Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yuma]

If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.

I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

I willing to vote sudgy but don't want to right now since there seems to be confusion about where the votes are. I find the consensus case against him compelling.

vote count

this is from scratch so it should be right.

Robz (2): sudgy, chairs
ashersky (1): Robz
chairs (1): voltaire
theorel (1): mail-mi
TA (1): xerses
sudgy (4): TA, yuma, nkirbit, ashersky
nkirbit (1): theorel
xerses (1): Eevee

But yes, an official vote count would be handy. mcmc in checking back there were a handful of vote counting errors in some of the vote counts to let you know...

[nkirbit]

I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.

[nkirbit]

I went with TA's interpretation but I now see that's wrong.  Unvote to reconsider.

[nkirbit]

Back to Vote: Voltaire

[mail-mi]

Unvote. probably best to remove my RVS vote.

[sudgy]

My playstyle changes with every game, depending on various external factors (how busy I am being something big).  Look at other games, when I'm town and scum, and I play a bit different each time.

[sudgy]

And I don't have a defense for "trying to act towny".  There are some actions I do where I think, "I don't care if this looks scummy, I think I should do it anyway!" and other times where I think, "Oh, this looks scummy, I shouldn't do it."  (It depends on what it is).  I worry about being seen scummy (the times I don't care are times that I think it still benefits).  Countless other games I have mentioned that, and I always get lynched for it.

[ashersky]

I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

Never forget, Voltaire.  Never.  Forget.

Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.

[XerxesPraelor]

Okay, since this is going nowhere, I'll vote for robz.

[Eevee]

I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher

What were the correct flaws sudgy was pointing out in ash's analysis, and why did pointing them out make you think he is innocent?

Why do you think Ash and TA are "on the same side" (what do you mean by that?). As far as I can see, ashersky made a point of voting TA a couple of times, lumping them together seems weird to me.

And finally, TA doesn't talk much? He has 21 posts to your 6, as far as I can see only ashersky has posted more than he has.

This was the last post xerxes made. I know it's starting to be outdated, but it's not exactly my fault xerxes made a post I deemed scummy and tried to dodge the questions I had about it. Fwiw, he has been active elsewhere on the forums. Xerxes, why weren't these worth answering?

The sudgy case looks pretty good to me, theorel I disagree this is lynching someone for blundering as town. Scum makes more of a conscious effort to seem towny instead of just trying to advance town's agenda, and sudgy's play seems to match that.

[theorel]

I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.

Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.

[theorel]

Okay, since this is going nowhere, I'll vote for robz.

If you want to vote, you need to use the bold Vote: Playername syntax.

Also, why?

[theorel]

I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.

Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.

...the whole SK thing, was just being explicit about when it might happen that there are only 2 scum and we don't know it.  if no SK then we go to 5 players (3 with a scum lynch) and say "hey, there aren't 3 scum, ash is lying lynch him!".  This is the "probably getting lynched" if that wasn't clear.

[theorel]

Okay, so it appears that the actual case on sudgy (outside the misunderstanding-contradiction) is that he's making "pro-town statements" while not having "pro-town play".  I can see that.

The wagon though, has to do with him blundering, regardless of his alignment.  He's under the spot-light without town contributions to point to.  There are other players without town contributions to point to (Robz for instance).  I'm not so sure about anything chairs or Voltaire or mail-mi have contributed to scumhunting. either.  So, it's not like sudgy is the only player not to be doing any scum-hunting.  He just happens to be the one in focus.

Arguably, he's being at least a little active while doing that...that's why he's in the spot-light.  But at this point he's pure defense, which is what happens when town gets persecuted (also when scum gets persecuted).  So, I do believe that he's being attacked for blundering into the spotlight.  Whether he's done so as town or scum is uncertain.  Personally, I'm inclined to view him as a little scummy, but not worth any immediate action.

[theorel]

@nkirbit: your argument against Voltaire doesn't make sense.  He says that ash's claim is one that is "guaranteed to get him found out" and you jumped from there to "Voltaire knows there's a 3-man scum team".

I think neither of you 100% understand the situation.  But in particular, the 3-man case is precisely the one that isn't guaranteed to get him found out.  So, the argument against Voltaire only makes sense if Voltaire knows there's a 2-man scum team AND he's the other member!

Here are all possibilities:  (Note: I numbered them to correspond with scum-count, there's no "Case 1")

2-man scum team: ash is eventually found out because we get to lylo against 2 scum, and recognize that there are only 2 scum.  (Case 2)

3-man scum team: (Case 3)
a. other 1-shot doc: ash is found out and counter-claimed immediately.
b. no doc: ash is found out during a mass-claim.
c. other doc, no 1-shot doc.  Ash is never found out.

So, Voltaire's comment only makes sense if he is only considering case 2 and case 3b.  In the other cases, ash isn't "eventually" found out.

[XerxesPraelor]

I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher

What were the correct flaws sudgy was pointing out in ash's analysis, and why did pointing them out make you think he is innocent?

Why do you think Ash and TA are "on the same side" (what do you mean by that?). As far as I can see, ashersky made a point of voting TA a couple of times, lumping them together seems weird to me.

And finally, TA doesn't talk much? He has 21 posts to your 6, as far as I can see only ashersky has posted more than he has.

This was the last post xerxes made. I know it's starting to be outdated, but it's not exactly my fault xerxes made a post I deemed scummy and tried to dodge the questions I had about it. Fwiw, he has been active elsewhere on the forums. Xerxes, why weren't these worth answering?

