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

[xRECKONERx]

Tempted to vote Slepz.

[q21]

I am patiently awaiting Furry's promised explanations and would like to note that that is one long meal.

[Furry]

I am patiently awaiting Furry's promised explanations and would like to note that that is one long meal.

Blame a mix of poker, having far less internet access then I expected untill saturday, and classes starting in 30 min. Will see if I can hammer anything out in the next 10 though.

Slepz needs to redo his entire last post making everything the opposite of what it currently is. PGO is like miller claim. If you think they are scummy, you lynch them.

[Furry]

Big problems with fitz

1) he ignored the PGO claim. While subsequent posts make it sounds like he does in fact, belive the claim, it would be nice to get explicit clarification on the matter. Either way, a PGO (or other claim) in the early stages of the game effectively ends the RVS as information exists.

2)

Everyone target Hoopla tonight

gg

Tonight? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Unvote, Vote xRECKONERx

I dont get it. Either he is completely missing what sure reads as a joke to me, or acutally believes that reck wants everyone to target hoopla tonight. If this is a joke response, I refer you back to point one, of the RVS being over at this stage, and him continuing to take up space instead of contribute.

~His last post gets broken up over a few posts

3)

I don't have a comment on the claim ATM as I have not played with a PGO before either. I'm not sure what the benefit was to town of such an early claim. Does a PGO only impact the people who try to kill or does the PGO also impact people who make any kind of contact (such as investigative or protective contact)? I lean towards there being more benefit to scum fakeclaiming PGO (especially so early in the game) than town legitimately claiming it.

Well maybe he doesnt believe the claim, which begs the question of point 2 having to be a joke (since if Hoopla is scum it doesnt matter if town PRs target her). Either way, this is a scummy statement. It says that he doesnt have too much info on this claim, which somewhat argues that we shouldnt listen to him, but at the same time he expresses some interest in a lynch of Hoopla as he thinks its a scum claim as opposed to a town one.

4)

Is lynching the PGO a standard policy lynch? Why...isn't the PGO a town affiliated role?

More fishing for a policy lynch, but again so he isnt the one who will be the main driving point behind it.

5) he also unvoted without revoting. That shouldnt be happening at this stage in the game. It also proves that 2 was a joke, revert to 1.

Im happy with what I did in 10 minutes. Will do more later tonight.

[havingfitz]

Tempted to vote Slepz.

Tempted....?

---

Still not sure what the benefit of the early PGO claim was. I can only see an early PGO claim being beneficial to non-town roles. If Hoopla is town...the claim prevents pro-town roles from touching her at night...but it also gives scum a smaller field of players to look for other PRs and prevents them from visiting her. If someone can explain how an early PGO claim helps town I would be happy to consider...but for now, it seems scummy to me.

Vote Hoopla

[havingfitz]

That's an impressive list of BS Furry.

1) My RVS is over when I decide it is. RVS was over for me when I unvoted. And no comment was made on the PGO claim because I was not sure what to make of it...had not yet formed an opinion.

2) Correct...you do not get it. It was a joke response and based on 1) (i.e. I was still considering it the RVS) was perfectly acceptable. And you are calling me out for "continuing to take up space instead of contribute" after only two posts in what was arguably RVS? That is BS.

3) How is my statement scummy either way? I'm not sure what to make of the claim and am leaning towards it being more beneficial to scum. And that is scummy either way? WTF? Do you have info on the claim that warrants we all listen to you?

4) Asking a question on PGO policy lynching in response to someone bringing it up is "more fishing" for it? That's ridiculous. You are really working hard to fabricate valid points...and to no avail.

5) Are those Furry's Rules? Other than RVS (see my first two votes) I don't put votes on people unless I suspect them and am willing to lynch them. The unvote was me exiting the RVS stage without a preferred/real alternative. Which after further consideration has changed.

[Nikanor]

WTF is with the Hoopla wagon? Are we all taking crack now?

Unvote. Vote: havingfitz.

These bandwagon hoppers need to go. Also, havingfitz accuses Furry of bullshitting, which should be considered scummy by any player, but doesn't vote for Furry, and sticks with a Hoopla vote for reasons I will never fully understand.

[InflatablePie]

Hello guys, sorry I'm late to the party. Hello Jacob and Nik, I believe we've played before?

