Mini 973: "Bawhston" Brawl (WHAT A WIN!)

[havingfitz]

InflatablePie...in post 40 I was undecided....which is

why

I didn't place a vote.

Hoopla...your suspicions towards me amount to nothing more than OMGUS reasoning and the dreaded policy lynch fishing is a load of crap. I was asking for clarification. If (attn Furry) people want to consider my vote on you a policy lynch I guess they can. I'm voting you because I think it is more beneficial for scum to make the claim and along the lines of what Slepz said...I would rather take a chance of lynching an anti-town player making a gambit or mislynching a PR that really does town no good and will only fester suspicions throughout the game than take a chance of mislynching potentially more beneficial PRs. And by lynching you first...if you are telling the truth...we aren't making things any easier for scum because I doubt they would be targetting you in the first place. Your claim has essentially narrowed the field for them (assuming your claim is real).

Nikanor....nothin is wrong with a havingfitz BW if there are valid reasons (which I do not think there are). My point was you called out people for bandwagonning in the same post in which you yourself jump on my bandwagon. That seems a bit a contradiction...which I find suspcious.

Oso...how are you tying me to RH?

xRECKONERx...Why do I annoy you? You should postmore content or else Furry will not be happy.

[q21]

Nikanor - Doesn't there have to be a badwagon for a vote to be bandwagonny? One vote does not a bandwagon make, two votes barely does. Please explain how it is that you consider my vote bandwagonny in a bad way.

It's opportunistic.

What opportunity was I scummily taking advantage of?

[JacobSavage]

@All

Sorry, I am only just keeping up what with exams and the such like anyway.

I cant quite get out of my head that Oso is scum and Fitz is his partner?

I dont know..

[havingfitz]

@All

Sorry, I am only just keeping up what with exams and the such like anyway.

I cant quite get out of my head that Oso is scum and Fitz is his partner?

I dont know..

No you don't.

Based on the time you have put into the game I can understand this profound and insightful analysis. Bravo. Your exams are in for a thrashing.

[xRECKONERx]

I'm not worried about Furry being unhappy.

My parents forgot to pay the cable bill derrrrr so I don't have internet. Posting from my phone for the day. Reading through a topic on the phone is a pain in the ass. Will catch up later.

[yabbaguy]

Observer: "You call yourself fucking policemen? Why aren't you stopping this shit, man?"

Policeman: "I don't have time to put up with you. Either you clam it, or I'll find some way to shut you up."

(This policeman is really apathetic as to who wins this fight. As long as nobody's dead yet, it's just like any other gang fight he's seen.)

Vote Count:

7 to lynch

havingfitz (4): Furry, Hoopla, Nikanor, InflatablePie
Hoopla (3): Radical Hijinx, Slepz, havingfitz
Slepz (2): Gwynplaine, xRECKONERx
Radical Hijinx (2): Oso, q21

Nonvoters: JacobSavage

Deadline is 6/6 @ 10 PM GMT-4. No Lynch occurs if this elapses.

Radical Hijinx will be prodded soon.
I cannot promise I'll have a votecount tomorrow. Sorry.

[Gwynplaine]

To the folks voting for Hoopla (Radical Hijinx, Slepz, havingfitz): you're gonna need four more votes, and so far it doesn't seem like the rest of us are willing to lynch her based solely on her claim. Do you see anything else that makes you think she's scum? Anything give you a hint at who her partners might be?

Also, still waiting for the lurkers and semi-lurkers -- but not pressuring them, because InflatablePie is afraid they'll get their feelings hurt if somebody says that they should post more.

[yabbaguy]

Radical Hijinx now prodded (albeit 30 mins early). For a taste of the prod PM, click here.

[InflatablePie]

InflatablePie...in post 40 I was undecided....which is

why

I didn't place a vote.

Yes, but in 40 you also said that the claim was more beneficial to scum. And you only voted after Hoopla voted you...

@Gwyn: Ooh, did I touch a nerve? Neat.

[Furry]

Hoopla...your suspicions towards me amount to nothing more than OMGUS reasoning and the dreaded policy lynch fishing is a load of crap. I was asking for clarification. If (attn Furry) people want to consider my vote on you a policy lynch I guess they can. I'm voting you because I think it is more beneficial for scum to make the claim and along the lines of what Slepz said...I would rather take a chance of lynching an anti-town player making a gambit or mislynching a PR that really does town no good and will only fester suspicions throughout the game than take a chance of mislynching potentially more beneficial PRs. And by lynching you first...if you are telling the truth...we aren't making things any easier for scum because I doubt they would be targetting you in the first place. Your claim has essentially narrowed the field for them (assuming your claim is real).

