Mini 578 - Mistery at Montescuro - Game Over!

[Guardian]

It requires 4 more votes to lynch Fox. Use your votes wisely Wink.

Surely you aren't suggesting it would be a good idea to lynch

anyone

on page 2?

Why? Would that be bad? Why would that be bad?

I don't wish to answer at this time. My choice was not random, however.

It requires 4 more votes to lynch Fox. Use your votes wisely .

I'm starting to think I rather like my vote right where it is.

Why?

Dasquian, why is VampanezeHunter more voteworthy than JamesthePhox?

[Dasquian]

There's not much in it, but VH was the last person to place a vote on one of the few people left with no votes. When JamesthePhox' wagon got to 3 votes, he was then first to remove his vote. So that's twice he's tried to avoid being on a bandwagon compared to JtP's once, and I got slightly scummy vibes from his post 47.

Lots of questions at this stage is good. Any scum suspects from the answers you're getting?

[Guardian]

Lots of questions at this stage is good. Any scum suspects from the answers you're getting?

Possibly. Give it time.

Guardian, why the mystery?

Why not?

VampaneezeHunter, if you had to say who you find most suspicious right now, who?

[Macavenger]

I don't wish to answer at this time. My choice was not random, however.

It requires 4 more votes to lynch Fox. Use your votes wisely .

I'm starting to think I rather like my vote right where it is.

Why?

I interpreted your statement that I quoted as mostly a joke, because of the . My response was similarly a joke, indicated by the .

In the event that you weren't joking, then I'm curious why your choice was not random, and exactly what "use your votes wisely" is supposed to mean.

In any event, I think my joke vote has outlived its usefulness.

Unvote.

Like Dasquian, I find Vampaneze's post 47 combined with his selective looking random vote the most interesting thing to investigate so far.

Vote: VampanezeHunter.

He looks like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight to me right now, which seems like a great reason to put him in it.

[PyroDwarf]

I think SensFan is more suspicious than VH. It wasn't his vote on macavenger, that could pass as normal random stage voting. But why change it to JtP right after guardian? Guardian vote's change seemed to be a response to Macavenger's "even vote count" comment, as did SensFan's vote on Macavenger. But moving it to the person that another player just voted for? Why not have 2 players with 2 votes? I think I'll keep my rand. vote and pot a FoS on SensFan.

[SensFan]

I think SensFan is more suspicious than VH. It wasn't his vote on macavenger, that could pass as normal random stage voting. But why change it to JtP right after guardian? Guardian vote's change seemed to be a response to Macavenger's "even vote count" comment, as did SensFan's vote on Macavenger. But moving it to the person that another player just voted for? Why not have 2 players with 2 votes? I think I'll keep my rand. vote and pot a FoS on SensFan.

1 person with 3 votes puts him closer to a lynch.

[VampanezeHunter]

VampaneezeHunter, if you had to say who you find most suspicious right now, who?

Well first Sensfan because of his reasons for putting on a third vote. But also because his reasoning wasn't good at all. Then it would be Macavenger/Dasquian mainly because I still don't see the contradiction so if you could explain.

[VampanezeHunter]

EBWOP: Also I removed my vote because I have only just returned from leaving Mafiascum and have been recently playing Newbie games and it's only 4 to lynch.

[Yosarian2]

1 person with 3 votes puts him closer to a lynch.

Ok. You still haven't answered my question, though. Why do you think that's a good idea?

[Dasquian]

Well VH, you said...

Also same question as everyone else. Why feel that because someone has 2 votes you need to have 3? Could it be scum following the more experienced member? Is this idea farfetched? Should I stop asking questions? lol?
I know it takes many votes but this could be a subtle scumtell. Scum getting on a Wagon ASAP to avoid suspicion.

...and I said...

My experience is that anyone dropping third votes this soon isn't doing it to lynch, they're doing it to get discussion going and so is probably a pro-town tell.

...so your position, being at odds with mine, raised you ever-so-slightly in the suspicion stakes.

Is Near the only person yet to post in this game?

[Joudas]

It requires 4 more votes to lynch Fox. Use your votes wisely Wink.

Surely you aren't suggesting it would be a good idea to lynch

anyone

on page 2?

Why? Would that be bad? Why would that be bad?

Going on the knowledge that you're not new at this, it's therefore assumable that you're merely trying to pull out comments rather then actually thinking this is a good idea. I'll humor you, however: "Yes, that would be bad. We don't want to lynch anyone on this little evidence, nevermind this soon, especially on day 1, as fast lynches = less evidence = less to go on day 2+. This is bad."

[Macavenger]

Then it would be Macavenger/Dasquian mainly because I still don't see the contradiction so if you could explain.

I believe my reasoning is a bit different from Dasquian's. I explained the bulk of it here:

He looks like he's trying to keep himself out of the spotlight to me right now, which seems like a great reason to put him in it.

Also I removed my vote because I have only just returned from leaving Mafiascum and have been recently playing Newbie games and it's only 4 to lynch.

This would make more sense if you hadn't also said it when you removed the vote. So, you obviously realized that this wasn't a newbie game, and that your vote was not causing any immediate danger of a lynch, but you quickly moved it anyway. Why?

[SensFan]

1 person with 3 votes puts him closer to a lynch.

Ok. You still haven't answered my question, though. Why do you think that's a good idea?

From my experience, the game will go nowhere if everyone is happily sitting around with a vote or two. I wanted someone closer to a lynch than 2 votes.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, fair enough. Not that I necessarally agree, but whatver.

On an unrelated note,

vote:Near

who hasn't posted since his confirmation.