Vote: JacobSavage

at least until he catches up.

Not liking havingfitz for doing the same thing Oso did - unvoting because we're "out of RVS". I think Hoopla pointed this out first.

Actually, you know what.

Unvote, Vote: havingfitz

- gogo bandwagon.

I'm still keeping an eye on you though, Jacob.

PGO claim is a nulltell. Could be a variety of things - town wanting to save the town PRs from death or to WIFOM the scum, OR, scum scaring off town PRs or throwing themselves in the open so their partner can slip by unnoticed.

More later, hopefully.

[JacobSavage]

Oh yes, 112 wasn't it?
NOTE: Be wary of the evil eye

[yabbaguy]

The once afraid onlookers are beginning to now observe the scene unfolding in Harvard Yard. None of them dare to say a word.

Vote Count:

7 to lynch

havingfitz (4): Furry, Hoopla, Nikanor, InflatablePie
Hoopla (3): Radical Hijinx, Slepz, havingfitz
Oso (1): q21
xRECKONERx (1): Gwynplaine
Furry (1): xRECKONERx

Nonvoters: Oso, JacobSavage

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

If I have breaking news such as a newly prodded player, I'll post it in red like this. In the meantime, nothing new.

[q21]

I didn't like Furry's "More fishing for a policy lynch" comment until it became retroactively accurate with fitz Hoopla vote ('justified' by yet more inane rambling) in the very next post. I'm starting to like fitz pressure.

InflatablePie, if you dislike fitz for doing something Oso also did one could infer that you also dislike Oso. Would you please give a clear statement on your like/dislike of Oso at the moment.

[Gwynplaine]

PGO is a tough role to play, but I feel like the most pro-town way to play it would be to attract as little attention as possible from all, only claiming if you begin to look suspicious to the town.

Consider whether that sort of behavior wouldn't make the PGO more likely to be targetted by certain town PRs.

If someone can explain how an early PGO claim helps town I would be happy to consider.

Short answer: If the claim is true, and believed, it potentially saves the life of every other town PR.

I can explain in more detail, but not without getting into a lot of setup speculation and discussion of power role strategy, which I'm not sure would be helpful at this point.

[InflatablePie]

InflatablePie, if you dislike fitz for doing something Oso also did one could infer that you also dislike Oso. Would you please give a clear statement on your like/dislike of Oso at the moment.

Certainly. Although I dislike the fact that Oso is not using his vote to his full potential, he gave a better reason for why he took it off - his playstyle. In addition, his last two posts seem to have good content. I don't have a full-on townread yet, but he is certainly looking better than fitz.

havingfitz, meanwhile, just jumps on the Hoopla wagon after gaining some votes with no further explanation to his unvote. This was also after Hoopla voted fitz - countervoting always twitches my scumdar a bit.

By the way Nikanor, I am taking crack, yet I am not voting Hoopla. Please do not blame the crack. It hasn't done anything wrong.

[InflatablePie]

In addition, fitz's unvoting for the same reason as Oso can also be seen as him trying to blend in with what others are doing, kind of supported by his BW vote of Hoopla.

[q21]

Looking back over the thread I have to point out that Hoopla's fitz vote is a little jarring. There is no reason given for it, there is no previous interaction with fitz. Just a vote out of nowhere. A possible reason might be fitz "Unvote since we appear to have moved on from RVS." That however, doesn't validate a move from Oso to fitz as she was, as far as I can tell, voting fitz for exactly that reason - an unvote 'cause RVS is finished. What made fitz seem scummier than Oso?

There is the possibility that Hoopla is dancing to Furry's tune. Furry votes fitz, and an hour and twenty later Hoopla, with no reasoning of her own, follows suit on the promise of an explanation that only arrived half a day later.

[InflatablePie]

q21: Which do you find more "scummy"? Hoopla's reasonless vote of fitz or fitz's countervote of Hoopla?

Other people can answer this, too.

[Furry]

Still not sure what the benefit of the early PGO claim was. I can only see an early PGO claim being beneficial to non-town roles. If Hoopla is town...the claim prevents pro-town roles from touching her at night...but it also gives scum a smaller field of players to look for other PRs and prevents them from visiting her. If someone can explain how an early PGO claim helps town I would be happy to consider...but for now, it seems scummy to me.

No town roles attempting to use a protown action kill themselves by targeting the PGO this way...

