<Insert random pointless reasoning here>
433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
Agreed. In fact,pete d wrote: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.)
Unvotejust to get some darn discussion going.
Vote Southpaw-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.pete d wrote: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?
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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?Sweenytodd wrote:I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of theFOSwould 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 voteUnvote: Superstring91until we have more discussion.
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).
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.Dasquian wrote: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.
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
*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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
A second vote in a C9 is not dangerous at all.gorckat wrote: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).-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
But we hadDodgy wrote:The Fonz also wrote
Random voting came in after a few months of the games invention.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?
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.nothingto 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
I don't want to repeat what SS said, as he largely had it, but:
Because if we don't do anything to provoke reactions, we'll never find scum?Dodgy wrote:The Fonz wrote
Exactly my point, so why start a band wagon at this point?But we had nothing to go on at that point. Nothing.
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.
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.Overreacting to harmless votes is just a classic scumtell. Classic.
And secondly, What would you know aboutClassic 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.
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?
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.then what are you basing your FOS on?
Let me elaborate on your last staement by Quoting the entire sentence, which I think sums my point up exactly.....
To return to your initial, suspect comment:
You two so need anFOSto either expose your complete indiscretion or foolishness at putting someone that may be town at such a risk!-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dodgy wrote: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
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.Dasquian wrote: one of those "so obvious you have to discount it" mafia plays.
I'm voting you because you're the most scummyon 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!-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.pete d wrote: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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Sweenytodd wrote:. I would recommend that instead of a post such as this,
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.Thorgot wrote: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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.dom:inc wrote:
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.The Fonz wrote:
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.pete d wrote: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.
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.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.
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'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.
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.pete d wrote:
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.Fonzy wrote:Dodgy wrote:
@ 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.
As for, 'im place of a proper argument,' here's the argument:I wrote: 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...)
The Fonz wrote: 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dodgy wrote: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 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dodgy wrote:I've soFUCKINGhad enough of inexperienced players that talk fucking shit and try to pretend to everyone, that they know how to play this game with insight, ieThe 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....
That said, no reason to disbelieve the doc claim.
Unvote-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
So that it is out in the open, I received this personal message from Dodgy:
I find his attempts to personally threaten me because of a disagreement in a game childish and egomaniacal.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
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Eletriar wrote: I can understand annoyed, but it seems to be a general theme of his... Fonz, are you usually this defensive? Just wondering...
I'd say Gorckat ought to be proddedrather than voted, right now.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 postwasa 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 isfutile, 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
Your initial response was this:Sweenytodd wrote:Ok guys... I apologize about my recent lack of posting, i have had connectivity issues which I recently resolved. In response to
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.The Fonz wrote: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.
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!Sweenytodd wrote:I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of theFOSwould 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 voteUnvote: Superstring91until we have more discussion.
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?
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.In re-reading,
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.Dasqian wrote: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.
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.Also to the Fonz,
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.The Fonz wrote:I think, given that Dodgy's replacement will be basically confirmed town-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
ThereDasquian wrote: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.hasto 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
If he really were the doc, why would he retract the claim?Southpaw wrote: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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
I'm not buying that. You wrote:Cogito Ergo Sum wrote: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.
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.Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Okay, I'm retracting Dodgy's claim.
Objectively, he probably claimed to help the scum nail the doctor at night.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
That's a total misrepresentation. I'm not accusing CES of lying. I'm saying either CES or Dodgysuperstring91 wrote: 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.
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.
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.Lets not try and help the mafia with their NKs okay?-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
This is just flat out, and obvious misrepresentation.Sweenytodd wrote:
MOD EDIT.
Southpaw: 1 (thorgot)
gorckat: 1 ( superstring)
The fonz:2 (CES, sweenytod.)
thorgot: 1 (dasq)
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.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.
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.If he is a power role as Dodgy claimed then we ought to lynch him or out him?
Do you not understand the concept of lynch all liars?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.
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?
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...If he is the doc, he's ALREADY outed himself!
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.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.
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
That's because you're wrong, the continuing confusion hurts the town, and I'm doing my damnedest to demonstratedom:inc wrote:Its interesting to see that everyone thinks CES shouldn't claim yet Fonz is still pushing for one.why.
Let's look at those three possibilities.Youcanretract 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?
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.
But... they are playing the same role! For game purposes, they
How can they be one person, yetDodgy and CES are the same person. One of them lied.oneof 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.arethe 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.
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.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.
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)-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 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...If he is the doc, he's ALREADY outed himself!
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.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.
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 ifSouthpaw wrote: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.he actually isthe 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dasquian wrote:
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?The Fonz wrote: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.
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).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.
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.Why does it helpthe townfor 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 heisn'tthe doctor, this discussion is putting stress on the real doctor, once again, making things easier for the scum.
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.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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dasquian wrote:
DittoThe Fonz wrote:I'm not opposing you here to create discussion: I'm opposing you because what you're suggesting is bad for the town.
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.
1. Not lynch him.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?
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.
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?'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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dasquian wrote: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 isnota great plan.
Your reaction to scenario two, for the first time, seems scummy rather than simply misguided. Having the doc's night action spoken forin order to protect another power roleis 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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
Isn't that basically the situation whenever anyone is lynched? What does this add?gorckat wrote: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
Both of these are truly horrible situations, the worst case possible for the town, and they're exactly what everyone else seems to want.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
Well yes! The only reason we should lynch him today is if he's DEFINITELY NOT A POWER ROLE!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.
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!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.
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
Right, that last Dasq post actually made sense. I don't agree, but it makes sense. However, there are a couple things...
What if CES gets investigatedDasquian wrote: 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.andkilled? And surely another doc counterclaiming later outs himself?
I don't like this, but I can't quite put my finger onDasquian wrote:a) A pro-town player who is not CES dies tonight -> depends who it is. If it's the doctor, vote CESwhy.
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.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.
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
Fair enough. I do think we can't go on forever without a claim.Dasquian wrote:
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.
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.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.-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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.Dasquian wrote:
"Fishing around for a claim" can be scummy in the right circumstances, butthe 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.
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
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 Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK
-
-
The Fonz Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9014
- Joined: April 2, 2007
- Location: UK