Open 176 - Night Watch - GAME OVER

[DeathRowKitty]

Question: Why did dramonic send me a link to this?

[DeathRowKitty]

Wow...I'm stupid. I posted the wrong URL (I posted that from the school library so I was using a proxy that I accidentally pasted the URL of). It was supposed to be a link to a youtube video that I received in a private message from dramonic saying the mod told him to send it out.

Also, aren't we supposed to be confirming by PM? o.O

[DeathRowKitty]

obv scum misleading the town

Vote: dramonic

. Quick! Maybe we can lynch him before the game starts!

[DeathRowKitty]

You caught me : (

Vote: DRK

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh, if someone watched DDD, I think you should just claim.

I

second

third

fourth that.

Vote: RayFrost

for quadruple voting me in the pre-game!

[DeathRowKitty]

Unvote, vote ekiM

. Sounds good to me.

[DeathRowKitty]

You seem to think so and I'm willing to take your word for it. If you're not serious, I'd assume you'll tell us before too many votes pile on.

[DeathRowKitty]

You read that and thought charter was joking?

[DeathRowKitty]

What kind of evidence are you looking for before you vote someone then?

[DeathRowKitty]

Also:

I came across this game a while back, which has a very interesting idea for what to do with our hider. For anyone who doesn't feel like reading the game (which I highly recommend, it's an interesting read), the idea is basically that 10 of us fake-claim hider and say who we hid behind/will hide behind each night (the 11th player actually is the hider and does the same thing). When the hider dies and flips, (s)he leaves a trail of confirmed innocents based on who (s)he hid behind. Additionally, the NKs have potential to give us a lot of information:


If the hider dies, along with his/her hidee, scum scored a double kill (worst case scenario).
If the hider dies, along with someone other than his/her hidee, the hidee is confirmed scum.
If no one dies, the scum know who the hider is or less likely, scum no killed (no killing has so little purpose we could almost rule it out).


Regardless of what happens, we can use the list of hider targets to confirm players as either town or scum. Overall, the benefits far outweigh the added risk of having two dead townies in one night and if it's allowed, I definitely think we should try this. The reason I say "if it's allowed" is that I've seen mods disallow hypo-claims.

Mod, are hypo-claims allowed?

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, a hider is more or less useless if we don't know who the hider targetted. As a defensive role, which is what a hider otherwise is, a hider doesn't do much and has a greater chance of dying from hiding than from not hiding (unless of course the hider finds one townie to hide behind the entire game, in which case the chances of death are the same as not hiding (minus the fact that the hider had to take a chance to find that townie the first time)). I like the idea because it allows our hider to act as a weak investigative role instead of being essentially vanilla.

[DeathRowKitty]

Honestly, I would be shocked if the hider hid last night. 4/11 chance of being killed.

Depends on how much the hider thought about his/her role. I joined this game because I find hiders (and to a smaller extent watchers) to be an interesting role, so I thought about some of the possibilities before the game started and as an investigative role, it's actually better for the hider to hide Night 0 (and it's actually a 1/3 chance, not 4/11).

[DeathRowKitty]

Right.

That's what I get for writing down numbers without writing anything out. Based on that, it depends whether or not the hider lives past Night 2.

[DeathRowKitty]

Um, there was a night already. Perhaps you missed that? Do you think scum pulled DDD's name out of a hat? I'd wager not. Why did you ignore this useful piece of information and joke vote?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but seriously, it was Night 0. There was nothing in the thread for scum to base a kill on. What were we supposed to make of that?

[DeathRowKitty]

I've never played with ekim or DDD, so can you explain that a little better?

[DeathRowKitty]

Unvote, vote SA

. Nothing happened yet?

[DeathRowKitty]

@DeathRowKitty: Why did you unvote ekiM? You voted for him because charter told you to, then you unvoted before charter expressed satisfaction with ekiM's answer. Why didn't you wait for charter's concession before vote-hopping to be early on the Sleepless Assassin bandwagon.

I was satisfied with ekim's answer, regardless of whether or not charter was. I originally voted ekim thinking charter was softclaiming watcher and when I found out he wasn't actually softclaiming watcher, my vote was just on ekim because it was marginally better than a joke vote (especially on a quadruple scum voting player!). Ekim convinced me it wasn't actually any better than a joke vote, so I switched to the best lead. I tend to be fairly vote-happy (unless I get tunneled on someone).

