Newbie 844 - Game Over (Scum Win)

[hitogoroshi]

/confirm

Sorry for the delay. As the game wasn't open when I got my role PM, I assumed I'd get a PM saying when it started.

Looking forward to playing with you all.

just me Annachie
DarthRandal1138
Dondero
Annachie 1 Pyrogen
xvart
Pyrogen 1 just me
hitogoroshi 2 Dondero xvart
startransmission 1 DarthRandal1138
fhqwhgads 1 startransmission

No Lynch 1


Not Voting

hitogoroshi
fhqwhgads

[hitogoroshi]

Also, as an SE, I would very much like to advocate in favor of capital letters / punctuation / complete sentences. Pretty we're going to be quoting quotes and responding, and if the posts are chat-room quality instead of messageboard quality it becomes an enormous pain to read.

[Pyrogen]

Now that everyone's here, lets get this game moving.

First, I'd like to defend myself.

Now you seem to be dismissing this somewhat as a random vote:-

My early vote no lynch was really only meant to be in the spirit of a random vote.

Or do you?

I would vote randomly but that just seems unfair

To address this issue better, here was my reasoning: It was RVS phase, but since I don't like random voting, I made a vote no-lynch in the spirit of the random vote. It's like I was voting for a 10th person. I was semi-surprised when I was called out on it, as my vote was not at all serious (read the posts).

So I set a little conversation trap, if you will, though I doubt it worked very well since few posted. That's why I'm voting Anna, and why I will

FOS JustMe

for not mentioning the no-lynch discussion in his first two votes (perhaps waiting to see if other town will go for no-lynch) and then nominating me as supicious for the no-lynch only after everyone vehemetly opposed it.

BTW, here is what I think the vote count on a person means this first day:
1- Slightly better than random possibility (2/9) you are scum
2- Suspicious looking
3- Pushing to hear some talk/lets lynch this guy
4- Explain yourself or die!
5- DIE SCUM

So if I had to give everyone this rating, I'd give Anna and JM one vote each. Everyone else seems town enough or hasn't really posted enough.

[DarthRandal1138]

[quote=Pyrogen]BTW, here is what I think the vote count on a person means this first day:[/quote]

So you're saying that then number of votes on a person has a

direct correlation

to how scummy they are? If someone gets to 4 votes, would you just auto-hammer, regardless of your feelings as to that person's scuminess?

That, my friend, is mindless bandwagonning, not scumhunting. Each person here should vote their own personal convictions, and not allow themselves to be swayed by some mythical "will of the town."

Given that I feel that there is a "slightly better than random possibility (2/9) you are scum," I think I should

Unvote; Vote: Pyrogen

.

[DarthRandal1138]

EBWOP: Upon reread, just me has a vote on you as well, so I guess, by your own system, we should upgrade you to "suspiscious looking," yes?

[Pyrogen]

Bandwagoning has its uses in extracting information. If we don't ever bandwagon we'd end up with a no-lynch day anyway.

But I think you misread my post Randal. If I was to place the second vote on you, I'm saying to you "I think you are suspicious". If I was to place the fourth vote on you, I'm saying "Explain yourself or Die!". That's what is meant by my ratings (It's what the town is saying to the lynchee).

In fact, I really don't see how you can logically think that ANYBODY would assume that the higher the number of votes on a person correlates to the more scummier and scummier they look. I fail to see how I could be considered a bandwagoner, especially since my previous posts warned we should take caution to lynching Day one. Did you miss that in your reread?

Moreso, you seem to perfectly understand my system on your next post. Yes, by having two votes on me, the town is effectively telling me that "I'm suspiscous looking". You understand it perfectly on that EBWOP.

Using false\misleading logic is a sign of scum. Apparently failing to understand a post is not a sign of scum, but if you post later perfectly understanding that post, that contradiction is a sign of scum.

Unvote

Vote DarthRandal

Personally I think you're at the level of 2-very suspiscious, but I only have one vote, so whatever.

