Print

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

[ashersky]

Gala, you need to learn that being town does not equal being right.  You can't see past your own brilliance sometimes.  And it will hurt us all.

Never said I was absolutely right. I have repeatedly challenged you to support your own stated beliefs that say that I'm wrong. Something you've yet to do.

I am able to rebut you...but I can't without breaking rules.  And I can't say any more.

[ashersky]

Assume our setup is:

M-DD-xxxx, as you're claiming it is.

Now assume scum rolled 3T/4T.

Scum know, after your claim (gee, thanks), that there's only one possible unaccounted for 'x' (M-DD-TTT-x).

Mafia can now safely claim Mason. Why not? By doing so, they're suggesting a setup of MMM-DD-xx. Since a SK in that setup only requires a single T (MMM-DD-T-x), if one exists he wouldn't be particularly suspicious as there's still one unclaimed letter.

Now, because there are multiple Doctors in the setup, scum can play around with when and whom to kill. Based on any additional claims they can determine if they're really 3T or 4T (and thus if there's a SK). Further, they don't even draw THAT much suspicion by not dying right away because there's at LEAST two other targets they could choose to shoot first. Add in any other claims, and they possibly have 3/4 other people to shoot.

And lastly they can argue that scum is choosing not to kill them to frame them.

So "Masons", should not claim at this point. I haven't even considered if you're lying scum who wants his scum buddies to claim Mason yet.

Regardless, no claims. They DON'T narrow the lynch pool and they DO give scum more information.

However, if you want factual rebuttals, your entire analysis above is based on two out of five possible scenarios, so not even more likely than not.  0, 1, 2 Ts are also possible, and mafia can't safe claim there.

Also, your 2 scenarios out of 5 are Goon-Goon-RB.  With no godfather and still the possibility of a C, a mason fake claim is too risky.  Remember, mason fake claims kill 2 scum when outed.

Right now, town is looking at 11 possible lynches.  I believe most town would prefer to narrow that to 9 right now.  This is a normal game.  We need to focus on making the days easier for us.  This game is about how we perform during the days, not the nights.  If we scum hunt well, it won't matter if any town PR succeeds at night.

You have argued that we don't do D1 right.  Follow your own advice.  Focus on how we can POE, because that's our best tool for scum hunting.  Stop worrying about scum having "too much" info at night and who gets killed.  Every town death helps us catch scum, in the end.

[Galzria]

The possibility of a C is irrelevant. As you yourself point out, that setup contains a Roleblocker. If a C roll exists, it's simply going to be locked down. So the fake claim is still perfectly safe.

And yes, I noted that it's from a 3T/4T situation. Do you have knowledge that we aren't in that situation? Then playing to 0T, 1T or 2T is a not a good idea. And the extra claiming does not help us PoE anything, because it could very well be removing SCUM from the lynch pool.

[Galzria]

And remember Ash, it was YOU who pushed for Mafia to know exactly who the Cop was in that scenario as well, in #112, and #144, where you claim our Cop, if he exists, should claim.

[Galzria]

Just about the only hope we would have in that scenario is that the SK doesn't get lynched early from your "PoE'd" field, and that he NK's a Mason, giving us a flip.

[Voltgloss]

Vote Count 1.6:

Chairs (2): Voltaire, theorel
Sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, Yuma, XerxesPraelor, Chairs
Ashersky (3): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Robz888 (1): sudgy

Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

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

[ashersky]

If I reveal my flavor name, I get mod killed and we go to night, correct?

[theorel]

ash, don't kill yourself.
I don't understand what your PM or flavor could possibly say that would make masons claiming better.

Trying to trick scum into fake-claiming masons is not likely to work.  I think the only scum likely to take that size of risk is you.  But, it is an issue that needs to be considered.  Then you pointed out precisely the problem with it...if town-masons claimed now, scum could just bide their time hunting the doc until day3 (thus never losing a NK, because doc should protect the 3 "IC"s) when we lynch the masons for a loss, because masons that live for 3 days are clearly scum (according to you).

Or maybe we shouldn't assume living claimed masons are scum, then scum should claim masons, and then they get by because their claim is so far out there.  Would scum really do it?  Have they ever done it?  You're the fake-claiming scum, mostly scum just claims VT, and is done with it.

I get that Galzria inflamed you with his arguments.  You inflamed him too.  You've both talked about the other as though he's incapable of higher thought.  I know I've said similar to you (ash), and you were offended by it (outside of a game).  But you've used "being offended" as a scum-technique.  Which makes things even worse, because now when you are upset by someone you have no real recourse to take.  If you claim to be upset, it just looks like you being scum.  You've manipulated with your emotions, and so they can't be viewed as serious.

My suggestion is that you drop it, because you have different views on claiming than others.  You should know this sufficiently to not be offended when someone finds your views anti-town.  So, stop being offended.

[yuma]

/out (I am dead serious here...)

I signed up to play mafia not to be a part of a soap opera. I'll /in if ash and Galz can get their crap together.

If this is how it is going to go down... let's just cancel this and move on to toy story.

[Twistedarcher]

Okay, I get what you're saying Galz, but your analysis assumes that there aren't masons. If there ARE masons, they know it's invalid, and your analysis is moot.

Saying what masons shouldn't do based off of analysis that assumes no masons doesn't make sense.

That's wrong. Decisions need to be made based on what we can verify as true. "Masons" claiming don't put me ortownany closer to knowing if they are actually Masons or scum fake claiming. But it does let scum know who the Masons are.

Why is this a terrible thing, though? If scum want to kill masons rather than kill doctors, I am all for that personally. One mason dying is not a bad thing.

[mail-mi]

If I reveal my flavor name, I get mod killed and we go to night, correct?