[DeathRowKitty]

guys, what is the benefit of a hider? correct me if I'm wrong, but is the hider someone who is kinda nk-proof, but also gives scum a 35% chance to kill 2 townies in one night?

That's why I like the idea of a hider hypo-claim. As far as I'm concerned, a hider is at best a vanilla townie if we don't know who (s)he hid behind. Hypo-hider sucks for the hider because we'd be more or less turning our hider into a kamikaze cop, but I personally think it's better for the town than trying to go back through a dead hider's posts to try to figure out who the hider hid behind (if the hider hid at all). If we don't use hypo-claims, I think the hider just shouldn't hide until after (s)he's claimed, which means that (assuming our hider wasn't stupid enough to hide Night 0), we basically have another vanilla townie instead.

The last thing seem quite dangerous, so why should we help scum to find the hider, even if we get a little info from it. The information doesn't give us a scum-lynch, does it?

The information could give us a scum lynch. If the hider and someone the hider didn't hide behind die, the hider hid behind mafia. Also, with two watchers, scum would have a lot of WIFOM to wade through in deciding on a kill (should they go after the person three different players claimed as a hidee and risk being seen making the kill?). Overall, I think kamikaze cop is the best role for our hider.

[DeathRowKitty]

If the hider hides behind scum and dies (along with some other player), the hider hid behind scum. Plus, from knowing the hider's previous targets, we'd have players we could confirm as town.

[DeathRowKitty]

This thread needs some more Sleepless Assassin.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK would probably be my current pick for a hewitt scumbuddy, mostly a lack of pro town behavior, despite posting plenty.

As opposed to your shining contributions? You said ekim would have strong reason to want to kill DDD, when it turns out you would have a better reason to kill DDD. You voted Hewitt for posting gibberish. Yea, that's just about it.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well I don't see what you're accusing me of. Considering that, IMO, your posts are negligibly (if at all) better than mine, you're picking me out as the scumbuddy of someone you don't even know is scum based on something that you yourself are guilty of (and you've had the same number of posts as me as of my making this post).

[DeathRowKitty]

I know I owe this game a decent post, but don't expect one tonight. Sorry. My posting (and more importantly content) level should rise to a decent level starting Sunday or Monday.

[DeathRowKitty]

Hmm.. hewitt is called out for pushing a pro-scum strategy and suddenly he is clueless about basic hider strategy. Nevermind that the hider role is detailed in the opening posts and the Hider role is detailed in the mafia wiki.

As much as I'd like to say not understanding the hider strategy is a scum-tell, game I got the idea from points to it not being a scum-tell.
I didn't particularly like this post from RayFrost. It seems he's just adding votes to someone opportunistically, especially considering SA did post content (IMO). Speaking of which,

unvote

. Definitely not enough for a vote on RF though.

So, are we doing that hypoclaim or what?

If everyone's agreed to it, I don't see why not. I'll check that after this post.

General comments about the hypoclaim

• Don't give the same name for Night 0 and Night 1.
• Say you hid behind someone Night 0 if and only if you did/would have hidden behind someone Night 0. Possibly obvious, but if someone who was against hiding Night 0 (a couple of people already said they wouldn't have hid) and claims a Night 0 target, it's fairly obvious that person isn't the hider.

As for the KK/scien situation, I don't particularly like either of them. A few posts ago, i would have said KK was scummier, but I liked his last post, so now I'm not so sure. Yes, I'm basically fencesitting right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, I wouldn't say my vote on him was un-serious. The fact that he could be qualified as a lurker for the most part and as soon as he made a decent post (in terms of content level), you voted him for IIoA, which, even when I try to look at it from your perspective, is a bit of a questionable charge IMO.

[DeathRowKitty]

Do you know of ANY charges that WOULD NOT be questionable in the first 7 pages? If so, by all means do tell.

Also, the italics are mostly mere comments taht don't give a solid position, feel, read, etc on it.

I'm saying it's even more questionable than most accusations at this point in the game. I vaguely see where people are coming from with arguments against SA's post, but honestly, I don't see what else he would have said about Hewitt's posts.

Way to not explain why. Anyone can say stuff like that, but its not helpful unless you back it up.

You're right. It's not helpful, but I got lazy (kind of like in this post, since I'm going to use the fact that you didn't actually ask me to give me reasoning to avoid explanation)

I don't see a need to say with whom we would have hidden N0.

There is a point unless we can be sure the hider didn't hide N0.

Neither me or DRK are good lynches ekiM.

Why don't you think I'd be a good lynch?

[DeathRowKitty]

Neither me or DRK are good lynches ekiM.