1) My RVS is over when I decide it is. RVS was over for me when I unvoted. And no comment was made on the PGO claim because I was not sure what to make of it...had not yet formed an opinion.

You dont ignore the growth forming on your arm because you dont know what it is. Also RVS *should* end as soon as anyone makes a non-random move, since at that point information exists. Also zero opinion or just little opinion?

2) Correct...you do not get it. It was a joke response and based on 1) (i.e. I was still considering it the RVS) was perfectly acceptable. And you are calling me out for "continuing to take up space instead of contribute" after only two posts in what was arguably RVS? That is BS.

Yeah thats basically it. Also why joke as if the role actually exists if you are still unsure about the role existing?

3) How is my statement scummy either way? I'm not sure what to make of the claim and am leaning towards it being more beneficial to scum. And that is scummy either way? WTF? Do you have info on the claim that warrants we all listen to you?

Either way related to the previous points of you having an existing opinion on the claim. You use a whole lot of roundabout talk in coming to the conclusion that he is faking the claim. What are your basic opinions on miller claims?

4) Asking a question on PGO policy lynching in response to someone bringing it up is "more fishing" for it? That's ridiculous. You are really working hard to fabricate valid points...and to no avail.

Why do you want to know if a lynch is policy or not unless you are interested in persuing it? I see no real town motivation in wanting to know if its standard to policy lynch a PGO before trying to push one.

5) Are those Furry's Rules? Other than RVS (see my first two votes) I don't put votes on people unless I suspect them and am willing to lynch them. The unvote was me exiting the RVS stage without a preferred/real alternative. Which after further consideration has changed.

They are. I am the law.

IIRC games ive seen you in, you normally have a vote out. Votes are awesome though. Unless something major is happening you should always have a vote out.

[Slepz]

Tempted to vote Slepz.

Please explain.

@Furry post 53: Points 1, 2, and 5 are flimsy, and point 4 I disagree with. That was a perfectly legitimate question. As for point 3, yes fitz seemed a bit scummy.

Consider whether that sort of behavior wouldn't make the PGO more likely to be targetted by certain town PRs.

I think it would attract more attention from the mafia, but I suppose it is a risk.

havingfitz, meanwhile, just jumps on the Hoopla wagon after gaining some votes with no further explanation to his unvote. This was also after Hoopla voted fitz - countervoting always twitches my scumdar a bit.

I don't think really get concerned about bandwagoning until someone's put at L-2. Right now he's just putting some pressure.

So in summary, I admit fitz's behavior seems a bit scummy, but I feel that a PGO is too big a risk. If it were possible to confirm through investigation it would be a great town asset, but as it is not I feel Hoopla is the best lynch choice.

[Hoopla]

Since everyone has responded in some way or another to my claim, it's time to divulge some of my motivation for claiming.

When I initially got the role, I was excited for the potential to wipe out a scumteam with hyper-protown play, but along with it carries an extreme risk of eliminating multiple town powerroles (possibly more than one a night), so the decision for me was weighing up the likelihood of taking out enough scum to counteract any town PR's I take out, and it isn't favourable.

Assuming we're in a 3:9 game (the most common variation in Mini Normals), these games are usually offset by 3-4 town power roles vs. 0-1 scum powerroles, which means if all actions are still in play N1, I have a significantly higher chance of killing town than scum. You also must note, that if scum did choose to kill me N1, they only take one hit, as they won't be able to target me again. The town runs the risk of multiple roles killing me over multiple days, as they are all separate entities. I think I am the sort of player that is a good N1 target for PR's too.

Another weighting factor was my personal distaste for the so called RVS. This claim forces scum to switch on immediately and consider their stances, which immediately draws out information. I have a pretty decent catalogue of expected tells I can draw from this experience, because unlike the RVS, an early claim like separates town and scum player's motivations significantly.

If my role is true, and I can manage to convince the players here I am town, I can be a ridiculously powerful weapon against scum. Town doesn't know if I am truthful or not, though. Scum does. Which provides ample information for early on D1, because scum's natural position will be somewhere from in the middle to pro-policy lynch, because they cannot afford to keep me alive. havingfitz and possibly someone like q21 are good character models for what I expected from scum, and would make delicious D1 lynches (from my perspective).

