433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over

[The Fonz]

Vote: Thorgot

<Insert random pointless reasoning here>

[The Fonz]

What's up with the two votes on southpaw?

EH? Why would something be up?

[The Fonz]

There have been eleven 'random' votes placed. It's not that unlikely that two of them find the same target.

[The Fonz]

Yeah, i mean come on, if a 2-vote never got put on someone nothing would ever happen. and wouldn't THAT be fun!

(in a 7 player game it wouldn't be overly suspicious imo, maybe a bit, but how else is anyone going to get reactions and etc.)

Agreed. In fact,

Unvote
Vote Southpaw

just to get some darn discussion going.

[The Fonz]

I take it you feel fourth votes are fairly harmless, then, Dasquian.

[The Fonz]

Sure discussion is good, but you have to have something to actually discuss. So far, all we've had is random voting + one or two randomish wagons that will no doubt fall apart soon. Dasquain's 4th vote might seem a little suspicious, but seriously, where is the Southpaw wagon going to go?

Nowhere in particular. But Dodgy's complete overreaction was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when placing my third vote. I can't speak for Dasquian, as I probably wouldn't have placed that vote.

Plus, Dasquian's quickly following-on with the fourth vote allows us to have the mini equivalent of the 'second vote debate' in newbies.

Unvote

Vote: Dodgy

[The Fonz]

I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of the

FOS

would be my preference to willy-nilly bandwagonning, especially to put someone halfway to lynch before we have had any kind of discussion at all seems reckless. Though I see him in no danger I am also going to remove my random vote

Unvote: Superstring91

until we have more discussion.

Strongly disagree. If there is no danger, then where is the harm in 'willy-nilly bandwagonning?' People don't tend to overreact to FOS in the same way, so they're less useful. Besides, what use would a basically random FOS be?

By voting Southpaw, I got to see if the prospect of an unsubstantiated bandwagon caused him to panic (it didn't, his response was pretty good) or if someone else jumped in with an overreaction to a safe vote (which Dodgy did).

I'm a relative newbie to this site, not having played many games here recently - what is the "second vote debate" exactly (I know what the seven-player newbie setup is)?

My current feeling is that, actually, with Eletriar getting a little edgy when Southpaw went to two votes, and Dodgy doing similar when he went to four, there might be something in what was essentially a completely random bandwagon. Too early to say with any level of confidence, but worth noting.

The second vote debate in newbie games is when someone, usually a newbie, suggests that placing a second vote on someone early is scummy. Now, this isn't the case, as has most ably been demonstrated by our mod- but in explaining this to the person in question, you can find out whether they're just newbish, for some strange reason genuinely convinced that lynch-2 is scummy, or opportunistic scum.

Hence my asking you whether you believed lynch -3 in a 12-man was safe or not, as I'm inclined to believe it is, but without the certainty I attach to lynch -4, which I'm certain is safe. The fact that you weren't sure, but suggested that it was necessary to advance the game, gives us the following avenue for discussion:

1. Why did you place a vote you weren't sure was safe?
2. Why did you think that the third vote was insufficient, and therefore a fourth one needed to advance the game?

[The Fonz]

That's crap. I haven't misrepresented you at all. My vote on Southpaw was essentially random, in that it had nothing at all to do with his behaviour (not random, in the sense that he had to have two votes on him in order for me to place it- but I'd have placed it on anyone with two votes at that point). Therefore, the alternative you suggested to my random vote was a random FOS. Which wouldn't have helped the town at all, see above for why.

[The Fonz]

*Sighs* I was indifferent between placing a third vote on superstring or southpaw. It had nothing to do with the actions of either, and was therefore random. I could have achieved what I aimed for by voting either one.

Because my vote was random, and you suggested I ought to FOS rather than vote (a position I refute entirely), and because no-one had actually said anything noteworthy at that point, any such FOSing would indeed have been random. See Dasquian describing the votes on Southpaw as 'an essentially random bandwagon.'

[The Fonz]

unvote

I'm not too put off by a 4th vote. I don't think it is as dangerous as 2 votes in a C9 because there's a lot more to go wrong to allow the hammer and I don't think we have that many new players in this game (without checking all the join dates).

A second vote in a C9 is not dangerous at all.

[The Fonz]

I think Superstring gets it. After all, if FOS are preferable to votes early on, why don't games begin with a random FOS stage?

[The Fonz]

The Fonz also wrote

I think Superstring gets it. After all, if FOS are preferable to votes early on, why don't games begin with a random FOS stage?

Random voting came in after a few months of the games invention.
It wasn't a planned thing, it just caught on as it was quite dreary just saying Hi.
Once random votes have been placed (which is merely a ritual) then often people unvote and then FOS for a day or two until one or more players get a stronger hunch and vote or scum decide to jump onto someones back. Having said that, any player is free to act as they wish.

But we had

nothing

to go on at that point. Nothing. Overreacting to harmless votes is just a classic scumtell. Classic. If everyone random votes, that doesn't elicit anything, then what are you basing your FOS on? Nothing, that's what.

I haven't voted flippantly. I voted randomly once, once to elicit information (successfully) and once on the guy who acted scummily by falling into the trap laid.

[The Fonz]

I don't want to repeat what SS said, as he largely had it, but:

The Fonz wrote

But we had nothing to go on at that point. Nothing.

Exactly my point, so why start a band wagon at this point?

Because if we don't do anything to provoke reactions, we'll never find scum?

Overreacting to harmless votes is just a classic scumtell. Classic.

Firstly, I think you are the one that is making a big thing of this. My comments were not over reacting at all, I was merely pointing out the obvious.
And secondly, What would you know about

Classic scumtells

?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you have only been playing for a couple of weeks and being privy to all members lists and their IP addresses, I can see that you havn't been a player before that date under a different name, so I ask again, are you really experienced enough to make such a statement?

You have no idea where else I might have played, or how many games I've read. If you're a vet, you oughta know there's plenty of vets who subscribe to the same theory.

then what are you basing your FOS on?

I'm basing my FOS on your defensivness which is quite outstanding considering the stage at which this game is at and the comments of mine for which you are reffering to.
Let me elaborate on your last staement by Quoting the entire sentence, which I think sums my point up exactly.....

I don't mean your FOS on me there. That makes perfect sense either way, since you have to defend yourself. (Though my 'outstanding defensiveness?' Pot, kettle...) I mean, if no-one ever gets a random wagon rolling, then on what on earth does anyone have to base the FOS you are advocating as an alternative to my vote?

To return to your initial, suspect comment:

You two so need an

FOS

to either expose your complete indiscretion or foolishness at putting someone that may be town at such a risk!

What risk? There is no risk in putting someone at lynch -4. You're not going to get four scum (if there are even that many) bandwagonning, and should it actually get to the stage someone puts the -2 or -1 vote on the basically random bandwagon, a) you can unvote and b)you've got blatant scum.

[The Fonz]

[quote="Dodgy"]
@ Dasquian, I'm guessing your voting me because you think I'm scum? Well just for the record, I'm not.

[quote]

Claiming 'not-scum' is another common scumtell.

[The Fonz]

Quit it with your Scumtells and just play the game mate!
Youre forgetting one other reason why someone claims Town, because they are Town! LOL

Yaaawn. It makes no sense for anyone to claim scum. Therefore, claiming town is just pointless time-wasting. We can't take your word for it. You're apparently a longtime vet, yet you're playing incredibly newbishly. That said, I don't think attacking you further is going to yield much more info right now. You'd have to do summat VERY pro-town to change my opinion.

one of those "so obvious you have to discount it" mafia plays.

I'm voting you because you're the most scummy

on page 3 of day 1

. There are a lot of players who I've yet to get a read on and I'm not forgetting them!

Well said. For starters, I want to know whether thorgot thinks the bandwagon was a good idea or not. Simple enough question, and I think an answer is due. 'It was random' isn't an excuse. Everytime something significant happens with a bandwagon, you have to decide anew if it's still worth supporting.

[The Fonz]

T

btw, I disagree with the use of the "classic scumtells" argument, its like trying to add weight to your arguments without adding much substance. I'd rather Fonzy just say "blah blah blah blah; this is scummy behaviour imo" or something like that. But I am probably nitpicking.

Eh? What is the difference between saying 'this is really scummy' and 'this is a classic scumtell?' In both cases, you're suggesting that the action you're attacking is highly suspicious, and suggests scum. The difference is purely semantic.

[The Fonz]

. I would recommend that instead of a post such as this,

I think the bandwagon was an excellent idea, in order to create some discussion about players. Which it did, including about myself.

Sorry I haven't been more active. I had lots of work this week, but I should be able to post more this week.

do not help us find scum. I realize that everyone had times when they cannot participate as much, this I will not hold against you. The issue that I have is posting 2 sentences agreeing with an idea rather than providing content does nothing but keeping your name outside of the "lurker" discussion. Everyone needs to participate, and I realize it has been a couple days since my last contribution which is why I am attempting to do my part to contribute now that I have some time. Please, to facilitate discussion, feel free to pose any questions to me which you feel need answering. Please, if you haven't posted in a couple days take the time to provide us some content to continue evaluating that we can weed out the scum presence in this town.

Meh, he was asked a direct question and he answered it. (Still begs the Q of why he didn't just say that when initially asked, but I'll leave that one for now). I'd agree in principle with the notion of trying to find out who's lurking and who's inactive though.

[The Fonz]

T

btw, I disagree with the use of the "classic scumtells" argument, its like trying to add weight to your arguments without adding much substance. I'd rather Fonzy just say "blah blah blah blah; this is scummy behaviour imo" or something like that. But I am probably nitpicking.

Eh? What is the difference between saying 'this is really scummy' and 'this is a classic scumtell?' In both cases, you're suggesting that the action you're attacking is highly suspicious, and suggests scum. The difference is purely semantic.

I'm more inclined to agree with pete d here. Saying "this is a classic scumtell" to me seems a lot less convincing than actually explaining what it is that you dislike about the post/points raisedl. I'm sure other people like me, who aren't so condident in their game will agree too.

Hmmm... seems to me your problem is different to pete's, in that you appear to be suggesting that I didn't explain why I think it's scummy. The reason is I thought it obvious, though I do think I elaborated later: placing a safe vote (which I considered mine to be) is not a dangerous or scummy action, therefore anyone attacking it as such is likely to be opportunistic scum.