Why don't you think I'd be a good lynch?

Why would you ask that?

I asked because I wanted to know. I'll admit I haven't been the epitome of towniness this game and I don't want scum using this opportunity to buddy up to me. I generally question people who call me town, regardless of my alignment.

---

I should have more time starting

tomorrow

Monday. (Well, I might have time tomorrow; I don't know.) I'll get around to better posting then.

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: Sleepless Assassin

SA is newbscum (unless he's an alt...). He's been giving off newbscum vibes. If you don't like vibes, live with it. Popular support for Hewitt's lynch built up and he became an overexcited proponent. Seriously, read his posts. They're just screaming "NEWBSCUM!"

I predict that Hewitt calls me scum in his next post because I'm a threat to him now and votes for either me or Charter.

That sentence was just horrible. It's not at all defensible from Hewitt's perspective and the accusation is just a low blow. Hewitt looks bad regardless of how he responds.

Good idea! We can all scumhunt except about three of us! Like maybe...the scum. Oh, wait...

Another low blow. This also isn't a scum tell. "Hey guys! He's not scumhunting! Scum don't need to scumhunt! He must be scum!" This doesn't at all take into account reality. Good townies scumhunt and good scum appear to scumhunt. Bad townies don't scumhunt (or at least not well) and bad scum don't appear to scumhunt (or at least not well). Basically, not at all a scum tell. I'm very wary of people who make statements like this. Not scumhunting can be a scum tell

under certain circumstances

, but is not an alignment tell by itself. The premise is obvious and not debatable (scum don't need to scumhunt) and the conclusion sounds good in principle (he must be scum for not scumhunting!). Basically, it's a good accusation to make for scum who want to appear to be scumhunting, but something townies would more likely think twice about.

I don't like this post at all. Unfortunately, last time I made this post (I got past this far), it got deleted and I have no inclination to explain the post I linked to. It's another post that screams newbscum with some parts that scream scum independent of experience level.

[DeathRowKitty]

How about when you add an almost constant case of not providing information to the town when questioned about your lack of scum hunting? Is it very typical for a townie in your cases you mentioned to start catching flack and for them to pretty much say, "I'm not answering your questions, because its too early to think about things yet.

Stop trying to put reasonable words in SA's mouth.

---

Anyone else think Scien's post sounded like an attempt at diversion?

[DeathRowKitty]

How about when you add an almost constant case of not providing information to the town when questioned about your lack of scum hunting? Is it very typical for a townie in your cases you mentioned to start catching flack and for them to pretty much say, "I'm not answering your questions, because its too early to think about things yet.

Stop trying to put reasonable words in SA's mouth.

---

Anyone else think Scien's post sounded like an attempt at diversion?

[DeathRowKitty]

Scien, why are you so intent on flailing when you aren't even the one under attack?

Stop trying to put reasonable words in SA's mouth.

Those are my words, nice try though. I wasn't claiming that's what SA meant. I was claiming that taking what SA is complaining about, and adding it to what appears to be reluctance to participate and comment, leaves me with a feeling that I do indeed need to examine Hewitt a bit.

Based on what you were responding to, it looks a lot like you're trying to associate what you're saying with what SA is saying, essentially putting words in his mouth, even if it's just a subconscious association you expected us to make.

Just catching up. I find myself agreeing with some of the comments on Hewitt. I added my own concerns, so that I can get my own feel. I take it you are suggesting that I should have just shut up while you investigate SA? How is me starting to question Hewitt going to stop or derail your pursuit of SA? I feel SA needs examining too, and you guys seem to be doing a decent job of pressuring him for answers. I think its safe for me to look elsewhere, your alarmist concern is noted though.

If you feel SA needs examining too, why didn't you mention him at all in your post? SA started getting votes and you make a post where you go hardcore on hewitt, ignore the case on SA, and find "questionable logic coming from multiple fronts," most of which is useless from a scumhunting perspective. I never said or suggested you shouldn't question hewitt or that it would derail the pursuit of SA and I find it interesting that your defense of your post degraded so quickly into misrepresenting my accusations. In your words, your alarmist concern is noted though.

@SA
What do you think of scien?

---

I think SA is at L-2 (no I'm not sure and no one should vote him without being sure). We still have 10 days until deadline, but I would prefer we did the hypo-claim now just to make sure no one, for example, gets accidentally hammered while we wait for a vote count (cough, cough).