If anyone has any explicit questions about my role/decision, feel free to ask. I'm going to be combing through some of the earlier posts in a bit more detail now, so expect more from me soon.

[Slepz]

Tempted to vote Slepz.

Please explain.

@Furry post 53: Points 1, 2, and 5 are flimsy, and point 4 I disagree with. That was a perfectly legitimate question. As for point 3, yes fitz seemed a bit scummy.

Consider whether that sort of behavior wouldn't make the PGO more likely to be targetted by certain town PRs.

I think it would attract more attention from the mafia, but I suppose it is a risk.

havingfitz, meanwhile, just jumps on the Hoopla wagon after gaining some votes with no further explanation to his unvote. This was also after Hoopla voted fitz - countervoting always twitches my scumdar a bit.

I don't think really get concerned about bandwagoning until someone's put at L-2. Right now he's just putting some pressure.

So in summary, I admit fitz's behavior seems a bit scummy, but I feel that a PGO is too big a risk. If it were possible to confirm through investigation it would be a great town asset, but as it is not I feel Hoopla is the best lynch choice.

[Gwynplaine]

I think it would attract more attention from the mafia, but I suppose it is a risk.

In your experience, do the mafia typically target the scummiest players? Because, let's face it, what you're saying the PGO should do is act like scum.

[Nikanor]

Slepz, I don't think you've actually explained to us

how

a PGO is risky to the town. Care to do so now?

[Hoopla]

So in summary, I admit fitz's behavior seems a bit scummy, but I feel that a PGO is too big a risk. If it were possible to confirm through investigation it would be a great town asset, but as it is not I feel Hoopla is the best lynch choice.

Hello Slepz, allow me to point out the fundamental flaws in your argument. As a town, we generally have only three mislynches before we lose the game, unless there is a 2-player scumteam, or we manage to make a mafia kill at night, or protect a townie from a scum kill. Three mislynches is ridiculously low when you think about it - the first one is used Day 1 with limited information, get the second one wrong and you're in mylo! Do you seriously think we're going to be able to confirm every player in this game, or even two? Every player we choose not to lynch (and there needs to be many) is a risk if they aren't confirmed.

You are using the 'WELL, SHE COULD BE' logic, that applies to EVERYONE on day 1. The fact I have claimed a role doesn't alter this - this is what policy lynches are. They are lynches that don't hit scum more often than not. If you think I am more likely to be fakeclaiming, then that is a scumtell and I'd appreciate you explaining your reasons why my claim is likelier to be fake.

If you are only in this for the policy lynch, explain why this is a good option in a game with so few chances to lynch scum.

[Oso]

I am doing the same as Hoopla, re-reading the thread to see what I may have missed while answering the concerns about myself. But I have this to say first.

Furry was absolutely right about comparing a PGO to a Miller. Miller is completely impossible to prove without lynching the person who claimed it and then it is too late to anything other than say "Oh, I guess they were telling the truth, my bad...." Hoopla, if she is true claiming, is pretty much in the same boat.

In Post #28 I listed this as one of the reason I thought some some might false claim a PGO:

4)Doesn't exactly guarantee she won't get lynched the first day but a high probability that she is lynch immune for Day 1.

Very few people are going to push a lynch on a claimed townie especially if there no counter-claim and no supporting evidence that she is in fact scum.

I said that because it is true, at least in my opinion, especially at this point in the game. Despite the way the role has the potential to royally screw up town (way more than a miller can) it is still a pro-town PR. You don't lynch a claimed town PR as a policy lynch or any type of lynch for that matter without a counter-claim, investigation or some

very

solid scum patterns to point to. Not on Day 1 anyway.

I hope to post again tonight with my vote and reasons why but sleepiness may get the better of me.

[Oso]

@Hoopla, I believe your RC just enough at the moment to change this vote and put my vote on fitz if you want to L-2 him and get a claim out of him or pressure cook him a bit more. His play so far hasn't been town in my opinion but I'm not completely convinced that he is scum. My money for Day 1 is on Radical Hijinx.

Vote: Radical Hijinx

Here is why.

He voted Hoopla. Anyone with a vote on Hoopla at the moment is at the top of my list scum candidates.

He voted Hoopla the post immediately following her RC. That strikes me as a knee-jerk and not well thought out reaction especially since he gave, in my opinion, the worst reason possible for it: Policy Lynch.