So it is policy. Why did it take you so long to push policy? What is your view on Miller claims? What would be your view on a page one VT claim?

[Gwynplaine]

Ooh, did I touch a nerve?

Cast your mind back over every time someone has said that to you. Not just in mafia games, but in any context. Was that person ever right?

[InflatablePie]

So... I

did

touch a nerve?

Will try and have a post with actual content later tonight, when I get off work.

[InflatablePie]

Oso, so if fitz flips scum than RH could be his partner, but if RH flips scum then fitz would become less scummy? Still a bit confused.

Nikanor - this looks awfully wishy-washy, if that's the right word. "I like Oso's post, OH BUT I DON'T THINK RH IS SCUM NO SIR". Seems a bit of a pre-emptive defense? Eh, other than this, nothing else has caught my eye on Nik.

Gwyn - don't have much of a read, but keeping an eye on him for reasons stated earlier.

q21 - His posts come across awfully... formal. I get weird vibes as a result. Nothing else of note.

Furry - seems to be mostly tunneling on fitz with a few other minor questions thrown here and there.

Slepz - this is more of a note to self, but if fitz turns out to be scum, this post sounds like he's speaking for fitz. I don't like that.

Reckoner is posting mostly fluff. I don't mind joking around, but his only content posts seem to be this and this. The other 11 or so posts of his are quick one-sentence comments, or jokes.

Hoopla is most likely town, cannot get a read on Jacob yet, and I've given my stance on fitz.

Unvote
Vote: Slepz

Actually, I don't want to wait to see a fitz flip. Reckoner also has a nice observation in one of his two content posts that I agree with.

[InflatablePie]

Hey look I forgot RH

A quick ISO shows that, yes, he says his knee-jerk reaction was a bad vote but LEAVES HIS VOTE ON HOOPLA.

Well, I could forget about Slepz for now, then.

Unvote

Vote: Radical Hijinx

[Furry]

q21 - His posts come across awfully... formal. I get weird vibes as a result. Nothing else of note.

So... what does this mean?

Slepz - this is more of a note to self, but if fitz turns out to be scum, this post sounds like he's speaking for fitz. I don't like that.

So Slepz scum = fitz scum?

Actually, I don't want to wait to see a fitz flip. Reckoner also has a nice observation in one of his two content posts that I agree with.

So has your fitz read changed?

Also you abandon the slepz vote fast. I dont follow your logic at all. Fitz is scum with slepz, but you would rather lynch slepz even though for some reason fitz scum strengthens slepz scum... then you vote RH?

@RH - Opinions on non-Hoopla stuff? Is Hoopla scum?

[InflatablePie]

q21 - His posts come across awfully... formal. I get weird vibes as a result. Nothing else of note.

So... what does this mean?

Exactly what it says on the tin.

In other words, I don't know how to expand on this.

Slepz - this is more of a note to self, but if fitz turns out to be scum, this post sounds like he's speaking for fitz. I don't like that.

So Slepz scum = fitz scum?

Eh, not necessarily. If fitz flips scum, then Slepz will be my next choice for a lynch. If Slepz flips scum, my fitz read won't change. It's the buddying-up-to-fitz part (by speaking for him) that bugs me, which would be amplified if fitz flips scum.

Actually, I don't want to wait to see a fitz flip. Reckoner also has a nice observation in one of his two content posts that I agree with.

So has your fitz read changed?

Slightly. He's not pro-town, but I think my read could have been a bit off. He gave an okay defense and we have bigger fish to fry for now, in my eyes.

Also you abandon the slepz vote fast. I dont follow your logic at all. Fitz is scum with slepz, but you would rather lynch slepz even though for some reason fitz scum strengthens slepz scum... then you vote RH?

Yeah, my brain does that sometimes. But like I said above, Slepz can be scum and fitz town. Right now, RH > Slepz > fitz in terms of good lynches right now.

[Oso]

I'll try to answer both of these concerns at the same time.

Oso...how are you tying me to RH?

Oso, so if fitz flips scum than RH could be his partner, but if RH flips scum then fitz would become less scummy? Still a bit confused.