One thing to consider though first and this is important: we might eventually want our hider to die to prove someone to be scum (in fact I think trying to have our hider go kamikaze at some point is probably optimal play). When should the hider start targetting possible scum candidates and for how long should the hider hide behind probable townies?

[DeathRowKitty]

That's a scummy thing to say. The longer the hider is alive, the more targets they can have. The more targets they have, the more useful they are.

How is that a scummy thing to say? Let's say we've caught one scum and the hider's cleared two townies for example. At that point, considering hat scum would be starting to narrow down choices for hider, it might be better for the hider to confirm someone as scum than for the hider to try to confirm another townie and set the scum up to double kill.

[DeathRowKitty]

That's the point of the hypo-claim...everyone claims who they'd hide behind so the scum

don't

know who the hider is. I seem to recall you agreeing with the hypo-claim. Do you understand the point of the hypo-claim?

[DeathRowKitty]

@ekim and charter
Why do you think SA is town?

Everyone pick who you think is most likely to be scum (other than the lynchee). Say you'd hide with them. If the flip might change your opinion, you can give a name for each option (A is lynchee flips town, B is lynchee flips scum).

I take it you don't think it wise to have the hider try to clear someone first? Just wondering, what's your thought process for that?

I think Hewitt's buddies can be found in Ray, Death, and Dramonic.

Interesting how you didn't say anything about this until others brought up there were probably scum on your wagon.

In response to charter's questions that I don't feel like quoting:

• I've already given sufficient reasoning as to why I think SA is scum.
• I never said hewitt is definitely town.
• Hewitt shouldn't be lynched because SA is 10x scummier.

[DeathRowKitty]

@charter
Is there any reason you consider SA town that doesn't rely on hewitt's alignment? Let's say that hewitt were to die and flip town: how would your opinion of SA change?

[DeathRowKitty]

@Gregory and Octopis
Would you be willing to vote SA?

If we have a majority of players ready to vote SA, the hypo-claim should continue.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm pretty sure SA has 6 potential votes lined up (4 + Gregory + KK). NO ONE PUT A 5TH VOTE ON SA UNTIL THE HYPO-CLAIM IS FINISHED.

KK --> charter
DRK --> RayFrost

KK --> dramonic
DRK --> Scien

If possible, post your hider targets along with everyone else's. I think two people already hypo-claimed (RF and dramonic I think?). If you've already hypo-claimed, you should still post along with everyone else to confirm or revise your previous claim.

[DeathRowKitty]

KK --> charter
DRK --> RayFrost
hewitt --> RayFrost

KK --> dramonic
DRK --> Scien
hewitt --> Kublai Khan

[DeathRowKitty]

When you post your hypo-claim, please include it quoted along with everyone else's (in a seperate post if possible so the next person can just click "quote" in the corner of your post).

[DeathRowKitty]

KK --> charter
DRK --> RayFrost
hewitt --> RayFrost
Octupis --> ekiM
RayFrost --> Charter
Dramonic --> Octupis
charter --> RayFrost

KK --> dramonic
DRK --> Scien
hewitt --> Kublai Khan
Octupis --> Kublai Khan
RayFrost --> hewitt
Dramonic --> Rayfrost
charter --> Kublai Khan

[DeathRowKitty]

That leaves us with just Gregory, Scien, and ekiM (no need for SA to hypo-claim).

@SA
Who are your top 3 or 4 scum candidates and why?

[DeathRowKitty]

KK --> charter
DRK --> RayFrost
hewitt --> RayFrost
Octupis --> ekiM
RayFrost --> Charter
Dramonic --> Octupis
charter --> RayFrost
Gregory --> Kublai Khan

KK --> dramonic
DRK --> Scien
hewitt --> Kublai Khan
Octupis --> Kublai Khan
RayFrost --> hewitt
Dramonic --> Rayfrost
charter --> Kublai Khan
Gregory --> ekiM

[DeathRowKitty]

@charter
If you read Gregory's posts, it could make sense that he and SA are both scum. What exactly is it about SA that makes you think he's town? So far you've said he's town because his wagon only sprang up to save hewitt and because of the whole WIFOM issue of voting the dead guy. Is there anything about SA's play itself that tells you he's town? If there is something, now isn't the time to hold out on us.

[DeathRowKitty]

Sounds reasonable, but I still disagree.

---

I think SA is more likely scum than Gregory. Just because they can be buddies doesn't mean they are, especially without either having flipped yet.