In regards to the lurker situation, now this is the first non-newbie game i've been in so i don't have much to go on, but i don't think the lurkers are any more or less likely to be scum.

Chances are, at least a couple of them are simply inactive. BUT: lack of discussion hurts the town. Ensuring that everyone is participating, and replacing those who have gone inactive, deprives the scum of the ability to stay under the radar by saying nothing at all.

I've not got an excuse, i've been reading the thread quite a few times each day, just not really felt i have anything to add. The last game i was there was a similar standoff between two groups and i picked a group who's arguements sounded most convincing, did some re-reading of my own and was convinced on their ideals. I made the wrong choice. So i'm trying to take this game a little slower and read into it all just a bit more.

This is mildly scummy. Appearing, declining to express opinions, and doing so in a longwinded way, gives the impression of contributing without actually helping the town at all.

I appreciate you might have been burned by joining the 'wrong side' but remember: scum operate in lots of ways. There may well be scum on both sides of this argument. (The aim of the game as town is 'lynch scum' not 'lynch people who disagree with you.') You don't necessarily need to even 'take a side,' you can pick out one or two individual posts where you think the logic is somehow flawed, or the tone strikes you as odd, and question the relevant poster on that particular issue.

[The Fonz]

@ Dasquian, I'm guessing your voting me because you think I'm scum? Well just for the record, I'm not.

Claiming 'not-scum' is another common scumtell.

In this case, i think what Dodgy said was pretty incidental, and your response of "its a scumtell" seemed a bit hollow, like it was in place of a proper argument. Your other scumtell reference I'm not as concerned about (where you said that Dodgy's defensiveness over the wagon was a scumtell) because you already made arguments about it / explanations.

I never actually said Dodgy's defensiveness over the wagon was in itself scummy. Though I did find him suggesting that I was exhibiting 'outstanding defensiveness' hypocritical.

I don't mean your FOS on me there. That makes perfect sense either way, since you have to defend yourself. (Though my 'outstanding defensiveness?' Pot, kettle...)

As for, 'im place of a proper argument,' here's the argument:

Yaaawn. It makes no sense for anyone to claim scum. Therefore, claiming town is just pointless time-wasting. We can't take your word for it.

[The Fonz]

Well, I don't think I'm overreacting, Dodgy's play is about as scummy as it is possible to be within the first four pages, in my humble opinion.

I would like to hear from Sweenytodd, who also joined Dodgy in suggesting that the actions of me/Dasq were 'reckless' and that he'd rather we started with FOSing.

It's obvious that Dodgy won't explain why this makes any sense (I've asked him more than once) so how's about you step up to the plate and try to present a reasonable argument for why a) L-4 and L-3 are dangerous (and not just dangerous, but equally so) and b) how FOSing would have been a better way to start debate?

[The Fonz]

That's a flat out lie. You can't possibly believe you've answered my questions. I have yet to hear a decent argument for why lynch -4 is scummy, or how FOSing based on nothing would ever manage to generate a debate. (Largely because no such argument exists, but it's not even like you've tried). You've OMGUSed me, said my arguments were 'crap' without providing any evidence, you tried an ad hominem attack on me as a mafia player (then lied about it) accused me of precisely the kind of behaviour you were exhibiting yourself, than came up with a half-baked theory about everyone who disagreed with you being scum.

I really, really, hope you're scum, because not one thing you have done so far has helped the town.

[The Fonz]

P.S To The Fonz, go back and read my posts, if you're not scum and you know how to read into this game like you claim to, with all your "scumtell expretise" LOL, then get off my ***king back!
If youre Town, you need a good kick up the arse for pushing me into what amounts to a role claim.
If you really were as ofait with this game as you like to portrait, as town, you would have picked up on all the "so" obvious hints I have given and packed up your crap.
I can only conclude that you are either bullshitting about your Knowledge/experience of this game or you are Mafia
Therefor...

Vote: The Fonz

I never claimed expertise. I pointed out what, from games I've played and read, are common scum traits. I asked you to provide a reasonable, pro-town explanations for your actions, and you deflected, and generally done just about everything possible to avoid actually answering a question.

I haven't come close to pushing you to a role claim, you've ONLY got two votes on you FFS!

If you are town, then this is the single worst town performance I've ever seen.

[The Fonz]

I've so

FUCKING

had enough of inexperienced players that talk fucking shit and try to pretend to everyone, that they know how to play this game with insight, ie

The Fonz

.
I only joined this game because my fellow creators/friends, Jeep, mathcam and MEMe convinced me to.
I thougfht this was a mini with no theme, not a newbie with a certain pereson that talks bollocks!
I quit and I can because I set this fucking site up, co-wrote the "Wikki" that people keep refering to and thought that I would be in a game with players that had the intelligence to read between the lines.
Here goes peeps....

I've so fucking had it with experienced players who act like they're spoilt five year old kids and try to use their time at the site in place of a decent argument. If he'd actually had any intention of helping the town win, he'd actually have provided a logical defence instead of all the constant shit he's actually talked.

That said, no reason to disbelieve the doc claim.

Unvote

[The Fonz]

A prod on Gorckat might be in order. No posts since tuesday.

[The Fonz]

So that it is out in the open, I received this personal message from Dodgy:

I hope you grow into Mafiascum but I will say this only once, as the controler of this site, I will NOT tollerate personal attacks.
I can in 30 seconds delete your profile, your IP address and because I am in charge of the bandwidth capicity and running of this site and 1 other similar site, can access your telephone number and address to stop you changing telephone numbers and internet providers to re-access this site.
I will be watching this game very closely!
Having said that, I think your annoying comments are due to you being a newbie and although it makes me rial that you are not playing newbie games until you have the experience to play other forums, I am willing to let it pass for now, on this occasion.
Like I said, I will be watching this game very closely.
Just for the record, I was the Doc, and there will be NO replacement.
Dodgy

I find his attempts to personally threaten me because of a disagreement in a game childish and egomaniacal.

Just for the record:

My suggesting that Dodgy was scum was not based solely, or even mainly, on the wiki; I could quickly provide quotes from numerous vetaran players of this site, that for example overreacting to safe early votes is a likely mafia action. Even if it weren't, it would surely be incumbent on the longtime vet to explain calmly and rationally why a particular action is not scummy, yet Dodgy made no such attempt, instead resorting to personal abuse.

I maintain that if anyone else acts that scummy in a future game, I will suspect them, otherwise there's no point in me playing.

I have at no point launched a personal attack on Dodgy, he has repeatedly done so on me!

I am playing a newbie game at the moment. I am far from the only player on site to enter a mini before the conclusion of his first newbie game.

I have both played and moderated elsewhere before.

[The Fonz]

I can understand annoyed, but it seems to be a general theme of his... Fonz, are you usually this defensive? Just wondering...

I only have the one completed game here, as scum (replacing in just before getting lynched) so I'm afraid I can't provide a track record either way. What I will say is that by placing that Southpaw vote as a kinda trap for opportunistic scum, I was inevitably setting myself up to countervote whoever attacked me, something that it's pretty hard to do without looking defensive. This was fine by me, since finding scum was more important than looking innocent.

I'd say Gorckat ought to be prodded

rather than voted, right now.

[The Fonz]

Right, my thoughts on where we go from here:

For starters, I'm getting town vibes from Pete D. The bit about me 'accusing Dodgy of being overly defensive' was untrue, but it doesn't strike me as scummy- after all, why would scum lie in order to make Town look better? (Since he goes on to say that he thought that nonexistent attack was justified). So, genuine mistake. I guess this could come across as an OMGUR, but what the hell.

I think we've got a couple leads here:

Thorgot is ever so slightly scummy, for reasons that Pete has amply demonstrated, having not yet really voiced an opinion on anyone. His last post

was

a response to a direct question, but nonetheless, it's not like he couldn't have expanded on it if he wanted. There was nothing to stop him saying 'I think the bandwagon was justified, and Dodgy is probably scum' or 'I thought it was justified, but I think Fonz is reading too much into Dodgy's attack' or 'I thought it was justified, but I'm wary of how much Fonz/Superstring appear to be agreeing' or suchlike. I think he'd be a good target for a mini-wagon right now.

I'd still like to hear a justification of the 'lynch -4 is scummy' argument from Sweenytodd- just because it now appears that Dodgy genuinely held that opinion, doesn't make it correct, so I'd like to hear based on what reasoning ST supported him.

A bit of game theory, if I may- I think, given that Dodgy's replacement will be basically confirmed town, (s)he ought to be given the responsibility of hammering, and anyone else hammering ought to be quicklynched tomorrow. If we have a definite town hammer (and I don't think any other town player would be dumb enough to do it if this plan were agreed on, which of course also makes it too difficult for scum) then we can ensure time for a claim, narrow down the number of suspicious voters, and give anyone going to lynch-1 a right going over. Thoughts?

[The Fonz]

Since for some reason TSQ felt the need to delete this, I will repeat: I feel using votes to pressure someone who hasn't posted in a week is

futile

, it's a better idea that someone request a prod (yes, by PM) and we keep our attention on those who are here. If nothing else, it will give lurkers/replacements more to go on when they get here.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: AH, he actually didn't delete that, it was in a post further up.

[The Fonz]

Ok guys... I apologize about my recent lack of posting, i have had connectivity issues which I recently resolved. In response to

I'd still like to hear a justification of the 'lynch -4 is scummy' argument from Sweenytodd- just because it now appears that Dodgy genuinely held that opinion, doesn't make it correct, so I'd like to hear based on what reasoning ST supported him.

It was the L -3 vote by Dasquien that caught my eye, not the L-4 which preceded it. As an admited noob I was hoping to procede cautiously, it may not be the best course to spark discussion, but well I guess Dodgy took care of that. I mean, whoa.. that is a meltdown the likes of which I haven't seen.

Your initial response was this:

I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of the

FOS

would be my preference to willy-nilly bandwagonning, especially to put someone halfway to lynch before we have had any kind of discussion at all seems reckless. Though I see him in no danger I am also going to remove my random vote

Unvote: Superstring91

until we have more discussion.

You said you thought it was reckless, yet that you thought southpaw was in no danger. If it's not dangerous, how is it reckless? Oh look, Dasquian just recklessly put someone who might be town in no danger whatsoever!