Then, in Post #18, he goes on the attack

-snip-
Also did not like those who chose to ignore the Hoopla claim. Seems to me that either they genuinely missed it(in which case they cant read a few posts), felt it was not serious or did not know how to act and so chose to avoid and wait to see what way public opinion went. First two show incompetence and the last comes across as scummy.

Not a specific attack, but a general one as myself, xRECKONERx and havingfitz have all continued to play around with RSV a bit. A broad attack is not necessarily scummy, even if it did contain a fallacy, because I think it was specifically designed to start an argument. Town have just as much interest in doing that as scum have. Get someone mad or even a little irritated and they can start tripping over themselves. I went ahead and took the bait and called him on it. (Post #20). He concedes I may have a point on one part of my post and disputes the other part (Post #22) then in his next post (and this is where he gets really scummy in my opinion) he says this:

Also Oso. Way to STILL fail to address or react to the claim

He even capitalized the word “still”

(*)

and created, at least in my opinion, a blatant distortion by creating the impression that I had been dodging the issue for quite some time. At that point I had made 1 serious post and that was attacking his post #18. The 2 posts prior to that had been responding to his palindrome joke about my name and wishing Hoopla a Happy Birthday. I tell him I'm not going to address in depth and I tell him why.

After that he pretty much leaves me alone.

Nikanor comes on makes a vote, gives a reason and then states his opinion of Hoopla's RC. It's close enough to my attitude that I'm starting to get the impression that Radical Hijinx is looking for a particular type of player to pick a fight with because he starts in on Nikanor as well. (Posts #30-#34). He doesn't attack Nikanor's vote (which in my opinion is a bit of a weak reason) but rather his low-key reaction to Hoopla's RC. Nikanor pretty much declines to take the bait by dismissing it.

This is why I am not fully convinced havingfitz is scum, in Post #40 he writes:

I don't have a comment on the claim ATM as I have not played with a PGO before either. I'm not sure what the benefit was to town of such an early claim. Does a PGO only impact the people who try to kill or does the PGO also impact people who make any kind of contact (such as investigative or protective contact)? I lean towards there being more benefit to scum fakeclaiming PGO (especially so early in the game) than town legitimately claiming it.

Is lynching the PGO a standard policy lynch? Why...isn't the PGO a town affiliated role?

Radical Hijinx writes this is Post #42 in response:

Policy lynch was perhaps a bit silly on my part. I can see now how claiming it can seem better than not. I saw a giant "Never target me with night actions" sign and failed to recognise the the possible protown motovations based therein. The role, particulary when claimed does spook me a bit.

And this (Post #46) in response to Furry:

I felt that its dangers as a lie outshone its benifits as a truth. Since then Hoopla has acted well and I was probably too quick in calling for a policy lynch. PGO was pretty new to be and I reacted poorly.

My impression is that Radical Hijinx wants off his Hoopla vote and he wants off it badly. I don't see two partners being so uncoordinated that one would jump on a wagon while it's obvious his partner wants off. Especially since the trend even before Hoopla's explanation for her RCing seems to be that a large fraction of the player's thinks a Hoopla lynch is a bad idea today. I just don't see a real connection between them(fitz and RH). By my thinking Radical Hijinx is most probably scum so havingfitz probably isn't.

My conclusion, RH made a bad decision to vote Hoopla in the first place and he realized it. What makes him scum is that instead of just saying he wasn't thinking and made an honest mistake he instead went looking for a plausible way to change his vote without looking scummy. He was unfortunate enough to pick two targets that wouldn't give him one.

As to Slepz, he may be scum but my impression is that he read the thread, saw the RC and called it bogus. Unlike Radical Hijinx, he actually gave reason why he thought it might be bogus rather than just call for a policy lynch, I'm thinking that he's convinced Hoopla is lying. Athough his last post does sound a bit like a policy lynch, lynching someone as being too high a risk isn't the quite in the same category as calling for a policy lynch.

I'm not calling havingfitz or Slepz town but I don't have them at the same level of scumminess I have RH at. I think Radical Hijinx is the best candidate for today.

[Add on before submit. I thought about waiting to see RH's reaction to Hoopla's explanation but decided to post anyway. No matter what he does with that I think this still stands, he should never have voted Hoopla for that reason in the first place]