[DeathRowKitty]

SA had to claim watcher whether he was watcher or scum. The odds:

2/11 chance SA is a watcher
If SA is actually a watcher, there's were 10 possible players he could have watched (he didn't watch himself or DDD). There are 10 players our other watcher could have watched and they're not the same 10 (he could watch SA instead of himself), so there's a 9/100 chance of their targets coinciding (I think). Let's say for sake of argument that the hider hid. We know the hider hid behind town, so there are 7 players he could have hidden behind. Since we're assuming SA is watcher for this example, he's one of those 7, which leaves 6 possibilities in common, which gives a 3/35 (once again, not entirely sure that's right) chance of their targets coinciding. Let's say to simplify things that the chances of all three targets coinciding is negligible. The probability of what SA said being true is 2/11(9/100+3/35), which is about 0.031948051948051948051948051948052. The actual probability should be lower to account both for the possibility of all three coinciding and the hider not hiding.

There's a 3/11 chance he's scum.
In that case, he HAS to claim watcher and claiming to have seen another PR is a very convenient excuse to not give results (not that he should have if he was a watcher whose target wasn't watched) and make his claim sound believable. All he would need was for one PR to claim results and he could claim to have watched that player's N0 target to have an alibi. Let's say for sake of argument there's a 2/3 chance scum would claim this scenario. That's 2/11, which is .18181818..., about 5.7 times the probability of him being watcher.

Add in the fact that he's acted scummy and in my mind, that bumps up the probability of him being scum past 3/11 for me and I'm not sold by his claim right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

SA could far more easily claim hider and claimed to have hidden behind somebody he knew was town to lead into the WIFOM if we ever lynch him of... "was who he claimed to hide behind town he was trying to frame or scum he was trying to protect?"

The choice of watcher is actually worse for a scum player:

If he'd claim hider, I would have suggested a CC. It's doubtful scum would CC the real hider, so we'd know SA was lying and an exposed hider isn't a sitting duck, especially with two watchers in the game. Since a vanilla claim probably wouldn't have saved him, that just leaves watcher.

---

Meh, not liking hewitt's fishing and the whole "claiming without actually really helping anything," but

vote: Gregory

.

[DeathRowKitty]

Unvote

because I just realized I put Greg at L-1.

The "Our Mod isn't Counting Votes" Unofficial Votecount

hewitt - 2 - Sleepless Assassin, ekiM
Octupis - 0 -
DeathRowKitty - 0 -
Kublai Khan - 1 - Scien
dramonic - 0 -
charter - 0 -
Gregory - 4 - charter, dramonic, RayFrost, hewitt
Sleepless Assassin - 0 -
RayFrost - 0 -
Scien - 0 -
ekiM - 0 -

[DeathRowKitty]

Not yet. We still need ekiM's hypo-claim.

[DeathRowKitty]

@hewitt
Stop acting scummy so we can get something done.

@charter
We have a vanilla claim. We're not lynching hewitt today.

[DeathRowKitty]

Not surprisingly, I believe hewitt right now.

Unvote

. Two things before I vote though:

@hewitt
When did this realization cross your mind and when did you ask the mod?

@SA
What RF said. Which PR do you know (not the player's name, just whether it was a watcher or hider)?

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm almost certain SA is lying, but he still needs to claim the role he saw.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, I read through the sudden mountain of posts and have come to the obvious conclusion that SA is scum

and charter and Scien are his scumbuddies

.

Here's what needs to happen in order of importance:
1. SA needs to be lynched.
2. SA should claim the role of the PR he knows (but not the player's name).
3. Anyone who wants to change his hypo-hider claim for N1 should do so before deadline.

4. We need to spam the thread with more simulposts to try to convince charter that SA is scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: Sleepless Assassin

I forgot I hadn't done that yet. When exactly is deadline? Do we have enough time to get support for his lynch?

[DeathRowKitty]

THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME

Oh, and happy scumday, mod!

[DeathRowKitty]

[Bah]Go town![/Bah]

[DeathRowKitty]

I called it first

[DeathRowKitty]

Not your fault. Personally, I think SA had a decent part in it by taking a watcher down with him, which forced us to trade both watchers for KK.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Scien, dramonic, or KK
Did you have KK make the N1 kill because you thought the hider was going to out him anyway?

[DeathRowKitty]

Charter was obv-not hider. He said he wouldn't have hidden N0 and then claimed a N0 target.

[DeathRowKitty]

@KK, Scien, dramonic
Are you alright with posting your quicktopic? Seems like it would be an interesting read...the first couple nights