926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[Seacore]

I just had some time off.

I blame the stars aligned II game that I'm in for my original thoughts that I now think are incorrect.

I have a fairly main character (he/she has never had a POV chapter, but none-the-less is a main character) and I don't have a PR. Thus, I don't think names will reflect PR.

I just don't think it can hurt too much to do it, and it may lead to some scum avoiding their scummy names, and thus cause them to slip up.

I am strictly against PR claiming. (I know I just kind of did it, but it was to support my point)

[Faraday]

Vote Count 1.3: The

'When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.'

' votecount.

Bogre (3) - [Kinetic, The Inquisition, Miserable at Best]
Mina (2) - [Raivann, MacavityLock]
Kinetic (1) [Xvart]
TheButtonMen (2) [Mina, Bogre]

Not voting:

(4) [ Locke Lamora,Heliograph, TheButtonMen, Seacore]

Prodding Heliograph who (I believe) has yet to post.

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.
Deadline: March 3rd @ 6pm GMT and you need a full majority to lynch.

[Kinetic]

So, I was wondering why everyone was acting so scummy, and then I looked at all of the dates everyone's accounts were made on. Save MacLock they're all 2009...

...

That explains a lot.

Okay, now you've pissed me off.

First of all, you shouldn't judge the player by the account date. Some of the players might be alts, and others might be new to mafiascum but not to Mafia. (For example, I usually play on another site.) And I don't think that the difference between one year and two-and-a-half years of experience is astronomical. Some of the "veteran" players who are known for their personalities and for their omnipresence on this site haven't improved after dozens of games.

Judge a player? Back off. I'm merely pointing out that the last time I was really actively in a game was before most of you were on the site. It could be expected that you do not know my meta, but I didn't realize that and thus thought you were just all acting scummy.

Mina continues to creep up my radar. Her and Bog definitely are the ones who I'm least likely to put any faith in at this time.

Could you explain just what you mean by "creeping up my radar"? Because you keep making backhanded comments about how you've got your eye on me and how no one should trust a word I say, but not once do you explain just

why

you suspect me. You seem to be more interested in planting a seed of doubt against me than gauging my reactions, too.

I can't and don't try to describe something I don't completely understand. When I read your stuff I just get a bad feeling from it. If I intended to vote you or pressure you more than that I'd go back and try to figure out why I'm getting that feeling.

I've had this feeling before on scum, and I've felt this way before on people who ultimately were town. Usually when I go back and try and figure out why I'm thinking this this I almost figure out which is which.

For now though I'm content with it just being a feeling and mentioning it as such.

By the way, what do you think of TheButtonmen? He who FOSsed you, parroted everyone else's complaints about your plan, and chided you for not voting a non-poster, but voted for someone else?

Who?

More seriously, I really do loathe these types of posts. The first 2/3rds are deriding me and then you ask my opinion on something. It makes me feel like there is some trap or catch involved. Normally I'd just ignore it but I'm more wondering if that is your plan so that you can go on for several pages asking me why I didn't answer your question.

[Locke Lamora]

In a game with this, PRs aren't going to be obvious anyway. If a nameclaim does reveal obvious targets for scum, then they still have to deal with the WIFOM of whether to target them or not. Furthermore, it'll lock scum into characters for the duration of the game, which limits their room for manoeuvre if forced to fullclaim later on. I also think some people are still assuming that Kinetic is saying a mass nameclaim is instantly going to out the scum. I doubt that'll happen, I think it's pretty clear that it's going to provide more information about the setup, not catch the scum straight away.

Mina: are you not more bothered by Raivann's sudden flip? You seemed to accept it as quickly as he made the flip.

[Kinetic]

Actually

I'm pro name claim I've decided, which is a complete flip I know.

I think we should post our names in order of the list on the OP

I will honestly be very suspicious of people I consider to be the "bad guys" in the books.
Sure, "bad guy" is a moving feast, since book 1, Jaime is painted as a bad guy, but later on he's not so bad. But anyway.

So I'm for a name claim. In the specific order. Because that way, scum have to choose, do I admit I'm Tywin Lannister? Or do I hope that "The onion knight" is not in the game and choose him. And then somebody else goes "But I'm the onion knight!" and bam! scum!

Who agrees?

And you are second to last on that list. Convenient?