It also seems now that your position was subtly different from Dodgy's, yet you didn't bother stating that initially. You're also in the not insignificant group who haven't really expressed a suspicion yet- see your 'apart from that fourth vote, there's nothing really to go on' comment. If that fourth vote was the only thing you had to go on, why didn't you, well, go on it?

In re-reading,

My current feeling is that, actually, with Eletriar getting a little edgy when Southpaw went to two votes, and Dodgy doing similar when he went to four, there might be something in what was essentially a completely random bandwagon. Too early to say with any level of confidence, but worth noting.

stuck out at me. It seems that post #40 is a bit premature to be linking pairs of people for not hopping onto a bandwagon.

He wasn't linking people. He was expressing suspicion of both. It's not that different from your post 37 at all, apart from in finding a different thing scummy.

Also to the Fonz,

I think, given that Dodgy's replacement will be basically confirmed town

I didn't see the connection, was there some proof given to Dodgy's claim or is this a WIFOM mafia wouldn't do what he did kind of thing? I just re-read this section so please point me to where you got that because i missed it.

I couldn't see, at the time, why a scummer would claim doc there as a tactic. Plus, he'd been strongly hinting powerrole in the previous three or four posts. Now that CES has retracted Dodgy's claim, I don't know what to think, so that suggestion is withdrawn.

[The Fonz]

Because if the real doc understands what you're doing and you don't get lynched first, you can draw mafia fire and buy the townie power roles more time.

I don't think it's a great tactic, but what matters is what Dodgy thought. And as I say, I don't think it's in our interests discussing unless there's a serious motion to lynch CES.

There

has

to be a serious motion to lynch CES, though. LynchAllLiars. I don't know about anyone else, but I would like to see CES genuinely claim here.

[The Fonz]

Dodgy and CES are the same person. One of them lied. On a metagame level, anyone caught lying ought to be lynched. However, it's also intuitively right not to lynch a claimed powerrole on day one. Hence, CES should claim.

Actually, this might be a good discussion point. Who think CES should and should not claim, and why?

[The Fonz]

You don't retract a claim without denying it. (At least, I don't think so... CES?) And one or other has lied, and let me remind you, they are the same person. Anyone else?

[The Fonz]

I also think he shouldn't claim. I don't see any reason why Dodgy would do what he did if he was a regular townie. The only 2 options are that Dodgy really was the doctor or that he was mafia.

I say that we assume for now that ECS is the doctor. If, for some reason he survives the night, we can look into whether he might actually be mafia.

If he really were the doc, why would he retract the claim?

[The Fonz]

I'm not going to comment at my role at this time. I see no convincing reason to claim, so I'm not going to give the scum any role information.

I'm not buying that. You wrote:

Okay, I'm retracting Dodgy's claim.

Objectively, he probably claimed to help the scum nail the doctor at night.

Now, I suppose you can say that that meant 'to out the real doctor' or 'to get himself/his replacement nightkilled' but I just can't see how a retraction of a genuine claim here helps the town. I'd be all for lynching CES right now, in the absence of a power role claim. If you are a power role other than doctor, please claim and request protection. If you are town, you're either setting yourself up for a NK, or possibly worse, the scum playing WIFOM with you until the cows come home.

[The Fonz]

right now fonz is topping my scumlist.
it seems like he is being very opportunistic. someone replaces into a game where his predecessor made a claim in a hissy fit. he retracts the claim. fonz accuses him of lying, and pushes for LAL.

That's a total misrepresentation. I'm not accusing CES of lying. I'm saying either CES or Dodgy

has to be.

You just don't retract a true claim. Therefore, LAL applies. Let me ask you, what are you going to do if CES doesn't get lynched or nightkilled, and then says, alright, I was the doc. Do you lynch him then? What about the next day?

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: And it's not a rule of thumb. That's why it's called lynch

all

liars, and not, in general lynch liars.

[The Fonz]

But he's marked himself out as a likely powerrole anyway. So if the scum don't kill him overnight, it's WIFOM central. I don't advocate lynching him today unless he claims townie. But I do think some kind of claim is absolutely in the interests of the town.

[The Fonz]

I'm not fishing, i'm outright asking for a claim. It's the only way we'll know where we stand. Your list of possibilities is of no relevance whatsoever to the task at hand, and is therefore hugely scummy.

Lets not try and help the mafia with their NKs okay?

FFS, if he's not mafia, the scum already know he's likely powerrole! If he's not a powerrole, he's lying anyway and still needs lynching.

[The Fonz]

If he is the doc, he's ALREADY outed himself!

[The Fonz]

MOD EDIT.

Southpaw: 1 (thorgot)
gorckat: 1 ( superstring)
The fonz:2 (CES, sweenytod.)
thorgot: 1 (dasq)

Oh I get it now....

FFS, if he's not mafia, the scum already know he's likely powerrole! If he's not a powerrole, he's lying anyway and still needs lynching.

If he is a power role as Dodgy claimed then we ought to lynch him or out him? And if he is not a power role and simply trying to salvage the poor game he replaced into we ought to lynch him to save the Mafia a NK they could use for someone... God this discussion is frustrating... The point is not to out all of the targets for the mafia it is to FIND the mafia. There is no claim he could make to appease you nor should he... If he acts scummy, THEN we can lynch him but so far you are holding him accountable for a predacessor's insane actions as if this drama has ANYTHING to do with the game. Dodgy messed up... He shouldn't have claimed... That said CES definitely shouldn't claim.

This is just flat out, and obvious misrepresentation.

If he is a power role as Dodgy claimed then we ought to lynch him or out him?

Nope, if he is a power role we definitely shouldn't lynch him. As I said before, we're not going to out him because he has already outed himself.

And if he is not a power role and simply trying to salvage the poor game he replaced into we ought to lynch him to save the Mafia a NK they could use for someone.

Do you not understand the concept of lynch all liars?

If he is the doc, he's ALREADY outed himself!

If Dodgy's claim is in any way believeable... Which it isn't... And there is no good that can come from lynching CES in that position...

You popose that CES is the Doc, who retracted a claim, and thus should be lynched if he claims vanilla... So best case scenario... We lose our Doc N1, bad play Dodgy. Otherwise, CES claims vanilla and we lynch him he turns up Doc.... Bad Play Fonz.... If CES claims vanilla and turns up mafia that would be one thing but I don't see it yet.

1. I do not propose that he is doc who retracted a claim, I propose that as of right now, I don't know what the hell he is, but the mafia probably do.

I wouldn't even put it past dodgy that he might have been a different powerrole. Think about it, if he's trying to screw the town, and hence me, what better than to get one powerrole lynched and the other outed day one? The best case scenario right now for town is him dying night one.

If he survives, we're in the same confusing position we are in now. Like i said before, WIFOM central.

2. Why the hell would he claim vanilla, then turn up doc? That's ridiculous craplogic.

Vote: Sweenytodd

Its interesting to see that everyone thinks CES shouldn't claim yet Fonz is still pushing for one.

That's because you're wrong, the continuing confusion hurts the town, and I'm doing my damnedest to demonstrate

why

.

You

can

retract a claim without denying it... CES has done just that. I think Dodgy's claim, in light of the situation at the time, cannot be trusted. There are too many possibilities (draw fire, mafia trying to out doc, is the doc, yada yada) for us to know whether it was more likely true or false, so why ponder on it?

Let's look at those three possibilities.

a) Is exactly the situation for which LAL was devised, should lynch him.
b) Explain why we shouldn't lynch him in this case?
c) Shouldn't lynch him.

Dodgy and CES are the same person. One of them lied.

How can they be one person, yet

one

of them lied, that makes them two people playing the same role. We have no proof yet to even remotely suggest which of them lied and so can't just lynch CES cos he's the one playing the role now.

But... they are playing the same role! For game purposes, they

are

the same person. You also say you don't know 'which one of them lied.' That implies that one of them definitely lied. Which completely contradicts what you said in the first paragraph.

Sure having a player out there with a role we're unsure on isn't very good but then, we're unsure on everyone's roles thus far so why push for a lynch on someone that's just joined the game.

No, we have no idea of anyone else's role. We can see Dodgy might well be the doc, and more importantly, so can the mafia. So he's a likely nightkill candidate already (therefore if he is powerrole, best to claim, so the town have as much info as the scum do) and him not dying will leave us in the same, confused, position again tomorrow.

You may have been getting somewhere with dodgy (no longer in the game remember) but CES is new to the game. We can't hold Dodgy's actions against him and imo, we've just lost a couple of pages. Nothing to q_q over.

FOS: The Fonz

(opening sentance)

This is unsettling. In general, you have to hold people to the actions of the predecessor. If I were replaced right now, would you give my replacement a free pass on everything I said and did? Even when you find me so scummy?

[The Fonz]

EBWODP, to get out what I'm actually saying re: Sweenytodd.

Oh I get it now....

If he is a power role as Dodgy claimed then we ought to lynch him or out him? And if he is not a power role and simply trying to salvage the poor game he replaced into we ought to lynch him to save the Mafia a NK they could use for someone... God this discussion is frustrating... The point is not to out all of the targets for the mafia it is to FIND the mafia. There is no claim he could make to appease you nor should he... If he acts scummy, THEN we can lynch him but so far you are holding him accountable for a predacessor's insane actions as if this drama has ANYTHING to do with the game. Dodgy messed up... He shouldn't have claimed... That said CES definitely shouldn't claim.

This is just flat out, and obvious misrepresentation.

If he is a power role as Dodgy claimed then we ought to lynch him or out him?

Nope, if he is a power role we definitely shouldn't lynch him. As I said before, we're not going to out him because he has already outed himself.

And if he is not a power role and simply trying to salvage the poor game he replaced into we ought to lynch him to save the Mafia a NK they could use for someone.

Do you not understand the concept of lynch all liars?

If he is the doc, he's ALREADY outed himself!

If Dodgy's claim is in any way believeable... Which it isn't... And there is no good that can come from lynching CES in that position...

You popose that CES is the Doc, who retracted a claim, and thus should be lynched if he claims vanilla... So best case scenario... We lose our Doc N1, bad play Dodgy. Otherwise, CES claims vanilla and we lynch him he turns up Doc.... Bad Play Fonz.... If CES claims vanilla and turns up mafia that would be one thing but I don't see it yet.