[hitogoroshi]

Oh wow, that was disgusting OMGUS right there. And I'm sorry, but your 'system' doesn't make sense. That's not a scumtell at all.

And I thought your previous posts warning not to lynch were just a 'conversation trap'?

Listen to me. This is a newbie game. It's alright to make mistakes or post unclear things, but you say 'oh, I'm sorry, I meant X' not leap down the throat of whoever's trying to correct you!

I don't think Darth should have voted you for that - there were easier ways to prove that point, but you

definitely

shouldn't have voted for him there and he is certainly not "level two suspicious" (I laughed out loud saying that). Think about it, get some perspective.

[DarthRandal1138]

Well, hitogoroshi beat me to the punch a bit, so I'll just say that my vote on Pyro was a pressure vote, intended to elicit a response, and did it ever!

BTW, here is what I think the

vote count

on a person means this first day:

(Emphasis mine)

I read this as "Anyone with two votes already on them is automatically suspicious." If it was intended to read as "If I place the second vote on someone, then I find them suspicious," then I'll concede to a simple misunderstanding. I'll keep my vote where it is until Pyro has a chance to respond.

Also, my EBWOP was a joke, as indicated by the ";)". In this text-based medium, it's difficult to convey humor, so I generally uses smilies as an indicator. If my post doesn't contain a smilie, you can generally assume it's serious.

[Pyrogen]

????

Why do people think my system refers to a scumtell? Did I not make it clear enough it's just why I would place the 1st or 2nd, etc or 5th vote on somebody?

If I think hes scum, I'll place the hammer (5-DIE SCUM)

If I think hes suspicious, I'll place the second vote.

In no way did I ever say that the number of votes = how scummy you looked. Which is why I jumped on Randal for putting those words in my post. However, if everyone else thinks my post was confusing, I'll retract it.

Did anyone else think my system meant the more votes -->(leads to) more scummy looking? I meant the more scummy --> more votes (at least by me).

I'd really like to know, otherwise this is just a communication problem, not Randal's misdirection, and I will unvote him.

[Annachie]

Personally, and this is just an observation, it would be slightly easier if people

unvote Playername

At least it would be for me lol

Pyrogen: Are you just casting votes and aspersions around to see what responses you get?

[xvart]

Hello everyone. Here are some thoughts of mine:

First, I have a question about an acronym.

You understand it perfectly on that EBWOP.

EBWOP: Upon reread, just me has a vote on you as well, so I guess, by your own system, we should upgrade you to "suspiscious looking," yes?

What is EBWOP?

Next, I noticed that several people have called out Annachie:

That said,

Vote Annachie

For being the only one not to disapprove of the no-lynch while mentioning it, and not having very much information in his posts. (This is based on only very circumstantial evidence, but is slightly better than a random vote in my eyes)

I agree with your comments regarding Annachie however. He seems to be sitting on the fence a bit.

With the only responses being nothing to address the suspicions and hardly related to this game:

About the most common variant of the game uses ware wolves and villagers inplace of mafia goons and townies.

Our timezone differences perhaps? (GMT+10 btw)

iirc, yes there is a prod after 3 days, but the weekend counts as one day not two. So the prod might not be for a day more than you think at first.

Rugby? Cricket?

No, we need information and the way to get that is via votes, and the reasoning behind the votes. Although no-voting and non-lynch voting are, in a way, information too.

Annachie, I would you like to hear what you have to say about these suspicions and also why you did not even address them in your previous posts?

Finally, I am going on vacation tomorrow for a week and I don't know at this time if my hotel will have internet connection. I assume it will have wireless, but I'm not sure if it is free of charge or not, so my access may be limited. Just in case,

Possible V/LA: 9/22 - 9/30

xvart.

[Pyrogen]

Personally, and this is just an observation, it would be slightly easier if people

unvote Playername

At least it would be for me lol

Pyrogen: Are you just casting votes and aspersions around to see what responses you get?