The best way to claim is popcorn style. That is, someone is chosen by the group to claim first and that person chooses who claims after them.

[The Inquisition]

if we name claim it should be done in a pre-determined random order.

[The Inquisition]

EBWOP: And not by order in list

[Faraday]

Heilograph has been prodded (did it a while ago but forgot to post)

[Bogre]

Hardly defaulting to OMGUS, or defensiveness. RVS votes are next to meaningless- why would I be exceptionally worried about that?

Now, in regards to my vote, and Kinetic's considerable mention of it- there are two things I imagine: He is a townie, and wrong about the scumminess of the confirm, or he's scum, trying to point out something trumped up and was wrong about how to go about. At this point, nothing is really confirmed, but at that point it was -something- for me to go on.

Now, why he is wrong: Confirming last can plausibly indicate scumminess, but that is in the case of -confirming- in thread. (Scumminess comes from confirming late, beause of talking in quickchat.) In this case, however, confirmations were done by replying to role PM's- something that I do immediately after reading them (and I imagine is what most people do). Thus, his attribution of increased likelihood of me being scum is fallacious.

At the moment, I'm more interested in Miserable person, hopping on a wagon (mine) by parroting others reasons. Plus his post is a lot of waffling and 'soft' play- scumtells.

I also like Mina's analysis- opportunism is a very valuable thing to look for in the RVS. Scum are trying to appear active and contributory, and start pushing mislynches. New scum, especially, are very prone to opportunism.

[Bogre]

Also, Kinetic, <---2006.

[Seacore]

Well, that's why I said using the list backwards Kinetic, if you chose to actually read my posts.

But fine, lets do it in some other way. i don't care, but I think it's information that can be good, and can make lying tempting for the scum, which is also good.

[Kinetic]

Hardly defaulting to OMGUS, or defensiveness. RVS votes are next to meaningless- why would I be exceptionally worried about that?

Now, in regards to my vote, and Kinetic's considerable mention of it- there are two things I imagine: He is a townie, and wrong about the scumminess of the confirm, or he's scum, trying to point out something trumped up and was wrong about how to go about. At this point, nothing is really confirmed, but at that point it was -something- for me to go on.

Now, why he is wrong: Confirming last can plausibly indicate scumminess, but that is in the case of -confirming- in thread. (Scumminess comes from confirming late, beause of talking in quickchat.) In this case, however, confirmations were done by replying to role PM's- something that I do immediately after reading them (and I imagine is what most people do). Thus, his attribution of increased likelihood of me being scum is fallacious.

At the moment, I'm more interested in Miserable person, hopping on a wagon (mine) by parroting others reasons. Plus his post is a lot of waffling and 'soft' play- scumtells.

I also like Mina's analysis- opportunism is a very valuable thing to look for in the RVS. Scum are trying to appear active and contributory, and start pushing mislynches. New scum, especially, are very prone to opportunism.

You made a point that in some cases there could be a reasonable reason why scum might confirm last.

Thus my original point, that someone is more likely to be scum when confirming last than town stands.

It was basically a random vote though, only reason I didn't remove it after the RVS was because of your overstated reaction.

[xvart]

But that said, xvart? Could you share your thoughts on players other than Kinetic?

Sure thing. I would hate to "parrot" others since that might make me more scummy in Kinetic's eyes, but I guess I'll have to learn to live with that disappointment. I am not satisfied with TheButtonmen's contributions thus far. The unvote with no explanation or anything else to say is especially disconcerting considering there is enough other things going on to comment on.

I'm also not really following the Mina/Raivann thing that was going on on page two and the whole double fencesitting...

Both Babylon and Freaktown were horribly complex games that I figured out flaws in. I could tell you what they were but it would be better if you read them on your own to find them out so you aren't biased by my interpretation.

~

fix'd- Mod

So let me get this straight. After I voted for you you gave a simple three sentence response complimenting me, liking my avatar, and telling me to meta you. I am supposed to believe that I was to read through your games to discover that you were able to find flaws in well designed games? That is very odd to me, considering my criticism of your idea. Then you list several games (one of which you modded) and only two of them were games that you found flaws in? If your goal was to prove that well designed games can have flaws (as your simple quote yourself post to answer my question suggests), what was the purpose of the other links?