[Claus]

And the villagers of Montescuro seems much more calm and reasonable than one would expect of a lynching mob. Here is the votecount.

Vote Count!

JamesthePhox 2 - Guardian, Sensfan
VampanezeHunter 2 - Dasquian, Macavenger
Macavenger 1 - JamesthePhox
Dasquian 1 - Joudas
Joudas 1 - Evil Gorilaz
Sensfan 1 - Singing Librarian
Singing Librarian 1 - Pyrodwarf
Near 1 - Yossarian2

Not voting:

Near, VampanezeHunter

Near has been prodded now. Say if you want me to poke anyone else.

[Near]

Vote Yosarian

because he thinks everyone's crazy.

hi everyone!

FOS VampanezeHunter

for not falling for OMGUS trap and voting for Dasquian or Macavenger.

FOS Joudas

for talking weird. Watch for post game restriction.

[Macavenger]

Vote Yosarian

because he thinks everyone's crazy.

hi everyone!

FOS VampanezeHunter

for not falling for OMGUS trap and voting for Dasquian or Macavenger.

FOS Joudas

for talking weird. Watch for post game restriction.

(Italics mine)

This post is making me scratch my head.

You're FoSing someone for

not

OMGUS voting?

The overall character of it looks like something that belongs in the random vote stage, which we seem to mostly be past... The FoS's make no sense to me. I'm horribly confused.

Are you trying to breadcrumb that

you

have a post restriction with what I italicized there? I'm trying to come up with wild justifications for how this makes any sort of sense at this point.

FoS: Near

for warping my brain.

[Near]

I was going to respond to you Macavenger with a one liner, but let's wait on what other people think of it first.

And no, I don't have a post restriction and have yet to play a game with one. I think it would be fun!

[Guardian]

fos: Near

Joudas, why do you assume that fewer posts and quicker days equate with less information?

Some more foxy votes would be nice. His post 38 seems to be a good blend of hypocrisy mixed with WIFOM considering he was one of the last people to 'not come up with 2 votes out of 10 cast', yet he agrees that the occurrence is fairly suspicious.

[Joudas]

fos: Near

Joudas, why do you assume that fewer posts and quicker days equate with less information?

Because... logically, the more posts you have, the more information you can get from it. Sure, you could theoretically get enough information out of two pages to win the game, but the chances of that would be incredibly slim. You increase your chance of getting useful information by letting the days last longer. It's been proven over many, many games that longer days are more beneficial to town.

And why are you acting naive?

Unvote

FoS: Guardian

for playing dumb.

[Guardian]

In an ideal world that's true. In the real world, most players don't spend enough time re-reading to justify days where, on average, each player posts more than 20 times or so imo. I think when days get much longer than that, they start to be detrimental to the town.

I'd like to see your evidence for many, many games proving longer days are more beneficial to town.

How would you respond if I told you that Adel did a study near the end of last year showing that in 200 or so random minis, day ones where scum were lynched were on average about a page shorter than day ones where town were lynched (8.5 as compared to 9.5)? What if I also told you that she said that day ones where the town eventually won were shorter than day ones where the town eventually lost, to an even greater extent, about 2.5 pages (7.5 as compared to 10)?

How am I acting naive? What do you think about my case on Foxy?

[Macavenger]

How would you respond if I told you that Adel did a study near the end of last year showing that in 200 or so random minis, day ones where scum were lynched were on average about a page shorter than day ones where town were lynched (8.5 as compared to 9.5)? What if I also told you that she said that day ones where the town eventually won were shorter than day ones where the town eventually lost, to an even greater extent, about 2.5 pages (7.5 as compared to 10)?

Do you engage in weird theory debates in every game? I know this wasn't directed at me, but I take this as evidence that poor play by scum results in faster lynches. I rather fail to see the point of bringing this up in a game, honestly; it seems better suited for MD.

[Guardian]

1. Mac, you say that poor play by scum results in faster lynches.
   
2. That means that the scum playing comparatively worse than the town resulted in faster lynches.
   
3. That means that the town playing comparatively better than the scum resulted in faster lynches.
   
4. That means that good play by the town resulted in resulted in faster lynches.
   
5. That means that if the town played well, faster lynches occured.
   
6. That means that if the town plays well, faster lynches will occur.

Do you find the above faulty? If so, how?

I don't engage in theory debates every game.

And for future reference, don't answer questions directly addressed to others. That's a big no-no/scum-tell of mine.

mfos: Mac

. Anyone else who does the same, after my saying this, I'll find quite suspicious.

[Macavenger]

1. Mac, you say that poor play by scum results in faster lynches.
   
2. That means that the scum playing comparatively worse than the town resulted in faster lynches.
   
3. That means that the town playing comparatively better than the scum resulted in faster lynches.
   
4. That means that good play by the town resulted in resulted in faster lynches.
   
5. That means that if the town played well, faster lynches occured.
   
6. That means that if the town plays well, faster lynches will occur.

Do you find the above faulty? If so, how?

I don't engage in theory debates every game.

Yes, I find it faulty. You're speaking about play of the town and scum relative to each other, whereas I am speaking of the quality of play of the scum in absolute terms. The mean day length is meaningless on its own in my opinion; there are related statistics required to paint a better picture. If this answer seems vague, see below.

And for future reference, don't answer questions directly addressed to others. That's a big no-no/scum-tell of mine.

mfos: Mac

. Anyone else who does the same, after my saying this, I'll find quite suspicious.

I agree in general, which is why I thought three times before doing it. In this case though, I actually want to kill this line of discussion off, because I don't like what you're doing with it.

FoS: Guardian

[Guardian]

Mac, what do

you

think of my case on Foxy?