Yes and no, I'm not exactly fishing for answers from the votee, I'm scum hunting and seeing the responses from the community in general. This forum is much more slower than what I'm used too, and apparently I'm the most active poster, so yea, I get bored. Stating evidence or FOSing doesn't really give my posts the emphasis needed to stop people from lurking.

Would you mind answering my question about how confusing my "system" was?

[xvart]

Oops. I made a mistake in my V/LA message in the last post. I got confused because I am taking my dog to the kennel tomorrow, but I am not leaving until Wednesday, so

Possible V/LA: 9/23 - 9/30

And since hitogoroshi has posted with some observations I will go ahead and unvote since I voted only because he/she had not yet contributed.

Unvote: hitogoroshi

My suspicions at this point lie on Annachie (for reasons stated above) and Pyrogen (for being all over the map and backpeddling on almost claim he/she has made).

xvart.

[DarthRandal1138]

What is EBWOP?

Edited By Way Of Post

Since we're not allowed to edit our posts, it's a way to indicate an addition or correction to your previous post.

[xvart]

What is EBWOP?

Edited By Way Of Post

Since we're not allowed to edit our posts, it's a way to indicate an addition or correction to your previous post.

Ah! Good to know. Thanks for that. Is there a list of acronyms somewhere on this site or on the wiki?

xvart.

[hitogoroshi]

Yes sir: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... reviations

[Annachie]

Honestly, I'm not sureabout the whole no-lynch thing on the first day. As I said earlier, in the only other game I've played we managed to lynch a power role with the first vote.
It seems that everyone says that lynching someone is good, but I'm not a huge fan on the "school of everyone says". So I'm trying to work it out for myself.

It occurs to me that the scum have a distinct advantage here. They already know who the scum are. So while the odds say that the chance of getting a scum with a first 'day' random lynch is 2/9, it's not going to be random. So the actual odds must be much worse. A random lynch also has the chance of taking out a power role, which combined with the mafia overnight kill, gives them a good chance of taking out 1 of them, and a small chance of both. (I point again to my first game where all 3 power roles were killed by the second 'night')

So if push comes to shove, I'd be in favour of a no-lynch over a random lynch.

That being said, random voting seems to have drawn people out here, along with introductionary type comments, and that is what we need. We need people to talk, to let their opinions be known. So that hopefully we can garnish enough information to make some informed voting and arrive at a non-random lynching.
This presuposes that a mistaken lynching is better than a random or no lynching, and I think it must be. A targeted lynching will usually be accompanied by reasons for the voting from what I've seen. Indeed, voting without reason seems to be a reason to be targeted. Which gives us much needed information. Especially for after we score our first scum.
Random lynching provides us with little information, really only the role of the lynched person.

So, in order of preference, I have arrived at: Targeted or reasoned lynch, no lynch, and finally random lynch.

Oh, and Pyrogen. I have a tendancy to hang around too.

[DarthRandal1138]

@Annachie

No one is proposing a "random lynch." While games do tend to *start* with a lot of random voting, the D1 lynch should not itself be random. The purpose of the random voting is to elicit reactions.

For instance, I started by throwing a dice-determined random vote on startransmission. Had he reacted by getting very defensive, or otherwise overreacting, that could have been a potential scumtell. The idea behind the RVS (Random Voting Stage) is to start conversation, and thereby keep the D1 lynch from being random.

Granted, mislynches are still possible, particularly on D1, but a mislynch still provides the town with information, i.e. voting patterns, bandwagonning, who started the wagon, who hammered, etc. A no-lynch, in contrast, provides the town with no information. Likewise, if we *do* hit scum D1, not only are we halfway to winning, but we can look to see who was defending (subtly or otherwise) the lynchee, or perhaps look for signs of bussing (scum voting for their partner to divert suspicion, or "throwing them under a bus").

[xvart]

A random lynch also has the chance of taking out a power role, which combined with the mafia overnight kill, gives them a good chance of taking out 1 of them, and a small chance of both.

