the doc's eventual choice need not be random)

[Zindaras]

I'm not sure what you mean by probability set. Please explain.

We want to protect the following people, if they're telling the truth:

Glork-Confirmed Innocent Mason.
Riki-See Glork.
Mexal-Claimed Cop.
FaerieLord-Claimed Tracker.
Goldy-Claimed Vig, ability confirmed (please note that Goldy can still be SK. While I doubt this, given the timing of her claim, we shouldn't forget about it)
Mirth-Claimed Doc, ability confirmed (and sanity, too).
Zindaras-Claimed Doc.
Haschel-Claimed Doc.
Pug-Claimed Doc.

Which, well, basically amounts to "everyone".

It's like a coordination game in game theory. A pure strategy, like the one you put forth (Pug-->Zindaras-->Haschel-->Mirth-->Mexal), could easily be beaten by a mixed strategy. For example, we could put forth the following strategy:

-Mirth: 50% protect Mexal, 50% protect FaerieLord.
-Haschel: 50% protect Mirth, 50% protect Goldfish.
-Zindaras: 50% protect Haschel, 50% protect Glork.
-Pug: 50% protect Zindaras, 50% protect Riki.

This way, the only one the Mafia can safely hit is Pug. All other kills have a 50% chance of failure (assuming perfect sanity from the docs' side).

The probabilities as presented here are only examples. I think there is probably a better mixed strategy, though I think this is a good starting point.

Now we just need to find the Nash equilibrium(s).[/math geek]

[Zindaras]

Hmmm, interesting. My grasp of the Nash equilibrium isn't too solid (I'm better at calculus, though horribly rusty either way) but I think I understand what you're getting at. Decisin by coinflip?

Not necessarily a coinflip, but the most important thing is that the scum doesn't know who's going to protect who. You don't necessarily have to actually flip a coin, it's more that the Mafia doesn't really know what to do.

A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies from all players where no players can get a higher pay-off by switching strategies. The point of that in this game is to get the Mafia in a position where there is no perfect, no free, no easy kill.

[Zindaras]

Glork's plan:
Lynch Oman

If Oman town, vig Pug, set up protections so that Zindaras is the "best" mafia kill.
If Oman scum, no vig, set up protections so that Pug is the "best" mafia kill.

Tomorrow we'll go from there, based on what happens today/tonight.



And, obviously, this is based on my own suspicions, so it's skewed to what I would do if I got to run the show.

I'd love to hear the rationale behind this.

[Zindaras]

Happy birthday Goldy.

As an aside, we should really be lynching Oman.

Really really.

[Zindaras]

Vote: Pug89

Screw the safe/information play. Simply put, I find Pug much more likely to be scum than Oman.

Explain to me how Oman's claim makes sense as a pro-town role. Then take a look at the other behavioural points I've raised against him.

The logical conclusion is to lynch Oman. Because he's scum. And stuff.

[Zindaras]

I don't think he's debating Oman being scummy. Just that he thinks Pug is scummier.

I don't believe Glork has made any kind of case for a Pug-lynch. I raise my points, but Glork really hasn't raised any points against Pug. Not a real case, in any case.

Mexal, if I were you, I wouldn't announce my night target beforehand. That will only help the Mafia.

[Zindaras]

I think weighted is the best idea. This isn't just because I proposed it.

If we divide nicely, we can basically cover all our bases, so that even if one of our docs is scum, he still won't be able to have a safe kill. We simply have to make sure we have some overlap. If anything, we can force them to hit one of the docs.

As I said before, I'd also like to suggest that the Tracker targets one of the Docs. The Cop should do whatever he wants. That's the best way to go about it, in my opinion.

[Zindaras]

I'll protect either Haschel or Glork.

I think Pug should protect either Dead Riki or me, and Mirth either Mexal or Faerielord. I think that's a good way to hedge our risks.

[Zindaras]

Oh, Goldfish, I forgot about Goldfish. Eh, we may want to put her in somewhere as well.

[Zindaras]

Who am I missing?

[Zindaras]

We're better off lynching scum. Mafia is a game of behaviour, not a game of "follow-the-Cop".

[Zindaras]

Guaranteeable Cop result? That's folly. For one, I'd put the chances of all the Docs being real, working docs at around 0. The odds of insanity, of roleblocking or even killing docs, are pretty high. Also, given the setup as it looks now (Masons with confirmed innocence, Docs, a Cop, a Tracker, a Vig), I think it would be naive to assume that our Cop is sane (unless Scope told Mexal that he's sane, which I don't know).

No lynching and following the cop are both strategies that make dangerous assumption

Because if he really

*IS*

a Doctor, then Mexal shouldn't die. The scums have no compelling reason to target Mexal whatsoever unless Pug is part of their scumgroup.

And if Pug is scum? If Pug is scum, no team is going to have problems with sacrificing him. He's likely to die regardless.

[Zindaras]

If anything, Mexal is Naive.

I am reminded of Mini 370 (Reverse). I claimed as Cop, and we thought we had broken the setup, but I turned out to be Insane, and we lost the game due to that.

[Zindaras]

Well in reverse you should've expected it lol.

Reverse Mafia was flavourless. It was called Reverse due to game mechanics (reviving instead of lynching).

I don't like the way you're discrediting Mexal straight up. Sane in this setup makes a lot more sense than a niave cop.

And why would that be?

[Zindaras]

Because it removes potential confirmed innocents, for no reason, which is a scum move.

No, I'm asking you why a sane cop would make a lot more sense in this setup. You're putting way too much faith in unknown variables. I'm simply pointing that out.

[Zindaras]

yep, exactly.

