Print

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

[Twistedarcher]

Vote: Theorel

[nkirbit]

Theorel's continual scum-hunting on Sudgy's wagon is similar to what I did to Ashersky's wagon all of day1 as scum in CLUE.  Take the player you know to be town (or in this case, non-mafia), oppose the wagon, and find people scummy for being on a town wagon.

He analyzes everyone in context of that wagon, which while is a valid technique for town to use, is only part of the picture town should be looking at.

His case on me was also really bad.  And I know it's a case on a town member, so I find that a little suspicious.  Plus it's just so wrong... Town members need to worry about who they're throwing the suspicion onto, because in some ways if a town member under fire throws suspicion off himself and another town member gets lynched, that's even worse than the original town member just getting lynched!  But if mafia (or SK), throw suspicion off, they're not particularly worried where it goes... anywhere but here!

[Twistedarcher]

I think of especial interest is how toward the end theorel began to use this idea that sudgy would flip town to be suspicious of nkirbit.

I agree with the case overall, but I agree with this point most of all. Analyzing the wagon of a towny, assuming he's town, before he flips town is a scummy thing. Town wants to figure out if Sudgy is town -- scum wants to figure out who looks scummy when Sudgy DOES flip town.

Nkirbit did this same thing D1 in Clue on Ashersky's wagon when Ash was town, and sure enough Nkirbit was mafia there.

[nkirbit]

Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

[Twistedarcher]

Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

I agree that it was never happening. But doesn't the fact that it was obvious that Ash wouldn't be lynched take away the disincentive for scum to hop on his wagon?

[Galzria]

Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

That lynch wasn't happening unless Ashersky confessed to being scum. I noted at one point that I was happy with a Sudgy lynch, and would've moved there if I was needed prior to the deadline. But I wanted to continue to push on Ashersky and be there if at all possible at deadline because I wanted to afford scum every opportunity to join me.

[nkirbit]

Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

I agree that it was never happening. But doesn't the fact that it was obvious that Ash wouldn't be lynched take away the disincentive for scum to hop on his wagon?

Not really. For example, suppose ash died night 1 and flipped town. 

[theorel]

His case on me was also really bad.  And I know it's a case on a town member, so I find that a little suspicious.  Plus it's just so wrong... Town members need to worry about who they're throwing the suspicion onto, because in some ways if a town member under fire throws suspicion off himself and another town member gets lynched, that's even worse than the original town member just getting lynched!  But if mafia (or SK), throw suspicion off, they're not particularly worried where it goes... anywhere but here!

I'm confused by this.  Are you saying it's invalid to think the way you just stated, or that I stated the opposite?  Because what you said here is what I said yesterday.  I said that if sudgy was scum he was more likely to be scrambling for an anyone-but-me lynch, while as town he would be more careful about where he cast his suspicions.  Which is what you found him scummy for (not finding a "better" lynch).  Now, it happens that sudgy-as-SK didn't commit that scum-tell, but I don't see why I was wrong about it...especially given your restatement of my statement yesterday.

Also, regarding amount of text about sudgy-wagon.  It's because it was the only thing happening, most of the day (except the ashersky situation).  I still find it odd that it's essentially the only thing that happened all of day-1.

[Twistedarcher]

I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.

[mail-mi]

I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.

I think what he means by that is this: "To scum, jumping on would seem very scummy, so they wouldn't do it. So, those who actually jumped on probably aren't scum."

[nkirbit]

I also disagree with him on a couple of his points regarding sudgy:

I disagree on the panicking thing.  I think town often gets bogged down in defending themselves, while scum is often on the lookout for an alternate lynch.  Any lynch which isn't a scum-mate is good for scum, while town doesn't particularly want to deflect onto another townie.  If there were another wagon out there, I would expect sudgy to be on it, because they have a higher chance of being scum.  But no one's really found a compelling case outside of sudgy (by which I mean one that's caught on) to call sudgy scum for his inability to do so seems wrong.  It's not like he hasn't been voting or giving reads, he's just not finding a compelling case.

This is what I was referring to, Theorel.  You're saying that town is more likely to focus on themselves, while scum is trying to find another player who's more scummy than them.  I just disagree, and my experiences as town under the gun have been aligned entirely with the second experience.

As scum, you want to convince other people that you're not scum.  That's it.  Anywhere else is good, (well, not your teammate, but you probably will take your chances that the lynch doesn't land on your teammate.)

As town, you want to convince other people that you're not scum, yeah.  But you also need to find the correct alternate lynch.  This is because if the lynch moves off you, and onto another town member, that's worse than you just being mislynched.  A town member is dead in both cases, but in the alternate-town lynch, you, a townperson who many people suspect, are still left alive!

Sudgy focused too much on the getting the wagon off him part and not enough on the finding scum part.  Which is what we would expect, since he was the Serial Killer.

If you disagree with me that scum are more likely to focus on themselves rather than alternate lynches, that's fine, but my experience really indicates otherwise.  Both with my own behavior and with Sudgy's behavior from LOTR2.  That's why I moved over when I did.  I kind of do think that Sudgy was a little bit right in that we would have been suspicious of him even if he were town.. but his reactions are ultimately what sold me on him being scum.

[nkirbit]

I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.

I think what he means by that is this: "To scum, jumping on would seem very scummy, so they wouldn't do it. So, those who actually jumped on probably aren't scum."

Yeah pretty much.  It's sort of the "obviously scummy" thing that scum would want to avoid.

Of course, maybe scum knew that I (and other town members) would think so, and were outguessing me.  It's certainly a possibility.  You never know with these things.