Thank you for the response. Depending on which setup we drew we could either have zero, one, or two power roles. Of the given formats, we have a 25% chance of having no power roles, 25% of having two power roles, and 50% chance of having only one power role (of course this is if starkmoon drew randomly). The odds are more in our favor of randomly lynching a scum than a power role, should we choose to randomly lynch, which I think we are all in agreement (now) that we won't be.

xvart.

[Pyrogen]

How about we start a bandwagon on me? Plenty of posts to go through and post what they think of my actions. Plenty of suspicion on me too.

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

I reserve the right to defend myself though.

So:

Unvote: Randal

Vote: Pyrogen

OMG A Bandwagon! Talk!

.....

Yeah on second thought, I'm not that dumb.

Unvote: Pyrogen

Talk! Am I a suitable lynch today?

[xvart]

How about we start a bandwagon on me? Plenty of posts to go through and post what they think of my actions. Plenty of suspicion on me too.

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

I reserve the right to defend myself though.

So:

Unvote: Randal

Vote: Pyrogen

I don't know how much I trust people who votes for themselves for no apparent reason. It seems rather erratic, given no prompting. Can you explain to me how, if you are protown, voting for yourself and sacrificing yourself will help the town? Will us seeing your role help us? I doubt it at this juncture because we haven't even had any night actions.

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

You've also now claimed, unsolicited, that this move will help you if you are, in fact, scum.

I think you've taken the lead on my suspicion list; but I'm not ready to revote for you... yet.

xvart.

[DarthRandal1138]

Well, for starters, as he did me the courtesy,

Unvote: Pyrogen

.

With that out of the way, there are a few points I'd like Pyro to address.

I'm not saying we have to not lynch anybody today(...)

Then why the vote? Why not just bring up the idea of a no-lynch; see what we all have to say? By committing your vote, you imply that you are strongly in favor of a no-lynch.

Don't worry though about an early no lynch, if anybody jumped on my "no lynch" bandwagon I'd be the first to vote for them instead.

So what does everyone else think about the Day-1 no lynch?

So were you just waiting for someone to support a no-lynch so you'd have a "reason" to vote them?

Vote Annachie
For being the only one not to disapprove of the no-lynch while mentioning it(...)

Hmm... guess so.

Vote DarthRandal

Personally I think you're at the level of 2-very suspiscious, but I only have one vote, so whatever.

Subtly implying that others should vote for me as well? Or quietly telling your scumbuddy that I would be a good target for a mislynch?

Vote: Pyrogen

OMG A Bandwagon! Talk!

.....

Yeah on second thought, I'm not that dumb.

Unvote: Pyrogen


Talk! Am I a suitable lynch today?

Not yet, but keep talking...

[Annachie]

lol, forgot to include the number of power roles in my thinking. Kinda assumed 2 to match the 2 scum.

[DarthRandal1138]

EBWOP:

Also, as far as the idea of "helping your future play;" while that is all well and good, you need to play *this* game to

win

, not use it as a stepping stone in future endeavors. The rest of us are here to play *this* game, and I, for one, would prefer that you play to the utmost of your abilities, whether as town or scum.

[Pyrogen]

How about we start a bandwagon on me? Plenty of posts to go through and post what they think of my actions. Plenty of suspicion on me too.

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

I reserve the right to defend myself though.

So:

Unvote: Randal

Vote: Pyrogen

I don't know how much I trust people who votes for themselves for no apparent reason. It seems rather erratic, given no prompting. Can you explain to me how, if you are protown, voting for yourself and sacrificing yourself will help the town? Will us seeing your role help us? I doubt it at this juncture because we haven't even had any night actions.

Curious how you've left out the fact that I unvoted myself in that very post. Pragmatically, I did nothing but unvote. I am in no way "sacrificing" myself.

This will also help me in my future play, in both cases of my being scum or town.

You've also now claimed, unsolicited, that this move will help you if you are, in fact, scum.

I think you've taken the lead on my suspicion list; but I'm not ready to revote for you... yet.

xvart.

That was only to establish that my motives for this bandwagon was to improve my play, not to vote myself for WIFOM or whatever.