Furthermore, you still hold on to the value of a name claim and even said you haven't heard anything to suggest it is a bad idea. What do you have to say about the vocal opinions suggesting that more prominent characters might have more powerful roles? Is that not a concern for you? If so, why is that?

The point is if we all name claim who do you think is more likely to have a more powerful (or useful) role? Benjen Stark or Syrio Forel? Khal Drago or Hodor?

In each of those instances, not knowing any role related information, who would you rather lose?

I'd like an answer to the bolded question, if only to get your opinion on my questions above.

For everyone

- is there anyone here who has not read

A Game of Thrones

?

xvart.

[Heilograph]

Oh didn't even know te game started...
Alright guess I'm in catch up mode

[Miserable At Best]

I keep forgetting to check up on this game, my apologies. Going to catch up from my last post again.

[Locke Lamora]

This is going nowhere fast. If some people are going to flat-out refuse to nameclaim or just keep stalling by talking about the relative pros and cons, it's not going to offer any benefit anyway. Can we either do it or move on? I'm for it. With that said:

Vote: Seacore

For doing a lot of talking but talking about nothing else but the nameclaim. Even his vote was made because Kinetic proposed one.

[MacavityLock]

Unvote. Vote: Buttonmen

for throwing out a random vote while having a supposed actual suspicion, as shown by the FoS. The more I think about it, the more I realize that there is no townie reason to do this. If they don't have to, townies shouldn't be wasting time voting for no good reason.

[Bogre]

Thus my original point, that someone is more likely to be scum when confirming last than town stands.

See- that only holds if people are confirming in thread. At any rate- what drew my interest towards you, was that you mentioned it twice, without a response from me (In which I was inactive across the site, not night-talking)- that you were very concerned with it, not so much that I think you were trying to pin mis-suspicion so early in the game.

Unvote

[Seacore]

This is going nowhere fast. If some people are going to flat-out refuse to nameclaim or just keep stalling by talking about the relative pros and cons, it's not going to offer any benefit anyway. Can we either do it or move on? I'm for it. With that said:

Vote: Seacore

For doing a lot of talking but talking about nothing else but the nameclaim. Even his vote was made because Kinetic proposed one.

Inconsistency is noted. You want people to start name claiming and I'm being voted for because that's what I'm arguing for.
I'm waiting for somebody to choose a 'random' order.

[MacavityLock]

Don't even think about starting a name claim until a majority of

townies

agree to it. Let's assume that scum will be onboard if they know a name claim is beneficial to them. Let's also assume either 3 or 4 total scum. So, 8 players need to agree to this before anything starts. (Either 3 scum + 9 townies/2 = 8.5 players, or 4 scum + 8 townies/2 = 8 players. Rounding down is okay I guess.)

By the way, I have read the books.

[Seacore]

Sounds good to me, lets get this out of the way, so we can start scum hunting.

Yay

[Miserable At Best]

This is going nowhere fast.

Agreed entirely.

Yay

on the name claim.

[Kinetic]

Yay

I have some issues with MacLock's numbers (principally since they assume that scum will believe nameclaim is a good idea). That being said I do believe we need a solid majority if we're going to go through with this.

8 would be preferred, more would always be preferred, but I would be completely ok with going forward with this if we have 7 in favor, especially if anyone abstains.

[Seacore]

I believe MacLock is saying we have to take into account that the scum believe nameclaim is a good idea for them, thus requiring a higher number of town to believe it'll be good for town.

[Kinetic]

I believe MacLock is saying we have to take into account that the scum believe nameclaim is a good idea for them, thus requiring a higher number of town to believe it'll be good for town.

I believe I'm saying that is an assumption only scum could confirm to be true or not, and if it isn't true I'm saying that with the current numbers can block it a lot easier than a normal majority.

Its a clever tactic for scum to say we need a super-majority if he thinks that it would be negative to scum.

Assuming 3 scum then he's only need 2 townies to vote against. 4 scum would only require 1 townie. Even assuming he votes Yay to deflect suspicion AND he is scum, that is still only needing to convince 3 or 2 townies respectively, a much smaller margin.

And before you say "then do you think Mac is scum", I'm not sure, I'm merely taking the other side of the coin and saying I don't tacitly agree with his plan and that a simple majority (7-5) would be enough in my book.