[XerxesPraelor]

Okay, I thought of something. If we're allowed to PM, (I didn't think so,but yuma seems to have done so) everyone should PM Galzria with their claim. Whichever role only one person claims to have must be legitimate, and since we're guaranteed to have at least 2 people who are for sure town, scum won't be able to tell which is which if Galz only tells us who is for sure town and not their roles. I think this could narrow our pool signifacantly.

[Voltgloss]

If we're allowed to PM, (I didn't think so,but yuma seems to have done so) everyone should PM Galzria with their claim.

2. Personal communication outside of the forum postings is NOT ALLOWED unless your Role PM specifically allows it.

[Voltgloss]

PMs to the mods (mcmc and myself) are OK.

[XerxesPraelor]

Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

[theorel]

If you disagree with me that scum are more likely to focus on themselves rather than alternate lynches, that's fine, but my experience really indicates otherwise.  Both with my own behavior and with Sudgy's behavior from LOTR2.  That's why I moved over when I did.  I kind of do think that Sudgy was a little bit right in that we would have been suspicious of him even if he were town.. but his reactions are ultimately what sold me on him being scum.

Ah, I think I see the discrepancy.

We both agree that an "anybody-but-me" behavior is scummy.  We disagree as to what qualifies as that behavior.  IMO defending oneself is not an example of that behavior.  While it technically qualifies, because you're not paying any mind to where the votes end up, it's not what I look for as the scum-tell.  The scum-tell to me shows up in the accused casting suspicion around at various places seeing what sticks.  Wagon-jumping onto whoever has votes and distorting weak cases.  i.e. they're actually trying to lynch anyone but themselves.

So, IMO, an anybody-but-me sudgy would have actually had some scum-reads and no town-reads.  He would have tried to lynch someone else, but taken no one off the table.  That's how "anybody-but-me" works.  It results in finding anybody scummy.  It tries to look like scum-hunting while actually just pushing any alternate lynch.

I don't think defending oneself falls into that category.  You could argue that a player defending themselves isn't scum-hunting...but that's the argument there (i.e. not scumhunting).  Town players often get caught up in their own defense because they have no other information than their own towniness.  They don't want to push another wagon on a townie, so they're looking for legitimately scummy behavior.

As for examples: MXIX: Cuzz was defensive, didn't offer good alternative lynches...town.
MIV: joth was defensive, almost lynched for it, and town.  (He was lynched or vig-shot later...to town's loss)

On the other side: MXXX: mail-mi is pushed for lurking and says Robz is a better "lurker-lynch".

I'm sure there are other examples, it's been a while.

[chairs]

Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.

[Eevee]

Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.

If we want to massclaim, I think we want the doctor to fake claim VT.

[Twistedarcher]

Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.

If we want to massclaim, I think we want the doctor to fake claim VT.

Which means we shouldn't mass claim.

[XerxesPraelor]

If the vigs claim, we're able to trust them, because if a scum lies and says that, they'll get shot. Isn't that right? If both vigs claim, the doctor can protect the normal vig, who can then shoot into the crowd along with the one-shot. If we're lucky, they'll both hit scum. Then the doctor can claim the next day, protect the vig one last time while getting killed, and we lynch someone else and the vig shoots in the night and next night. That's a total of 8 non-mafia kills and 2 mafia ones, which if we don't have horrible luck, should get us a win. If they kill mafia the first night, we can relax and have the doctor not claim. I think it'll work out.

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.

[yuma]

If the vigs claim, we're able to trust them, because if a scum lies and says that, they'll get shot. Isn't that right? If both vigs claim, the doctor can protect the normal vig, who can then shoot into the crowd along with the one-shot. If we're lucky, they'll both hit scum. Then the doctor can claim the next day, protect the vig one last time while getting killed, and we lynch someone else and the vig shoots in the night and next night. That's a total of 8 non-mafia kills and 2 mafia ones, which if we don't have horrible luck, should get us a win. If they kill mafia the first night, we can relax and have the doctor not claim. I think it'll work out.

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.

I think you are forgetting about mafia's roleblocker.


TTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)

Every setup with 3 or less Ts and a SK has a scum roleblocker. We know that there were four or less Ts because we know the setup must be at least MDDVxxx.

If the vig(s) claims mafia just has to roleblock them... Or roleblock the doctor who might try to protect them and kill them during the night. Either way, claiming makes it easier for mafia to know what to do during the night.

Today's main effort should be trying to hit mafia (duh!) and if we are really lucky ala Harry Potter, we will be able to take down the Mafia Roleblocker, but that is kinda a long shot.

[yuma]

theorel is at L-2 just so everyone knows.

[theorel]

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.

It's an "L" not an "I"

I don't think I overhunted on the sudgy thing...because I don't think I really hunted on the sudgy thing.  By which I mean that I didn't say, "if sudgy flips town, then X is suspicious".  I looked for oddities in behavior, bad arguments, and since so much behavior revolved around sudgy, much analysis did too.

In thinking through previous games for "defensive" town, I remembered MXII.  Slef-meta argument: I don't know how many people were in that game (Eevee maybe the only one still alive?)  But in that game pps discussion dominated day1.  I argued for why he was scummy while analyzing the wagon on him.  Scum-hunting means looking at everybody, and analyzing their interactions with what's happening.  Not locking onto one player as "likely scum" and pushing their lynch to the conclusion.

IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.

[Eevee]

IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.

I disagree. I think sudgy was a pretty good day 1 lynch. Our mistake maybe was never running anyone else up to put pressure on them, but what were we supposed to do - abandon the good target we had because he happened to be the first one to be wagoned?