1. I do not propose that he is doc who retracted a claim, I propose that as of right now, I don't know what the hell he is, but the mafia probably do.

I wouldn't even put it past dodgy that he might have been a different powerrole. Think about it, if he's trying to screw the town, and hence me, what better than to get one powerrole lynched and the other outed day one? The best case scenario right now for town is him dying night one.

If he survives, we're in the same confusing position we are in now. Like i said before, WIFOM central.

2. Why the hell would he claim vanilla, then turn up doc? That's ridiculous craplogic.

Vote: Sweenytodd

[The Fonz]

He's not claiming vanilla, atm he's not claiming anything. I just think if he genuinely is a power role, the cat's out the bag for the scum anyway, so not claiming only serves to confuse the town.

[The Fonz]

What good would having him claim do anyways? If he says he's mafia, he's dead. If he says he's a townie, he's also dead. So no matter what he is, if he's forced into a roleclaim he'll just say that he's the doctor.

Untrue. If he's town, saving his own skin should take a back seat to giving the town accurate information, so getting lynched ought to be preferable to surviving by lying. He should claim truthfully, even if it means his own lynching. If he's scum, of course, it makes sense to claim doc, but it also makes sense to claim that if

he actually is

the doc. Vanilla is the only claim that ought to get him lynched, but he should still claim VT if that is what he, in fact, is.

[The Fonz]

Untrue. If he's town, saving his own skin should take a back seat to giving the town accurate information, so getting lynched ought to be preferable to surviving by lying.

But, he hasn't lied, by your own admission he's not claiming anything. Your original stance was pursuing a contradiction between Dodgy and CES, but you seem to have backed down from that?

You keep making out as if Dodgy and CES are completely unrelated. They're not. If one of them has lied, LAL applies to that player-role. You don't retract a genuine claim, it only confuses matters, and confusion helps the scum. The only good reason not to apply LAL is if there is a power role claim.

You haven't demonstrated that it's in the town's interests for him to claim at this point; sure, it's been a talking point, but we don't benefit from him claiming.

- If he's scum, he'll claim doctor anyway and we (presumably) won't lynch him.
- If he is the doctor, the mafia probably knew that as soon as Dodgy claimed.
- If he's not the doctor, the mafia probably assumed he was the doctor as soon as Dodgy claimed.

So you're accepting that if he is in fact, a powerrole, the scum pretty much know that anyway, so the only thing him not claiming does is keep information from the town? And yet you still think that's a good thing? If he's scum, his claiming or not neither helps nor hurts the town. I'm not opposing you here to create discussion: I'm opposing you because what you're suggesting is bad for the town. And if he claims vanilla, at the very worst we don't have the is he/isn't he farrago tomorrow (and the next day, and the next, until the scum either kill him or he is lynched).

Why does it help

the town

for CES to clarify which? The only benefit I can see to getting a definite answer is for the scum, who know whether or not to target him, and if he

isn't

the doctor, this discussion is putting stress on the real doctor, once again, making things easier for the scum.

I'll say this once and once only. If there is a doctor who isn't CES, he absolutely should not counterclaim him today. The advantage to the town is for everyone to have as much info on CES as possible, info the scum already have.

Tomorrow, he'll either be dead and we'll be glad we didn't waste a lynch on him

, or he'll be alive and we will be in no different a situation to if CES had not retracted the claim - as soon as anyone claims doctor, the mafia have the opportunity for WIFOM shenanigans, the claim retraction makes no odds to that.

What is bolded is pretty much the best case scenario right now. However, I disagree regarding if he's alive. If he's alive as a claimed doctor, and not counterclaimed tomorrow, we're in a far better position to know what's what than if the current situation persists and he lasts the night.

[The Fonz]

I'm not opposing you here to create discussion: I'm opposing you because what you're suggesting is bad for the town.

Ditto

You are asserting that it's good for us to know what Dodgy/CES is, because confusion is bad. Well, confusion for us is confusion for the mafia too. Obviously mafia have the edge on the "mafia" and "not-mafia" front, but when it comes to confusion between "doc" and "not-doc", that's the best confusion we can hope to maintain.

But the only situation in which that seems to have us coming out ahead is if Dodgy/CES was a townie, lying about being a doctor, which is the precise situation for which LAL was created.

Currently he's a good candidate for being the doctor. He may not be the doctor. This gives the mafia chance to screw up tonight. If CES claims, it will spell out, in nice big letters, what the mafia should do. It will not actually assist the town in any real sense apart from set our curious minds at rest. Answer me this:

- What will you/should we do if he claims doctor?
- What will you/should we do if he claims another power-role?
- What will you/should we do if he claims plain townie?

1. Not lynch him.
2. Not lynch him. Suggest that the real doc protect him. If he claims something that's neither cop nor doc, have the cop investigate him.
3. Lynch him on the basis of LAL. Both for metagame reasons, and so we don't have this whole kerfuffle every single day. Besides- if he's not the doc, we cannot out him later without revealing the real doc.

Now, I'm guessing for at least one of the latter two, you would push for a lynch on the "LynchAllLiars" mantra. If he's town, and tells the truth, this will be a mistake. If he's mafia, why would he claim anything but doctor? So we either end up confirming the doctor for the mafia, or confirming another role for the mafia and considering lynching them, or getting a false doctor claim we wouldn't act on anyway.

But the mafia are likely to think he's the doctor anyway in the absence of a claim to the contrary. And without a claim as such, the mafia can play 'did they leave him alive because he's one of them?' Or because they disbelieved the claim? Or to make us think one of the first two was the case?'

[The Fonz]

Right, so you want to:

1. Out the doctor;
2. Out another power-role and have the doctor's night action be spoken for; or
3. Lynch a townie.

This is

not

a great plan.

For the hudredth bloody time, Dodgy has already outed himself if Doc! So I wouldn't be outing the doctor, simply reducing the ability of the scum to play WIFOM with us.

Your reaction to scenario two, for the first time, seems scummy rather than simply misguided. Having the doc's night action spoken for

in order to protect another power role

is not a bad thing. It's far preferable to having the same power role offed at night because the doctor couldn't be sure of his innocence.

And yes, on a metagame level, lynching anyone caught in a lie is always the right move.

As you're asking me what I'd do if X and Y, what do you think we should do if:

a) A pro-town player who is not CES dies tonight
b) No one at all dies tonight.

[The Fonz]

EBWODP: That's assuming CES doesn't claim and isn't lynched.

[The Fonz]

I hope this is a cannonball and not a belly flop, Das

Dodgy: wow.

Now...

If we lynch CES:

-he's doc and mafia have a real sweet time picking off whomever they want
-he's scum and we all high-five each other
-he's vanilla (or something else) and we all (mafia, too!) shake our heads

Isn't that basically the situation whenever anyone is lynched? What does this add?

If we don't lynch CES:

-he dies and is doc
-he dies and is something else

-he doesn't die but someone else does- mafia dump us into WIFOM fever
-no one dies- WIFOM fever on steroids

Both of these are truly horrible situations, the worst case possible for the town, and they're exactly what everyone else seems to want.

I'm in favor of not lynching CES. I think we learn more having a 'known unknown' than not having it. Rather than do the mafia's job for them, I say let them kill the doc and let's turn our attention towards the other 10 unknowns (12 minus CES and my/yourself). If he's around tomorrow we can deal with him.

Well yes! The only reason we should lynch him today is if he's DEFINITELY NOT A POWER ROLE!

Fonz does catch my eye. My first re-read through gave me the distinct impression he wants CES to either get lynched for lying or claim Doc and get NK'd.

As opposed to having WIFOMania for however long it takes us to realise that we should just have had him claim in the first place? Too right!

[The Fonz]

Right, that last Dasq post actually made sense. I don't agree, but it makes sense. However, there are a couple things...

CES can be investigated if necessary, another doc can counter-claim later if necessary, and so the WIFOM can be mitigated and doesn't guarantee failure. By that time, we'll also have some dead players, and any dead scum might help clear things up too.

What if CES gets investigated

and

killed? And surely another doc counterclaiming later outs himself?

a) A pro-town player who is not CES dies tonight -> depends who it is. If it's the doctor, vote CES

I don't like this, but I can't quite put my finger on

why

.

b) No one at all dies tonight. -> I'd probably feel vindicated. I doubt the mafia would skip their kill, so the lack of kill means either CES isn't the doc but the doc protected him, or CES is the doc but the mafia thought he wasn't and killed who CES protected. Neither of these things will happen if the mafia know if CES is the doc or not, though.

Or the doc protected someone completely different, and the scum decided to leave CES alive to play WIFOM, and got unlucky... or, the no-kill, about the possibility of which I think you're being overly dismissive.

To try to make some headway here- how would you feel about an agreement to push CES into claiming first thing in the morning, provided he survives the night?

[The Fonz]

I don't want to make any deals based on information we haven't got. By tomorrow, we will have other stuff to go on. Secondly, I don't want to tell the mafia exactly what happens if they do or don't kill CES. That said, it sounds like a reasonable plan.

Fair enough. I do think we can't go on forever without a claim.

I don't think I have much more to add on this one - The Fonz and I simply disagree, and I don't think him much scummier for it. Unless there's a move to press CES from several other people, I move that we find a different target. thorgot's my current favourite.

Agreed, there's no reason for CES to claim without pressure, and it's quite obvious I won't get it applied however long I argue for it. My number one other suspect is where my vote currently resides.

[The Fonz]

If he doesn't, then there's a chance that we'll have no kill at night - giving us a little more time.

.

Sigh, I keep trying to stay away from this argument, but a no-kill is not necessarily good for town...

[The Fonz]

I agree almost entirely with Dasq. I don't think analysing Dodgy at this point is going to get us very far.

[The Fonz]

Then why not come up with a few reasons and get a wagon of your own rolling, eh CES?

[The Fonz]

The problem is, that I AM DOC thing can equally be played by scum claiming Doc, and if they end up not doing so, no-one notices anyway.

Dodgy claimed to have hinted strongly that he was Doc prior to outing himself, and claimed I was incredibly stupid for not seeing it.