The sudgy case looks pretty good to me, theorel I disagree this is lynching someone for blundering as town. Scum makes more of a conscious effort to seem towny instead of just trying to advance town's agenda, and sudgy's play seems to match that.

I didn't answer because you were right and it's annoying to admit that to someone who voted to lynch you. I went back and checked the records, and I guess it was someone else (I can't see anything Sudgy said that fits that). (yuma, actually) I voted for ta because since I saw yuma, who I thought was innocent argue against him as well. Real life mafia makes it much easier to make a decision. I voted for robz just now because if a random kill helps the town, then I should vote for someone at least so that we end up with a kill, even if I can't see any particular thing he did that's suspicious.

[Voltaire]

Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.

I look forward to it. 

Xerxes's most recent post gives me a town read on him. This is now other experienced RL mafia players tend to adjust to the forum-based game, even if some of the specifics don't transfer (saying "I'm voting someone just so we have a lynch") etc.

[yuma]

Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.

I look forward to it. 

Xerxes's most recent post gives me a town read on him. This is now other experienced RL mafia players tend to adjust to the forum-based game, even if some of the specifics don't transfer (saying "I'm voting someone just so we have a lynch") etc.

i agree. if you are going to do the who is off the table list thing you do, xerses should be off I think. I don't want to lynch new players day1 (unless specifically in a newbie game)... for a couple of reasons. 1. it is lame 2. new players don't have a meta, obviously, so a newbie lynch is basically a random lynch as we have so little to compare them to 3. later days are better for finding new mafia... se me in MIII and MV. I played great the first few days, but as we got closer to the end game I made critical mistakes as the game became more complex and I didn't have the experience necessary to get me out of situations and was found out 4. there are much better options among our vets.

That said, if something is horribly, blatantly obvious, I will vote for him. And at the same time xerses shouldn't feel safe and secure and not participate today because he isn't getting lynched, because if he does that it will put the spot light on him in later days.

[Voltaire]

POST COUNT (no pre-game, because today is a slow day at work)
48 Ashersky
41 Yuma
28 Twistedarcher
28 Sudgy
24 Theorel
23 Voltaire
18 Nkirbit
10 Eevee
10 Chairs
 9 Mail-Mi
 8 Galzria
 8 Robz888
 6 Xerses

[theorel]

Is there something I don't get about xerxes-xerses, or is it just a typo by the mod that has propagated?

[yuma]

Is there something I don't get about xerxes-xerses, or is it just a typo by the mod that has propagated?

generally me trying to type with one hand while holding baby... sorry X!

[Voltaire]

if you are going to do the who is off the table list thing you do, xerses should be off I think.

Indeed I am going to do my "off table." I've found it to actually work better than any previous system. 

That said, this game has been rather quiet (I have contributed to that, I am usually a top poster). I don't have many off-table candidates yet.

For those not familiar with the system, it's more-or-less 1. take the mega posters off the table. If they're scum, they'll leave a trail of evidence in their wake for later days (here, that's ash and yuma) 2. take anyone off the table who will have more known about their alignment on later days via interaction or whatever (here, I say that's ash via his claim, though theorel has now pointed out where there is a scenario where it is a claim that will not catch him out. Also ash has shown willingness to go down as scum for his team, so that's something to watch out for - what does he do with his "bought" days if we give them to him?) 3. take yourself off the list (unless you're a Jester I guess)

So, based on the post count I listed, my lynch pool is

48 Ashersky
41 Yuma
28 Twistedarcher
28 Sudgy
24 Theorel
23 Voltaire
18 Nkirbit
10 Eevee
10 Chairs
 9 Mail-Mi
 8 Galzria
 8 Robz888
 6 Xerses

Then, from within this pool, I tend to scumhunt more-or-less normally. Xerxes is a town read, I don't want to lynch him today right now. I'm working on a full re-read (want to take stock of sudgy situation and give closer scrutiny to our lurkers. There are lots of them. This is very very very bad)

[Galzria]

I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.

Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.

... Except it IS a safe claim in this scenario, because there are only two scum. So the moment you realize there are three (when two are dead), would already be too late for scum!Ash.

Basically, if there's only two scum, then claiming one shot doctor is probably the right claim. You're already at a hell of a disadvantage starting the game, and the claim has the potential to cause maximum havoc. If both you and your partner die (the point most games would conclude there's three scum), the game is over. So you claim OSD, something that can't be counter-claimed, isn't provable, isn't multi-use, and skews the entire thinking of the town in trying to solve the setup.

I'm not saying that is the case here, but it's certainly a reasonable consideration.

[mcmcsalot]

Vote Count 1.4:

Chairs (1): Voltaire
Sudgy (3): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Ashersky
Twistedarcher (1): XerxesPraelor
Ashersky (1): Robz888
Robz888 (2): Sudgy, Chairs
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Nkirbit (1): Theorel
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit

Not Voting (2): Galzria, mail-mi

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

(this vote count is now correct and ordered wagons top down and vote cast left right. Plan on more frequent and correct vote counts now)

[sudgy]

Thinking back on things, some people are saying, "Sudgy says that he tries to play as town as scum, and he's trying to do towny things, so he must be scum."  This is wrong on several levels.  First, while I try to play as my town self as scum, I do not try to act towny except when I would as town.  Acting like town != being towny.  Also, me doing towny things doesn't automatically mean I'm scum, I still could be town.