What a pointless role for the town.

I just don't ever see the point in taking a power role for the town and making it pro-scum because that's exactly what it'd do if I was insane/naive.

In the case of an Insane Cop, this isn't true. Insane Cops do tend to have their use (once you know you're flipped, you can simply switch all your results around). For the other variations, it's balance.

[Zindaras]

So an insane cop follows a predictable pattern? IE: the results are switched?

If so, then it doesn't apply to this game. Glork turned out to be town, as confirmed by several people and that's the result I got. So if I'm insane, then that'd make him scum and I simply don't believe that, especially since his mason gambit happened before I released my results.

Yaus, that's why I said that you're Naive, if anything.

As for naive, possibly, but I doubt it. Once I get a guilty investigation, that discussion ends too. So I think this whole insane/naive thing talk isn't really necessary right now.

It is, because Oman wants to No Lynch based on an assumption of your sanity.

[Zindaras]

Unvote

Respond later, but I don't like Lynch-1 at the moment.

[Zindaras]

Vote: Oman

I'm amused that there's been absolutely nothing for me to respond to. Everything I've heard is "Meh, he's suspicious" and that's that. It's bloody ridiculous.

Anyway, I'll protect Mirth tonight.

[Zindaras]

Dun dun dun?

[Zindaras]

I'm bored.

Dun dun dun?

[Zindaras]

I'm bored.

Dun dun dun?

Why are you dun dun duning me?

Because it felt appropriate.

Or did it?

Dun dun dun.

[Zindaras]

Also, Glork, seriously, stop playing like you're scum. Because this is getting ridiculous.

[Zindaras]

This was worse than Harry Potter Mafia.

In my opinion, there was simply no way that Mexal was Sane. I mean, seriously, how bad do you want it to get? Vigilante, 5 docs (or so I believe. Grek, Jex, Haschel, Mirth, Pug), a sane cop and a tracker. I expected the Tracker during the mass claim, but that was pretty much it. Then there's the supposed confirmed mason-buddies, who are really survivors who turn up town in investigation. Really good lynches. Seriously, if the Survivors are the so-called balancing factors (which they pretty much have to be, looking at the rest of the setup), they have to be lynchable, which they flat-out aren't if they come up town in investigations.

I had such awesome luck, too. The guy I replaced failed to send in a kill on Night Zero (that has to be a record of failure), I was busy at the most important time of the game (the doc-claim. I knew we had a doc-based game from the moment I was aware of the roles we had. It was just a matter of timing a believable claim), which gave Mirth the brownie points of first claimed Doc or at least weakened my claim, and my buddy claimed an untenable claim (I thought it was an auto-lynch, personally).

In the end, I figured we had a Traitor and that Glork was that Traitor (if only because he was playing like scum), but I guess we didn't have that luck either.

Day Three, I just decided to have some fun before Mexal claimed a scum investigation on me (he was dripping breadcrumbs all over the place).

I'm sure we'll find out that Mexal was, after all, a random cop, after which I will go into cardiac arrest due to anger over this unbelievable stroke of bad luck.

[Zindaras]

Oh, well, at least I'm spared of that. I still think the game was impossible to win for us.

[Zindaras]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]But claiming docblocker was just really dumb.[/quote]

It made me a sad, sad, kitten.

All the possible things to profit from where hidden. I was forced to kill Goldie during Night 3 to keep him from reducing the numbers against me. I was forced to use my doc protection the way I wanted it to. Due to the mass-claim, the double-doc protection was completely unviable, and, even had I known that I could help along myself, protecting Mexal would still screw me over, as Faerie would've tracked me to Mexal.

I thought a long time about my kill during Day Two. I had to kill Faerie because he could track me to a murder (I later found out this wasn't the case). I had to kill Mexal, because he was going to investigate me as scum, but I couldn't really kill him, since it'd point at me. I had to kill the confirmed Masons, as they had the potential to screw me over. I had to kill the Cop, as his confirmed townies would screw me over. I had to kill the docs, as their protections could screw me over. I had to kill the Vig, as her kills would screw me over by reducing the pool of lynch targets.

It was an impossible decision.

Also, by the way, the town was

way

too quick to confirm people as pro-town based on claims and other information. You made a boatload of dangerous assumptions, and I was unfortunately not in the position to point them out (as I kinda had to survive).

[Zindaras]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]The doc ability from Zindaras which indicates he could only protect townie's and hinted that it would be usefull, should've ringed some bells at least.[/quote]

And how am I supposed to interpret that line? It's useful, so I'm immediately going to think that it means that people that are double-protected die? My interpretation was that it would be a good fake-claim, and when I got your Tracker explanation, I figured it was that (the inclusion of a Vig could confirm me as Doc).

And killing Doc isn't really that good a role for scum if there are Trackers on the loose. I mean, I protect someone, they suddenly turn up dead, a Tracker tracked me there. That's not a good position to be found in as scum.

[Zindaras]

I find it strange that you accused me of "playing like scum," Zindaras, because I think that's almost exactly how I would have played had I been strictly protown. The last (and only other) time I was a Survivor, I decided to just play a protown game and stick it out, and it worked then, too. The only thing I think I did differently was "clear" too many players, but that's part of being a Survivor -- you want to make friends, not enemies.

Yeah, that and the whole "FaerieLord, please condemn yourself or Zindaras" lines you spouted on Day Three.

[Zindaras]

This one was different. You were basically giving Faeriescum an idea of what he should do.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP: This kind of subtle difference is exactly what I would expect Glorkscum to put in (and then act like it was just your normal self).

Of course, I was already thinking you could be a Traitor.