[The Fonz]

There's no change of position whatsoever. Find where I suggested my desire for a claim from CES (which, it goes without saying, I still feel is in the interests of the town) is based on a desire to try to analyse Dodgy's actions/motivations.

[The Fonz]

I think dom:inc is getting confused by the distinction between the town (everyone still alive) and the Town (just pro-town players).

[The Fonz]

"Fishing around for a claim" can be scummy in the right circumstances, but

the town will eventually need to push someone, probably a couple of people, to a claim before lynching someone.

I think it is scummier to avoid getting your toes wet, personally.

WHOAH. Nononono. The fewer people who have to claim day one, the better for town. You're supposed to run people up because you believe they're scum, not to push claims. 'I want to pressure Thorgot to contribute more' is fine. 'I want a claim' in this scenario, isn't. CES is a different situation IMHO, because he's in that, kinda-claimed but not really, grey area.

[The Fonz]

It would have been more pro-town to explain that you find Thorgot scummy, vote him, and see if enough people agree with you that he has to claim. There's not really any good Town reason to mention claiming there. Of course, that in itself opens up the WIFOM possibility of 'it's so useless, town or scum, that either way it's an innocent mistake.' Yet I think the possibility of thorgot being naive enough to claim on your vote alone, remote as it might be, was not an impossibility, therefore it's a slight scum tell, if anything.

[The Fonz]

That reminds me,

unvote

I was on Sweenytodd before. inHim's first post seems quite promising.

Let's try a new angle.

Vote: Eletriar

[The Fonz]

Hmmmm, inHim's argument is crap, and attacks the one person who made the case against his predecessor. Shoots right back up to near the top of my scumlist.

[The Fonz]

*hi-fives inHim*

The Fonz, why exactly do you consider inHim's argument to be crap?

My reasons are as follows:

Up through page 8, and I think I have a pair o' scum:

pete d and The Fonz

What I have read from The Fonz concerning his support of a Lynch All Liars based lynch of CES really speaks of a mafia hoping for an easy lynch [/b]or some type of outright doc claim from someone[/b]. The Fonz has backed pete d a couple times randomly, and with my suspicions of pete d already floating around my mind, I think these two are up to no good.

Kudos to gorckat for saying something about this earlier, too. I'm writing him down as a good guy at the moment.

If by 'someone,' you mean CES, well duh. I've explained my reasoning on that enough times. Confusion hurts the town. If you mean someone else, precisely the opposite, I absolutely believe CES should not be counterclaimed today under any circumstances (I thought i'd explicitly

said

this, but I can't find it in my prior posts).

I backed Pete D a couple of times because a) he pressed the scummy Thorgot on this:

My vote was random. Why is it suspicious that I didn't unvote him?

Thorgot's deciding to stay on the southpaw wagon whilst refusing to openly support it was scummy, and Pete pressing him on it was a town action. Pete, additionally, was on the 'right' ie non-overreacting (and hence, non-suspicious) side of the second vote argument, plus he's been trying to press non-contributors. All in all, pretty good town behaviour.

He's attacked me and one other person I think is one of the more 'town' players thus far, and given props to someone who I find scummy. Add in how he's refused to explain 'scummy mediating' when pete asked him to.

Also, I'd like to hear from southpaw- we've had nothing in nearly three weeks.

[The Fonz]

@Inhim: mind explaining "scummy mediating"? It seems like a sketchy term to use.

Ha, I make up terms all the time, though this is one of my favorites. "Scummy mediating" is a more active form of fence-sitting. Fence-sitting is fairly passive, apathetic play while being a mediator requires some more dialogue. Up through what I had read at the time, I think you ran back and forth about opening Day 1 bandwagon votes being helpful to questioning the Southpaw bandwagon's direction. To those saying I "refused" to answer this question, I am very adamant when I replace into a game with my first read-through. pete d's question was posed to me on the most recent page, and I had stopped short of that when I left off a couple days ago.

Thankyou.

The Fonz, you called my arguments crap, but went on to answer my questions, indicating that they are indeed valid. The "someone" I have referenced did not point to CES, else I would have said "CES." Vocal players do exert more pressure on the less active, and I still feel that your arguments about lynching CES had the ulterior motive of outing the Doc, one way another (by lynch or by claim).

I responded to them because CES asked me 'Why do you find InHim's arguments crap?' What was I supposed to do there? Look, I think I've been clear enough that I thought that if someone else is the doc, counterclaiming today is the worst possible outcome. There's not really any more to be said on the matter.

Ha, and there you go with backing up pete d again.

a) he pressed the scummy Thorgot

You shifted the load that you were bearing for pete d right on top of Thorgot. As you can tell, I don't always hunt after the explicit. The implications of a couple of The Fonz's posts have been to shun people from attacking pete d.

No, I was explaining why I thought your arguments were crap, in response to CES' question. Hence, it made sense to explain

why

I found pete d townish. Also, what do you mean by 'the load I was bearing for pete d?'

One more thing you said that bugged me, The Fonz:

and attacks the one person who made the case against his predecessor

I attacked you because I think you're scummy. I'm not going to even attempt to explain any of SweeneyTodd's actions, and if you expect me to do so, I'd call that unrealistic and even scummy. I didn't even read Todd's posts unless I needed to for context. But this paragraph is becoming more meta than I'd like so I think it's at a fine ending point.

I'm not expecting you to personally defend Sweenytodd's actions. But the fact remains, I found him scummy, and by attempting to discredit me you discredit the case I had been building against him before he was replaced, without actively having to defend him. It's a clever form of OMGUS.

As for 'I'm attacking you because I find you scummy' that's surely true if you're town and not if you're scum, so doesn't really add much. FWIW, I'm attacking you because I find both you and ST scummy.

[The Fonz]

Anyone else got any dry, bland, generic, and yet at the same time original and insightful readings on the game thus far?

[The Fonz]

Well, I'm back (see V/LA for why I haven't been posting). I've been keeping my counsel here in part, waiting for the replacements to come out with some content, and in part it's thrown me that everyone I suspect seems to get replaced shortly after.

Unvote

I'm really not buying the Kilm wagon. It seems it began with him being attacked for following me in supporting waggoning CES to claim. The accusation was that he seemed to be pretty much blindly following me. This concerns me, since there seemed to be plenty of people willing to jump in in a similar manner on the opposite side of that argument, and few of them seem to be receiving the same scrutiny. Kilm's position may have had someone else defending it forcefully, but it wasn't an easy or popular one to take. Since then the bandwagon seems to have built on her for non-contribution, and that tends not to be a scumtell in non-newbs.

Of course, I'm not ruling out the following series of events: Kilm is scum and knows I'm town, notices that I'm putting myself in the firing line bigtime by pushing an unpopular cause and thinks my lynch is likely, and wants to make herself look good by opposing a town wagon. But that still, at worst, makes it a null-tell. It's definitely not something I'd use to support her lynch unless there was a decent amount of other scummy behaviour from that direction, and there just isn't.

If we're talking blindly following experienced players, try Sweenytodd on for size. I unvoted upon his replacement, but combine InHim's 'I think this day has run its course' when the mod had just told us there's another replacement coming who won't be able to contribute immediately, and saying he would be happy, albeit with warning, to hammer someone on whom he hasn't even attempted to state a case, and he looks scummy as anything. He stated that he found me more town now due to my responses, but what on Earth happened to his suspicions of pete d?

@InHim: Please put in order of most-least likely to be scum

and why

:

Me
Pete
OTM
Kilmenator

Vote: inHimshallibe

[The Fonz]

EBWODP:

that 'it begins with him being attacked' ought to be, of course, 'it begins with

her

...'

[The Fonz]

Could someone please explain to me why the Dodgy Wagon got derailed? I don't understand.

There were only ever a couple of votes on him. Then he claimed doc.

[The Fonz]

Wrong. The goal to win is to make things simpler, which is most commonly making it more straightforward.

By your own implication ("commonly"), it sometimes is not. IMO, this is one of those times where clearing up confusion is not in the town's interests.

Your logic leads us to conclude that we should always mass-claim Day 1, because then the town would be more informed! Is this what you believe to be good town play?

That's not what his logic suggests at all. He already said you should withhold information about your role. The logical conclusion, one I agree with, is: it is in the town's interests, in so far as it is possible, that the town have as much information as the scum have.

You're saying that the mafia hold all the cards and that townies claiming information cannot benefit them and will benefit us. Neither of these are safe assumptions, and in this particular case I would strongly challenge both.

FOS: IH

With regard to the CES claim, these assumptions are actually true. They know. We don't. Nonetheless, I believe there are four of us in the claim now camp, which obviously isn't enough.


[

[The Fonz]

Of course, it's very hard to discuss this sans reopening the whole debate, but then, you had to know that was a possibility when you attacked IH for being on the 'CES should claim' side of the debate.

[The Fonz]

I have no problem whatsoever with that logic. Not only that, but IH is veteran enough a player that we can confirm his sincerity by reading past games.

The only problem I have with that argument is that it seems something of a tangent.

[The Fonz]

His. He hasn't said anything recently i find objectionable.

[The Fonz]

I'm still reading through people...not sure where I want to put my vote at the moment...more in a (hopefully) short bit.

You're currently my second biggest suspect. I'd like to see some pretty substantial analysis, if you wouldn't mind.

[The Fonz]

I have to agree strongly with OTM, there was nothing remotely ad hominem about any of his last few posts.

[The Fonz]

Ad hominem attack. Wher you don't attack the argument, but the person making. IE, instead of something like:

It's simply untrue to say my behaviour constitutes pushing a quicklynch

an ad hom attack looks like this:

I'm not responding to that, you're obviously a freaking moron

or

You're such a n00b. I can't believe you'd come out with something so dumb.

Like I'd pay any attention to what you're saying, you're Canadian. When has anything worthwhile or good come out of Canada?

Exaggeration for comic effect, but you see my point. Ad hom attacks out of frustration are not uncommon in town players (when you feel someone is deliberately and repeatedly misrepping you, or just not listening to what you're saying) but they can also be a scum tactic, to obscure the merit of the opposing argument. Ad hom attacks are bad because if someone's making crap arguments, you should be able to state why they're crap, rather than resorting to ad hominem.

QFT= quoted for Truth. A short way of saying 'I agree with the above.'

[The Fonz]

I guess you're no longer looking at Gorckat as a 'good guy,' then InHim?