The short answer fitz is that I'm not tying you to RH.

The point I am trying to make is that if RH flips scums (I think he will), my opinion of your scumminess is going to drop some simply because of the of the order you two are at on the Hoopla vote. He was first and you came on right after him and after the controversy over Hoopla's RC was under way. I just don't see two scum partner's doing that. If by chance you are lynched today and do flip scum. my opinion on RH isn't going to change and I log it off the novelty of Hoopla RCing that early and that you got a bad case of nerves or something and followed a partner where you shouldn't have.

When I went back to re-read the thread, I did on the premise that Hoopla has true claimed and that there was at least one scum on the vote when I did. I didn't go back to see who I could make the best case on though, I went back to see which two of you three (Radical Hijinx, havingfitz and slepz) might stand a chance of still being town, at least in my opinion. I might have let my underlying suspicions about RH color my judgment but I tried not to let that happen.

You (fitz) and Slepz came off slightly better than RH in my estimation.

[Hoopla]

For reference, here is a visual interpretation of how I see the views toward my claim. I am speaking from a confirmed town perspective, so it doesn't include the possibility of me being scum. This is more a if/when I flip thing, so you can understand Day 1's reactions a little better.



This isn't exactly to scale, as I don't expect scum to be twice as likely to be pro-policy lynch, but it might be close. The point I wanted to show, is that while town uncertainty leaves them open to land anywhere in the spectrum, scum have a vested interest in not finding me town, and making sure I am lynched at some point, which is why those who find me very town right now, do not feel like scum to me, because it seems like the unnatural or even damaging stance for scum to take.

This obviously opens up problems if I am not town, as it looks like I am just siding with anyone who thinks I am town. But I hope lynching a couple of scumbags early from the analysis of reactions to my claim will be enough to not warrant me needing to be lynched. But I reiterate, this is more a if/when I flip town thing, or if you think I am town now and want to understand what I am seeing.

[Hoopla]

@All

Sorry, I am only just keeping up what with exams and the such like anyway.

I cant quite get out of my head that Oso is scum and Fitz is his partner?

I dont know..

If this is to be an ongoing theme in your play, I'd prefer you cut your losses and replaced out now. Because it will be more damaging in the long run for the town, if you just stagger along and replace out in a week or two, rather than now. If you want to play on, you must promise you're going to lift your tempo relatively soon (ie; now), because it sucks having an empty slot in the game.

[Furry]

@IP - Please dont do that color response thing. That is one of my biggest pet peeves in this game. You more tags doing color, /color than quote /quote either way.

I actually fail to understand policy lynches at all either way on claims. If you are calling for one it means you completely underestimate your own ability to scumhunt which if thats the case, why are you even playing. Those claims never mean someone is confirmed town (although I personally lean slight town since scum should never want to restrict themselves), but they should absolutely never be policy lynched. No one has ever presented a good reason for a policy lynch of a role in the history of mafia. Ever.

Policy lynches of players are a completely different story.

Im also torn right now. Once a few people post it will fixed

[Hoopla]

Hoopla...your suspicions towards me amount to nothing more than OMGUS reasoning and the dreaded policy lynch fishing is a load of crap. I was asking for clarification. <snip>

What do you think the right decision is if you were dealt the hand of PGO?

I consider claiming it a little like insurance - you can run the risk that no town PR's will hit you, and they might not. You might be lynched, or NK'ed by anti-town faction first, and that is a positive result. But if it goes wrong, it really goes wrong and I have the power to wipe out multiple town PR's, which has the ugly image of looking like 3rd party/mafia if I were to then claim. Claiming Day 1 prevents the best and worst case scenarios, which is more beneficial to town when the worst case scenarios are more powerful/likely than the best case scenarios.

Policy lynches contribute to town losses in the long run, because they are based on policy as opposed to any genuine scumhunting. It means at best, the lynch will be random (that is if you assume scum isn't the ones pushing policy lynches), and when you only have three mislynches in a Mini Normal, it hurts a lot if you're wrong. You should be able to assess my play and find things I am doing to be more town or scum motivated, rather than just policy.

[InflatablePie]

@IP - Please dont do that color response thing. That is one of my biggest pet peeves in this game. You more tags doing color, /color than quote /quote either way.

Apologies. I'll simply quote in the future.

And Oso, thanks for clearing things up for me. I think I get it now.

[havingfitz]

InflatablePie...in post 40 I was undecided....which is

why

I didn't place a vote.