No!!! This is a GAME. We're here to have fun. We don't want another NMIII (shudder)

[Voltaire]

If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.

Ash, dude-who-I-currently-think-is-on-my-team, this statement right here is why I have a hard time following along with you. You pre-decide a behavior is scummy, then when you see it, you call the person scum! That it is happening right here with the IC should show you the flaw here.

[Voltaire]

/out (I am dead serious here...)

I'm of two minds about this.

1. I want to agree and follow
2. ash will use this ploy (and I am certain it is a ploy) again and again. I think it's a dirty way of playing, personally, and should be against the Civility Pledge. Because it causes the above quoted reactions.

I myself have felt them too ie wanted to /out of games with ash in them when he starts acting ridiculous. After thinking it through, though, vote: ashersky accomplishes the same thing as what he's proposing and runs no risk he's scum hoping we talk him out of it.

Basically, if you want to threaten to break rules (even if it's a ploy), I'd rather we lynched you and your plan doesn't get to work. At least not how you wanted it to.

[Voltaire]

And it also means the game can continue.

Ash, I know you are running a gambit here. If you're town, you may think it increases town's chance of winning. But please look at what it does to the community. It's not worth it.

And if you're scum, I'm happy to be voting you.

[yuma]

/out (I am dead serious here...)

I'm of two minds about this.

1. I want to agree and follow
2. ash will use this ploy (and I am certain it is a ploy) again and again. I think it's a dirty way of playing, personally, and should be against the Civility Pledge. Because it causes the above quoted reactions.

I myself have felt them too ie wanted to /out of games with ash in them when he starts acting ridiculous. After thinking it through, though, vote: ashersky accomplishes the same thing as what he's proposing and runs no risk he's scum hoping we talk him out of it.

Basically, if you want to threaten to break rules (even if it's a ploy), I'd rather we lynched you and your plan doesn't get to work. At least not how you wanted it to.

I have no desire to be part of a game where someone that I strongly think is town is getting lynched or modkilled because of a stupid argument that probably doesn't even pertain to this game.

I have no assigning blame to any individual in particular. From someone who has been in a situation where a game was ruined because of a stupid argument I was a part of, you can't just assign blame to one person. Both parties hold some responsibility. So does everyone else in the game and the mod as well.

But really.... I am about one more instance like this from giving up the community. It just isn't fun when it gets to this point. And further it is driving away other players...

I received this PM from someone today after seeing the events that went down. I won't give out their name, but this is what was said (slightly paraphrased)

The level of discourse in M32 right now is sort of an example of why I am probably not going to be signing up for mafia games in the future

These sort of arguments don't just affect the players involved in the argument. They affect all the other players, the mod and the spectators and everyone else that enjoys playing mafia here.

So to everyone involved if you want this community (and not to mention this game) to have a future, get your crap together and start acting like rational human beings. I learned the hard way what happens when you don't do that, so don't let that happen to everyone again.

Let me know if/when that happens. Until then you won't be hearing from me again.

[Voltaire]

Not sure if your quoting me means you were talking to me specifically and if you didn't like my vote on him. I think I'm agreeing with you. Anyway at least on this.

But please [ash] look at what it does to the community. It's not worth it.

[Galzria]

I won't drop voting for ashersky here, nor stop pushing his lynch, no.

My issue is not, nor had ever been, that I think he's wrong. I'm voting for him over the vitriolic response he gave to me for pointing out why I feel he's wrong, and using the very setup to support my reasoning. Had he responded in a level headed manner of discussion, backing up his own statements, or demonstrating why he feels he's right, this would be very different.

I've taken absolutely nothing he's said personally. He's played exactly this way in the past as scum. He's played similar as town. I take no issue with either. I simply feel that this level of response, combined with his refusal to discuss things rationally in light of how the setup can actually be built point more likely towards this matching his scum meta of play than his town.

[Twistedarcher]

I'm just trying to ignore it, I don't feel like analyzing that level of emotion.

Galz, are you basically saying that masons shouldn't claim until there's enough flips that we can be 100% sure of their claim? (Or reasonably close). I'd disagree with that.

Scum claiming masons is awful awful for them. Just terrible. They won't do it d1. There's the risk of a Sk existing and outing one of them, and then their game is basically over. I can't see any circumstance where scum would want to back themselves into that corner -- it's just too big of a risk.

Town masons should claim now rather than later. It helps the Poe now, and I think scum are more likely to want to counterclaim after figuring out wether or not a Sk is in the game.

[Twistedarcher]

Another unrelated thought that the last post generated:

Obviously, we want to know if there's a Sk or not. But also mafia wants to know. And I think they gain more from that information than town does. Therefore, we shouldn't help them figure that out (looking mostly at possible vig claims here).

[Voltaire]

Town masons should claim now rather than later.

We'd also need people to claim "not mason" in case masons don't exist though, right?

[Robz888]

I won't drop voting for ashersky here, nor stop pushing his lynch, no.

I must agree with Galz.

Because Galz said nothing particularly offensive to ashersky, the only reason I can think for ashersky to have had that reaction is because it's a ploy.

I mean, ash's reaction is textbook in violation of the Civility Pledge, in my judgment--it was escalating, and falsely assumed his opponent's worst intentions, and was not based on real harm--and I presume ash actually knows this.

[Robz888]

But really, there's no reason for ill feelings here. Can it just be put to rest now?

[Voltaire]

Robz, I assume you think it's a town ploy since I don't see a vote?

[XerxesPraelor]

Yeah, I'm annoyed by the antics as well.
Vote: Ashersky

[Voltaire]

Robz, I assume you think it's a town ploy since I don't see a vote?

Oh. You were already voting ash. nvm