I still find the 'I'll hammer pretty much anyone' thing too much to get past. However, should you come up town, I do think that OTM/Kilm thing might be worth looking at.

[The Fonz]

Your initial refusal to respond to my request for scumminess rankings and your baseless AdHom accusation don't sit right, either, I'm afraid. Also, I found Sweenytodd v. scummy, I know you can't be expected to answer for him, but it doesn't change that the combined vibe I'm getting is extra-scummy with nachos.

If it were just the one thing, I could maybe overlook it, or more likely read old games of yours to see if that kind of attitude's consistent. But there's far more scummy than not there, and I don't think one decent point is enough to change that.

[The Fonz]

InHim, would you at least consider claiming before you disappear over the weekend? I could see the game stagnating over, 'Well I wanna hammer InHim, but he hasn't claimed.'

[The Fonz]

I don't personally find InHim's refusal to claim when wagonned to -1 scummy. There are plenty of people who believe in never claiming day one. There are definitely scenarios that could cause a town player not to claim, though I'm not going to speculate what they are for obvious reasons.

That said, of course, claiming remains the one thing he could have done that might have shifted my vote off of him today.

It's unusual, and interesting, that this wagon has stalled at -1...

[The Fonz]

Those not voting are pete d, superstring, pie and CES. Superstring and pie are in the push-CES-to-claim camp, alongside Kilm and myself. Frankly, if all of us refused to vote anyone else until CES claims, we could actually force it, because then seven of the remaining eight would be needed for lynch. That said, that could cause a standoff.

[The Fonz]

Because there's enough people in the 'CES should definitely not claim today' camp that we wouldn't have the votes to get him to L-1.

[The Fonz]

1) Dodgy wouldn't have claimed as scum. It's extremely unlikely that he was this mad at a scumpartner for harrassing him, correct? So if he was scum with town harrassing him he'd want to screw over town with his claim. But by claiming doc he would have put himself and his scumteam in an awkward position and wouldn't hurt the town at all via his action. Fonz, if you're town you should have recognized this. So yeah, Dodgy was town pissed off at someone whose alignment he did not know, and he claimed something to shut them the hell up because he was pissed at them.

I think I

did

recognise that:

Also to the Fonz,

I think, given that Dodgy's replacement will be basically confirmed town

I didn't see the connection, was there some proof given to Dodgy's claim or is this a WIFOM mafia wouldn't do what he did kind of thing? I just re-read this section so please point me to where you got that because i missed it.

I couldn't see, at the time, why a scummer would claim doc there as a tactic. Plus, he'd been strongly hinting powerrole in the previous three or four posts.

I then go on to explain how CES' withdrawal of the claim rather threw me.

[The Fonz]

I'm not experienced, but he basicalyl abandoned a newbie game that he was modding with me in it, at the same time he was lurking here.

I would also say that, if I were replacing in as CES did, I would only retract the doc claim were it false.

I'm quite uncomfortable with OTM's last comment...

[The Fonz]

Now we're under deadline, I really think we need to drop the MBL thing. We clearly don't have the votes to force a claim, and further discussion of that subject is not in our interests.

I will not under any circumstances support the lynch of the following today:

Kilm
Pete
MBL (kinda academic really)
Pie
Gorckat
Dasquian
IH

We need Superstring to contribute significantly as soon as he returns.

I'm still on inHim for the moment, but will do re-reads of Nanook and OTM, along with their predecessors, shortly. I'd recommend most people try to reacquaint themselves with who replaced whom, it could be important.

[The Fonz]

Also, Fonz, we still have two weeks on the deadline. It strikes me as odd - not neccesarily scummy, but quite odd - that you outright ruleout most of the town.

We're on page 20. I'd find it odder if a player didn't have a shortlist of guys he'd be willing to see lynched by now. Being willing to support any lynch at all is scummy. I don't see anything like as strong a case against anyone else as against Nanook, OTM, inHim or possibly Superstring, nor a particularly great possibility of one emerging.

The fonz can ruleout most of the town all he'd like .. but I like my vote and I'm sticking with it. I'm pretty sure of myself that he's scum (which by the way isn't something that I say in a game very often).

You can insist on voting MBL all you like... but if you want anyone other than the four named above lynched, you'll have to do it without me.

This is why I want a claim from you. Savvy?

Welp, you're in the minority. You already have a half a claim from me. You know damned well any scumteam tonight is going to think, "hmm, should we kill that guy or not, he might be the doctor" because of the halfclaim. They'll be worried about whether there's a "real" doctor who might protect me. They also may know I'll play a big part in catching them if they leave me alive. So I don't exactly expect to be alive tomorrow but we'll see.

That doesn't make sense. Why would a 'real' doc protect someone he knew to have fakeclaimed?

Also, I think Nanook is blowing smoke about his scumteam not wanting to kill me tonight. A shot at a power role is better than a random choice. Plus, if they don't kill me and I happen to be a successful doc,

I'm confirmed and they're a day behind on kills.

My WIFOMeter is going off here. You'd be a million miles from confirmed. It would be entirely possible you were scum who'd opted to no-kill.

[The Fonz]

My vote on Southpaw was essentially random

I really don't like The Fonz's attempts to soft-pedal his vote by repeatedly calling it random, even after being called on it. If you're willing to stir up conversation with a bandwagon, you're willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to describing your own vote. It was provocative and intended to wagon, and there's nothing random about that. And if you're scum, there's nothing "random" about choosing "randomly" between two townies to wagon, if that's what those two happen to be. Choose your words carefully, and when someone calls you on their inaccuracy, repeat them at your own peril.

Your argument here appears to be that what I was saying would be untrue, were I scum. Well, duh. My vote had nothing to do with Southpaw's actual behaviour, the intention was to wagon for waggoning's sake in order to generate discussion, and therefore WAS random. I'd have had no more qualms about waggoning any other player who had gotten to two votes.

You're apparently a longtime vet, yet you're playing incredibly newbishly. That said, I don't think attacking you further is going to yield much more info right now. You'd have to do summat VERY pro-town to change my opinion.

Why back off the person you think is almost definitely scum at this point? Why call his behavior newbish instead of just plain scummy?[/quote]

Because it was like page three. Even if you think the person you're arguing with is giving off the biggest scumtells in the history of mafia, it's not a good idea to focus entirely on one individual and let everyone else pass by unscrutinised.

I'd asked him three or four times to explain

why

a third vote in that situation was remotely dangerous, he'd consistently refused, and instead resorted to personal attacks. It's clear that attacking him further wasn't going to produce anything but more of the same.

Also, the argument between the two of us was getting poisonous, personal and overshadowing everything else in the game. Not to mention that it was doing my head in, and making me INCREDIBLY angry.

As for the newbish comment, I think you'll find I called him scummy more than enough times. That particular bit was just borne outta frustration at an experienced player playing in such a bizarre and asshole-ish manner.

[The Fonz]

Your argument here appears to be that what I was saying would be untrue, were I scum. Well, duh. My vote had nothing to do with Southpaw's actual behaviour, the intention was to wagon for waggoning's sake in order to generate discussion, and therefore WAS random. I'd have had no more qualms about waggoning any other player who had gotten to two votes.

No, that's a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation by you, duh.

My argument is that the fact that you're soft-pedaling your intentions makes it more likely you're scum. Or you're being sloppy, stubborn town. A vote carries intention/motive and has a target, both of which need to be random for your vote to be a random vote. You claim your target was random which is not really true because you chose between two people, and you don't even bother to claim your vote had random intentions because you clearly had motive.

That's simply untrue. You've been around a while, you MUST have seen a random bandwagon before. I think I've made perfectly clear what my motivation was in randomly bandwaggoning Southpaw.

Your stubbornness is annoying and willingness to mislead town to alter opinions of oneself is a "classic scumtell", but apparently a hallmark of The Fonz we're going to have to learn to put up with regardless of your alignment.

Apart from I'm not attempting to mislead anyone.

[The Fonz]

I just read through page 8 and wow, I must say the following statement applies to both Fonz and Dodgy:

If you are town, then this is the single worst town performance I've ever seen.

OK, joking, but seriously Fonz, if you're town I think you'd benefit from taking a less dogmatic approach. If you're scum, well, you're doing a fine job of trying to clarify something that's important for scum to have clarified right now and is NOT important for town to have clarified for reasons which I've already explained. (Whatever claim was made was unwarranted by gamestate.)

quot;]Dodgy and CES are the same person. One of them lied.

Fonz lies here. Lynch all liars? No, that's dogmatic.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Saying I'm lying here is in itself a lie. Dodgy, CES, and you are for game persons the same person. There is absolutely no logical distinction between retracting a claim and denying it.

If he really were the doc, why would he retract the claim?

To keep scum on their toes. Everyone else has put themselves in Dodgy/CES/MBL's position and agreed, I believe. You apparently have not. Note that if I am vanilla, the same applies. I retract the claim to give scum less information to work with, and make an argument that convinces town it's the right thing to do.

Have I not? Let me state this as clearly as possible. If I were CES, as Doc, I WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS HAVE RETRACTED THE CLAIM. It's simply not the pro-town thing to do there. You don't retract a true claim. It confuses the town, whilst still leaving the enormous bullseye on your back.

I'd be all for lynching CES right now, in the absence of a power role claim.

Based on your

TRUE

statement that

either

CES

or Dodgy

lied, I assume?[/quote]

Fixed it for you.

1) No, mafia does NOT know my alignment. Personally, I think I'd lean towards "Dodgy was trying to draw a kill as vanilla" if I had to evaluate this externally. Perhaps if YOU are mafia you've reached the conclusion that I am doc, but you'd be guessing, and potentially guessing wrong.

Absolute, palpable horseshit. Are you seriously telling me that as town, Dodgy fakeclaimed in that situation

to help the town

? That's truly laughable.

Here's CES' take on why he thought Dodgy did what he did:

Objectively, he probably claimed to help the scum nail the doctor at night.

Even your immediate predecessor believed Dodgy did it to help the scum, not the town.

2) The list of possibilities presented was entirely relevant and you calling it scummy is absurd.

It didn't add anything whatsoever to the discussion. It was something that was available to everyone to see for themselves. Plus, he used it in order to justify the conclusion that I was rolefishing, which is a complete non-sequitur. Also note that every possibility he noted, involved one of CES/Dodgy lying. Still so keen on the list?