Yes, but in 40 you also said that the claim was more beneficial to scum. And you only voted after Hoopla voted you...

This is what I said, "I lean towards there being more benefit to scum fakeclaiming PGO (especially so early in the game) than town legitimately claiming it."

...which is not quite as firm a stance as your satement that I said the claim "

was

more beneficial to scum." Which was a stance I took later (when I voted) and explains the unvote without a vote (i.e. due to my uncertainty at the time on an appropriate vote recipient).

So it is policy. Why did it take you so long to push policy? What is your view on Miller claims? What would be your view on a page one VT claim?

Show me where I have called my stance "policy". Is the fact you continue to color my vote a policy vote the basis for your voting me? If it is...isn't that essentially policy lynching people who push policy lynches (which I am not but you are accusing me of). Asking questions related to the previously unknown to me concept of policy lynching PGOs and actually pushing for a policy lynch are two different things. As I have never pushed "policy lynches" before...accusing me of doing so now is totally unfounded. I have given my reasoning for suspecting/voting Hoopla, and on the basis of policy lynching is not one of them.. Interesting to note the one previous time I was accused of pushing a policy lynch was when I was town being accused by scum. Coincidence?

I've already responded to your miller question.

A page one VT claim would strike me as odd and therefore capture my attention in a negative light. But I would not view it as negatively as I would/do a page one PGO claim.

What do you think the right decision is if you were dealt the hand of PGO?

I consider claiming it a little like insurance - you can run the risk that no town PR's will hit you, and they might not. You might be lynched, or NK'ed by anti-town faction first, and that is a positive result. But if it goes wrong, it really goes wrong and I have the power to wipe out multiple town PR's, which has the ugly image of looking like 3rd party/mafia if I were to then claim. Claiming Day 1 prevents the best and worst case scenarios, which is more beneficial to town when the worst case scenarios are more powerful/likely than the best case scenarios.

Policy lynches contribute to town losses in the long run, because they are based on policy as opposed to any genuine scumhunting. It means at best, the lynch will be random (that is if you assume scum isn't the ones pushing policy lynches), and when you only have three mislynches in a Mini Normal, it hurts a lot if you're wrong. You should be able to assess my play and find things I am doing to be more town or scum motivated, rather than just policy.

See Policy statements to Furry above.

If I was a PGO (having never been one or played with one) I would probably keep it closehold unless I was in danger of being lynched. I'm not sure when or if I would claim it but I am pretty confident it would not be to start off a game.

As I've already stated, in what I am sure is not an all inclusive break down, I see it benefitting scum more than town because if the claimer is town and telling the truth:

- Keeps other PRs from touching you at night

(Good for town)

- As long as you are alive it continues to cast suspicions on validity of your claim and motives behind the early claim

(IMO bad for town)

- I don't think it improves your chances of staying alive any more than town players who have not claimed

(Null advantage)

- Keeps anti-town roles from touching you at night

(Bad for town)

- It tells scum who you are and allows them to look elsewhere for other possible PRs.

(Bad for town)

Whereas if the claimer is an anti-town role fakeclaiming:
- Keeps town PRs from touching you at night

(Bad for town)

- It forces town PRs to look elsewhere for other possible anti-town...however...the advantage of narrowing the field for town to affect anti-town with their night actions is less (assuming 2-3 remaining anti-town roles) than anti-town's advantage mentioned above in finding town PRs.

(Bad for town)

- As long as you are alive it continues to cast suspicions on validity of your claim and motives behind the early claim

(IMO bad for town)

- I don't think it improves your chances of staying alive any more than town players who have not claimed

(Null advantage)

Taken as a whole...I see the PGO claim to be overall more beneficial to scum which is why I am voting you. Not on policy....because I think your claim was scummy. Additionally...the fact it has not gotten more support tends to make me think scum are supporting it.

[havingfitz]

EBWOP...last line above should read:

Additionally...the fact a Hoopla wagon has not gotten more support tends to make me think scum are not supporting it.

[Gwynplaine]

Show me where I have called my stance "policy".

Just because you don't call it that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

You're voting for Hoopla based only on her roleclaim. You don't seem to be considering her other posts at all. This makes me think you'd be voting for anybody who'd claimed PGO in their first post, regardless of who they were or what else they posted. That may not be a policy lynch by your definition, but arguments against policy lynches easily double as arguments against your position.