3) Lynch all liars is a dreadful way to play. I can show you several instances in which well-reasoned lying won town the game. Again, your dogmatism will lower your win percentage.

Lynch all liars is correct. It improves the standard of play. As town, you should only lie if you're willing to be lynched for it and still think it helps, or if anything that confirms you a liar also confirms you an innocent.

He's not claiming vanilla, atm he's not claiming anything. I just think if he genuinely is a power role, the cat's out the bag for the scum anyway, so not claiming only serves to confuse the town.

Cat's not out of the bag, and the rest of the town seems fine with being just as confused as they were before Dodgy claimed--they didn't know who the doc was then and now they think they might but aren't sure. They may actually be getting pro-townish vibes from me, as a result of me stridently making this argument from the perspective of town.

The rest of the town? Last time I checked, there were four of us who wanted you to claim. Distorting the facts to suit your case, eh?

Untrue. If he's town, saving his own skin should take a back seat to giving the town accurate information, so getting lynched ought to be preferable to surviving by lying. He should claim truthfully, even if it means his own lynching.

This is terrible play. A player needs to judge what they can accomplish by withholding information. If a cop can lie to earn himself another investigation, it's not a bad play if he can sell town on the reasoning.

Are you seriously saying a cop should claim townie or some such, then the day after turn around and say 'No, actually I was the cop?' I'd lynch on sight. Again, only if you're willing to be lynched, and still think despite that it would benefit the town (ie, you get lynched, come up town, but your investigations nail two scumbags).

The advantage to the town is for everyone to have as much info on CES as possible, info the scum already have.

Scum does not have this info, and you're just repeating yourself hoping someone will think 0 = 1 if you insist upon it often enough. The more you repeat this, the more I think you're scum with your mind made up about Dodgy's role, and that's why you're so insistent that scum knows what my role is.

Do I have to spell this out for you? The scum know you're not scum, if indeed that is the case. He has marked himself out as the most likely candidate to be doc already. Therefore, re-claiming doesn't make him/you any more likely to be nightkilled. Repeating that 'the scum do not have this info' does not make it true either. They do.

Not to mention, the incredible scummitude of you pulling a definition of 'random' out of your arse, then claiming that I was deliberately misleading the town because I don't share it. THis was a win-win for scummy old you, wasn't it? I say, yeah, you're right, it wasn't random, you say 'HA! He just admitted to deliberately misleading the town!' I stick to my guns, and you can bang on about 'misleading the town and then being obstinate when called on it.'

[The Fonz]

1. You insist that either CES or Dodgy lied.

True

2. You insist it's never pro-town to retract an ill-made power role claim.

Not true, I said it's never pro-town to retract a true power role claim.

3. You insist Dodgy couldn't possibly have claimed doc to help the town.

The balance of evidence points strongly the other way- ie, he was out to ruin the game, by screwing the town (and in particular me). It certainly

didn't

help the town. Surely you agree that fakeclaiming is,

in general

bad for the town?

4. You insist that Lynch all Liars is unequivocally correct.

To quote one who's made the case much better than I:

If a person lies in one of the rare situations when it would actually make good logical sense for a good guy to lie, why would you assume that they're scum?

If I find a situation where it's better to lie, then I'll give on that instance. Give me a good example that might be generally applicable, I might reconsider.

So if we talk about LAL, the behaviour modification is simply a wonderful side effect. You shouldn't LAL because it will change behavior (I should change how I wrote that piece up. Punishing bad play is a side effect, not the reason.)

I

should LAL despite

my

instincts, Liars are almost always scum.

Your earlier example (faking a one-shot self-protect) is no argument against LAL either. Since the only way it could be confirmed you were lying is if you died.

Goin to work now, will answer the rest later.

[The Fonz]

1. You insist that either CES or Dodgy lied.

I think the misunderstanding here is that CES

retracted

the claim without

confirming or denying

it. I agree with the Fonz that the claim needs to be worked back out of him, but there was never really any lying going on.

I don't agree that that is possible, though. IMHO, there's a denial implicit in any claim retraction.

Further to the LAL thing: I'm not dogmatic about it at all. I wouldn't LAL lynch a guy I had an innocent on as a cop (or that another cop i was sure was kosher had an innocent on) or my mason buddy. I simply believe LAL is the best play for town, and, at worst, encourages pro-town players to think long and hard before lying about anything.

5. You insist scum are 100% certain I'm the doc.

Nope. Do us all the favour of actually reading this thread. I never said that, nor do I believe it. You have, if not scum, marked yourself out as a likely powerrole. If they decide not to act on that, it's WIFOMania. Are you still alive because you're scum? Because they didn't believe your claim? Because they thought you'd look even scummier if you survived the night, and didn't need to kill you? Because they got a powerrole read on someone else they thought it incredibly unlikely you'd protect, even if you were the doc?

6. You insist that your vote placed to intentionally foment a bandwagon was "random".

See below.

7. You insist "random" has a new definition not found in any dictionary, to which only you are privy.

Random: governed by or depending on chance.

of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

My vote on Southpaw had nothing to do with his behaviour: it was chance that he happened to be one of those on two votes, and equally chance which caused him, out of the set of those on two votes, to be the target of my bandwaggoning-for-the-sake-of-bandwaggoning. Therefore, random.

And this is a serious question: have you honestly never come across a random bandwagon before? (I would ask you to search 'random bandwagon' but for some reason, the search function doesn't seem to find any responses even for 'bandwagon' on its own).

[The Fonz]

Dasq is quite right, of course, since I'm not willing to lynch MBL today, this whole back and forth is getting us nowhere. I'm afraid I just have something of a short fuse, and react badly to being misrepresented.

To try to get back on track, with regard to where I was prior to this little episode, I was considering the lynch merits of Nanook, inHim and OTM. A re-read makes me think I don't have that huge an issue with Nanook, inHim still looks scummy for all the reasons I've set out previously, though for some reason I'm getting a not-scum vibe off him at present. (Though, inHim: could you point me to a couple completed games on either side? Would be useful in gauging if this really is just a playstyle thing).

Most of my issues with thorgot have been stated previously. The whole random vote thing in particular. I'll pull out the following post:

OK, next question: who do you find suspicious, and why? A lot's happened, and you haven't said much (and still aren't).

Sure.

CES isn't very suspicious, but he did retract a doctor claim, and being "definitely town" is a death warrant.

The Fonz, for attacking Dodgy, isn't very suspicious to me, because he is drawing too much attention.

Gorckat isn't very suspicious to me, because he is so inactive.

Dasquian, I find you somewhat suspicious, because you are that perfect level between Gorckat and The Fonz, being active and helpful but not offending anybody.

As an example of quite outstanding wishy-washiness, and lack of real reasoning. The only thing he points out as being remotely scummy is that Dasq is not lurking, but less out on a limb than I was.

Now, to when OTM himself enters. He then makes a point of going away from how his predecessor acted, as if he was stating his suspicions not because he thought they were valid or would help to catch scum, but in order to distance from his predecessor and make himself look innocent.

The player who is consistently showing up on my scumdar is kilmenator. She has not posted a lot of content and when she does, her suspicions tend to run counter to my own, so that is where I am most comfortable placing my vote.

vote: kilmenator

Note that he doesn't actually explain what these suspicions of his are, to which Kilm's suspicions run counter. This looks to me like he's looking for an excuse to vote Kilm.

The next three posts contain FOS on three different people: Nanook, IH, inHim. Keeps vote on Kilm, claiming her behaviour in this game is OOC.

Then loads of arguments with IH, which I'd actually agree with OTM on, it's one of my pet peeves- a pointless argument about semantics, and different people having different definitions of a concept.

Then we have the infamous unvote:

I thought kilm's post was good

unvote:

vote: inhimshallibe

No particular reasoning expressed as to why Kilm's post was good. To me, this looks like he was waiting for a pretext to jump off his scumbuddy onto whichever wagon looked like it was gaining steam.

Then OTM comes out with an absurdly WIFOM argument about how he couldn't possibly have come into the game and immediately began bussing his scumbuddy, even though a) surely when there isn't a wagon on your buddy is a perfect time to bus them? and b) he hardly made a convincing case against her that would cause a substantial wagon to build.

I have to break down a HUGE post just to say I agree with it now? Actually, I didn't agree with every single point of kilmenator's. But I thought her analysis was logical and very pro-town. The main problem I had with kilm was offering little content (compared to other games I've read). Her making a huge post of analysis, which I think is sensible analysis, is enough to make her less suspicious to me.

Well, yes, you do actually, or, you know, at least mention one specific point you found convincing.

Is that part you quoted supposed to be your response to post 381? I was hoping you would explain why, according your theory, I started up a bandwagon on my scumbuddy as my first action upon replacing into this game. Your theory does not match the facts here. On my read-through, kilmenator and thorgot

(and eletriar)

were the most suspicious to me. I got the PM telling me that thorgot was innocent, of course, so I voted for kilmenator. You're asking people to believe that I immediately dropped into a game that had plenty of confusion going on, and decided to bus one of my mafia buddies? Sorry, I'm not that sneaky/weird.

I'm not going to take your word for it that you're not that sneaky/weird. Your argument seemingly continues to be that it would be unlikely for scum replacing in in that situation to bus from the get-go, which I don't accept. Also, you didn't mention a suspicion of Eletriar in your first post, yet as soon as you decide you want to attack Nanook, you were suspicious of her all along.

Dude, I unvoted you because I decided your "I am not claiming because it would be bad for the town" strategy convinced me you probably were town after all, (mainly because I've never seen scum try that) so I didn't want you at lynch -1. And now you vote for me because of that action? This feels like some kind of weird reverse-OMGUS.

This is not a good reason. If inHim felt your reason for unvoting him was poor, he has every right to point it out.

I'm just trying to go by my gut here to make sure we get the best D1 lynch.

Hmmmm.

Vote: OffTheMark

[The Fonz]

Bah, I feel like I'm getting nitpicked here. I didn't post a huge response to kilm detailing my agreements/disagreements because I post from work and don't have time to write a huge post most of the time. I will respond to all this later when I can dedicate some time, but for now let me just make a few quick points:

I really don't like this argument. No-one's ever forced to post.

Now, to when OTM himself enters. He then makes a point of going away from how his predecessor acted, as if he was stating his suspicions not because he thought they were valid or would help to catch scum, but in order to distance from his predecessor and make himself look innocent.

Well sure, it looks that way if you first assume I'm scum. But as townie, of course I'm going to distance myself from my predecessor when I agree that he looked scummy before. Like I said, I was surprised to get a "townie" PM as thorgot. I stated my suspicions because that's what you do in this game. Should I have started off by defending thorgot's actions? I'm not him, so that's hard to do.

Well, firstly, working out whether there's a consistent, scummy explanation for your actions isn't a bad thing. Secondly, I dont' agree that it's the obvious thing to do as townie to distance from your predecessor- the obvious thing to do as townie is to start scumhunting. It's precisely that you

didn't

really 'state your suspicions' that I find you suspicious. You seemed more concerned with 'Oh, gee whiz, don't lynch me' than with providing analysis.

you didn't mention a suspicion of Eletriar in your first post, yet as soon as you decide you want to attack Nanook, you were suspicious of her all along.

I was slightly suspicious of Eletriar during my read-through but not as much as thorgot and kilmenator, so I didn't mention it at that time. Do I have to disclose ALL my thoughts in every single post?

Well, when replacing in, it tends to help to disclose as many as possible. The fact that you didn't express suspicion of Eletriar, then Nanook says something objectionable and, whoops, there's that suspicion of Eletriar I've had all along, doesn't sit right.

Yeah, I'm playing it safe- I wanna nail scum over a townie.

This is such a truism, I wonder why you feel the need to point it out.

Fonz at one point had me as his second scummiest, and most recently on his no-lynch list, even though I'd grant my recent play hasn't been outstandingly town.

An awful lot happened between those two points, though. A large part of my suspicion of you was based on your not really contributing anythign wrothwhile, and you responded immediately with some fairly decent (imho) analysis of inHim, pointing out apparent inconsistencies with regard to him banging on about me and pete being scumbuddies and not voting us and the 'willing to hammer two other people' bit.

There are also time issues, I think.

[The Fonz]

I really don't like this argument. No-one's ever forced to post.

I had to post to unvote her. Duh.

Why did you have to unvote her that second?

[The Fonz]

Because I didn't want her to get lynched. (duh again?)

*Rams head into brick wall*

You'd posted several times since she'd gone to L-2. She hadn't gone to L-1. So she wasn't in any more imminent danger of lynch than she'd been for a long time. So to my eyes, there was no rush to unvote her, and had you

had

a good reason for it, there was no reason you couldn't have waited until you had time to expound on it properly.

[The Fonz]

That's ludicrous. There's a huge gap between 'replying to a huge post point-by-point' and providing no worthwhile analysis whatsoever.

Let me repeat. She was at L-2. She'd been there for a long time, and no-one who wasn't already voting her was showing any particular inclination to switch to her. She wasn't in any imminent danger of lynch. Your panicky rush to unvote her, coupled with not bothering to provide any kind of reasonable explanation, makes me think you were just looking for any pretext to hop off that wagon.

[The Fonz]

OK, I see a few possibilities here:

1) You're a unremarkable pro-town role who is for some reason refusing to cooperate. This would just be poor play.

Absolutely untrue. A townie roleclaim won't save him anyway, and if somehow someone else does something very scummy between now and the deadline and he ends up not getting lynched, we're better off with him alive unclaimed, than alive as a claimed townie.

2) You can't claim for a pro-town reason.
3) You won't claim for a pro-town reason (it's even worse than getting lynched for not claiming).

The player BabyJesus has a policy of lynching claimed Doctors, since they're highly likely to be scum and if they're not, they won't survive the night anyway. Why is this relevant? Well, it works in reverse too- if you think there's any chance of surviving without a claim, you shouldn't claim.

So it makes sense for him to not claim as townie, and also as doc. So by not claiming, he leaves the scum in the dark as to whether he's powerrole. The antitown reasons you've suggested amount, basically, to 'too townie.'

[The Fonz]

Yes, I thought it meant VT. That is the obvious implication of being 'pro-town' and 'unremarkable.' This is a normal game, so I expect any role to be 'unremarkable' in the sense you are suggesting.

So it makes sense for him to not claim as townie, and also as doc. So by not claiming, he leaves the scum in the dark as to whether he's powerrole.

Only if he doesn't get lynched - which is your core assumption, that he might yet get out of it. Everyone knows who he is if he does get lynched, unless he's something beyond a plain townie or doc anyway.

Well, quite. Again, if he is VT, the sole consequence of his claiming would be to get himself lynched, and if by some miracle a townie claim doesn't get him lynched, the town will be in a worse position than if he hadn't claimed. A vanilla townie should NEVER EVER EVER claim day one.

If he's our doc, I'd agree that he's taking a big risk here, one that I probably wouldn't take myself. But it's a logically consistent position that the payoff of not getting lynched as a claimed doc is barely better than getting lynched, so it's better to gamble on surviving without claiming (for which the payoff is hugely superior to either alternative).

The antitown reasons you've suggested amount, basically, to 'too townie.'

You're going to have to explain this for me. I thought he was scummy so I voted him. Other people agreed with him and he got to lynch -1. Then he's refusing to claim, and dragging it out limiting our options as the deadline draws closer. How is this "too townie"?

I'm not suggesting your

entire case

against him is 'too townie.' I'm saying this specific bit is too townie:

5) You're scum hoping to confuse us and avoid a lynch by doing something that rarely makes sense.

In response to this:

I'm entertaining the possibility that I'm wrong (shocking, eh?) and he's pro-town with a good reason for being tight-lipped, but I don't see how I can act on it as it seems much less likely than the obvious conclusion: he's scum (or otherwise anti-town) and he's bluffing.

That's not the obvious conclusion. Scum generally aren't enormously reticent about claiming power-role to save their own hides. Which brings us back to your point five. It's possible, but wouldn't be the first thing I thought of, that he's scum trying to confuse us. Frankly, I think the most likely explanation is one you've ignored: inHim has a policy/habit not to claim day one, regardless of alignment, and it's no tell at all. He's already told you if you're convinced by his prior actions that he's scum, then you should be voting him.

Here's another question: who

should

claim at lynch -1? Your logic suggests that everyone should hold on to that chance of surviving without a claim and fight to the bitter end. If you ask me, that sounds like a great way to get shit Day 1's where Every. Single. Person. refuses to play ball because, hey, they might get away without getting lynched, and then the town has to make blind lynches if they want a lynch at all.

Well, no, the town doesn't have to make blind lynches. You lynch the scummiest person, same as you always would.

To answer the actual question though, I don't myself support the 'never claim as doc day one' position, so I'd say any power role. What I'm saying is I understand the position, it has some merit, and it's not necessarily scummy. If you bought 'never claim as doc' the answer would be 'Any powerrole that isn't doc.'

[The Fonz]

OK, I hadn't realised inHim's refusal to claim Day 1 was a meta tactic. I agree that means his refusal to claim alone is not a tell.

That said, it's also not helpful to the town so why should we tolerate it? Anti-town play is anti-town play. I wouldn't expect anyone to put up with me if I had a meta play of sticking a fat, immoveable OMGUS vote on the first person to look my way, and if we're going meta, I don't think the game would be fun if everyone employed inHim's tactic, because...

It's not necessarily a meta, though. It's not fair to call a policy employed over several games a meta

Well, no, the town doesn't have to make blind lynches. You lynch the scummiest person, same as you always would.

So what if the scummiest person is the cop, but is refusing to claim even though it's clear they're going down? Surely if they can claim and redirect the mob, they should - they have a responsiblity to as a town power-role; as ANY town role!

As any town role? Even as VT? When I've explained how claiming as VT is never in the town's interest? Look, I'd agree with you on the specific case of cop.

This meta just doesn't work - getting a claim out of someone is a great way to evaluate whether you want to continue to risk lynching someone, and gives the town more to go on in retrospect because scum are forced to react to all the true claims and be held accountable for whether they chicken out or seem over-eager when someone claims super-cop-doc, etc, or how keen they are to buy their since-deceased scum-buddy's poor fake claim.

It isn't necessarily a meta. It's more a case of 'I believe the correct pro-town play here is not to claim.' It's no more a meta than 'I believe we shouldn't lynch claimed powerroles in the absence of a counterclaim.' There's no reason to think inHim's aim isn't to produce the best possible result for town in

this

game.

Also your 'getting a claim out of someone is a great way to blah blah blah...' is just untrue, and no reason at all to claim.

It seems to me you want inHim to claim so you can feel good about lynching him. Sorry, but you're just going to have to make your mind up on the merits here, if you're town.

[The Fonz]

I want inHim to claim so that if he claims something important, we have time to consider finding another lynch. At this point it's pretty academic, though. I don't think there's enough time left.

Also your 'getting a claim out of someone is a great way to blah blah blah...' is just untrue, and no reason at all to claim.

You're misrepresenting me here. I do not think that an individual should claim to directly flush out scum. I think that, as a site, the town benefits from forcing claims at lynch -1 and discussing them while the scum benefits from not opening up that avenue of discussion.

One very obvious application of this: if everyone claims, a mafia forced to claim on Day 1 will have to either claim VT or a fake power-role, which drastically increases the chances of them getting caught out there and then, or later in the game.

You know that's a meta right?

Also, it's untrue. Towns do not benefit from 'forcing' claims at L-1. Towns benefit from giving people the opportunity

to

claim at L-1 if they so wish, but it is also in the town's interest that players have the option not to do so.

Why would a mafia 'forced' to claim on day one be in any better position than one who refused and was lynched anyway?

[The Fonz]

I don't know. I'm not voting inHim, and I'm not psychic, so I can't comment on how likely it is any of the five on him decide to switch away. It's irrelevant anyway, as my reading of the probabilities isn't the same as inHim's, and it's his that matters.

Let me ask you this, though: let's assume for a second he gets lynched and comes up vanilla. How is the town any worse off for his not having claimed?

[The Fonz]

But a vanilla townie claim shouldn't change anyone's position. And besides, it's not like him not claiming hasn't gotten a reaction.

[The Fonz]

Can you explain what you meant by that last bit, Pie?