You Greeks cannot fool me!
Mini 500 - Cult Mafia - Game Over!
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the "edit" quoted by Pwayne part of Blackstrike's signature.flameaxe wrote: *gasp* I do not approve of this.
This is kind of obvious when you consider that blackstrike posted at:Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: 13
But the signature edit thing reads:
Unless blackstrike has a TARDIS, there is nothing odd about it...Last edited by Dr. Blackstrike on Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:45 am; edited 1 times in total-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Can't help you there.Black wrote: How many townies are in the game?
Interesting. It is true that any claimed vanilla will almost certainly be cultised but a townie lynch is not "almost as good" as a scum lynch. If we get into the situation where someone is forced to claim vanilla, then we are basically forced to lynch a townie. It is not a good thing; it is a situation best avoided.Black wrote: I would say that in this game, a townie lynch is almost as good as a scum lynch.
Why? Townies are the lifeblood of the cult. No townies= no recruits, No recruits= good.
Therefore, any townie claim should be punishable by lynch.
Plus, remember that even if the vanilla lynches hurt the cult, they help the mafia. There are two enemies we need to consider.
In short, if someone does claim vanilla they really force our hand. But that just demonstrates that the vanillas should do all they can to avoid having to claim.
a) Depends on the set-upBlack wrote: Other things:
a) How much of an effect would it have on balance if the cult leader was the day one lynch?
b) How many townies are likely in the game? There need to be enough to give the cult a chance along with power roles to help us get the cult/mafia.
b) I've never been in a cult game before, so I can't really say.
This is so wrong!Black wrote: Therefore:
I think that townies should try get killed by the mafia. It hurts the cult.
IF every vanilla began to try and get killed by the scum (I assume that you mean that the vanillas should play very well and draw attention to themselves) then the logical response for the scum would be to target quieter players and for the cult to target the loudest. This ends up in WIFOM, of course, but the point is that imposing some sort of uniform strategy will only serve to sort power roles from vanillas. In short, your strategy does the very OPPOSITE of what you suggest its purpose is.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I said this back in post #34.Trojan Horse wrote: I had a thought: how on earth are we going to handle claims at the start of the game? Once we've reached a consensus on who is scummy, should we demand a claim from that person? If we do, and that person says "townie", we're in a bit of a pickle. It may well be best to lynch them; they may be lying, and even if they're not, it'll deny the cult a possible recruit.
At this stage of the game, I think the only real difference the cult makes to play strategy is that it provides a good reason for lynching claimed vanillas. A vanilla lynch is still very bad, because it helps the scum, but it is better than the cult gaining members.
Easier said than done.Flameaxe wrote: I don't think lynching vanillas is a good idea. Period. Lets get the cult recruiter D1 so we don't even have to worry bout it. Kk?
Hang on. You are saying that BS sounds 'culty' because he wants to eliminate the vanillas? And you voted on the basis of this.Flameaxe wrote: I'm gonna have to agree with this post entirely. Everything I've heard from you has been from a 'culty' point of view. You just really seem like you don't want to help the town that much and are more worried about eliminating the amount of recruitable townies...aka...the vanilla ones...
I'm not a fan of your play...and I think pressure would be a nice discussion starter right now...Unvote, Vote: Dr. Blackstrike
You're misrepresenting what was said. Pwayne was clearly not calling for the lynch of vanillas, he was saying (as I have been also) that a dead vanilla is better than a claimed and therefore recruited vanilla.Flame wrote:
To me, this strategy just seems like the cult is all that matters here. THERE IS STILL A MAFIA, AND THEY DO HAVE A WIN CONDITION. Lynching vanillas fights back against the cultists, but is basically helping the mafia get closer to a win.Pwayne wrote: While there may be instances where lynching vanilla is of benefit, I think those instances are rare. But yes, we are better of we dead vanillas then recruited vanillas.
There are real problems with vanillas trying to be NKed, I addressed those earlier. Of course, ideally the mafia will NK the cultists, but second to that the best thing is for the mafia to NK vanillas. It means we don't lose our power roles and it makes the cult's job more difficult.Flame wrote:
Wouldn't a townie want the mafia to kill the CULTISTS...so the town could, I dunno. Win?BS wrote: I'm not advocating lynching townies as much as I'm advocating them trying to be killed in the night by the mafia. Why? I repeat, because it's another night that has gone by without a power role dying and one less potential cultist.
Flame's voting basis is ridiculous. His subsequent attempts to justify it on the basis of pressure ignore the fact that discussion was happening anyway. Plus, he seems adamantly against the lynching of vanillas. "Period".
Unvote, Vote: Flameaxe-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Nobody is calling for the lynch of all vanillas; that's a strawman you have raised.Flame wrote: Tell me right now, what is the fucking problem with not wanting to lynch vanillas? Nothing wrong with trying to lynch the goddamn scum.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you: A lynch of a mafia or cult leader is great. That is what we want. However, if someone claims vanilla then it makes sense to lynch them, since they will in all likelihood be culted. It is not that vanilla lynches are good, nobody except the mafia will want a vanilla lynch, but it is a practical necessity in a cult game.
Way back in #34 I even said:Flame wrote: The way he (and alot of people so far) have been viewing this game is that it is Town Vs. Cult. I don't really like repeating myself so many times like this, but what the hell. Mafia. That should be all I have to say.
And you know what, in BS's next post he admitted I was correct. His plan was anti-town, sure, but he abandoned it once it was pointed out and it really just looks like a honest mistake.Vollkan wrote: Plus, remember that even if the vanilla lynches hurt the cult, they help the mafia. There are two enemies we need to consider.
Since then, nobody has said "Vanilla lynches are good" and ignored the mafia. The point, which you evidently miss, is that a dead vanilla is better than a claimed vanilla who will get recruited.
Your logic is just so wrong. You seem to be saying that we should not lynch claimed vanillas but we should lynch the cult recruiter. Fine. Let's say person X is the recruiter. If X is put at L-1, I wonder what role X will claim....vanilla most likely.Flame wrote: Get rid of the cult recruiter early, get rid of the scum later, win.
If you can explain to me how we go about lynching the recruiter (or Mafia) and being certain that they are the recruiter/mafia then I would love to hear it.
You've admitted the culty label was wrong.Flame wrote: If you still think my vote was entirely baseless, please go back to pages 1 and 2 and read some of the things he had to say. They all look necessarily
anti-town to me. (Not from the culty perspective exactly, but anti-town.)
His plan was anti-town, but he abandoned it once I pointed out how flawed it was. That said, he was correct about lynching claimed vanillas and he was right to suggest that vanillas being NKed is a good way for the cult to be weakened (though his plan was deeply flawed in terms of execution).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well, there are two circumstances where people might claim:Pwayne wrote: There is one way around all the controversy: Nobody claim vanilla townie until the recruiter is dead. I think that is at the root of everything. If nobody claims, nobody gets lynched and nobody appears scummy for going after townies.
1) My randomly mentioning it in discussion (I have seen this in other games, people just saying "I'm vanilla")
or;
2) At L-1 if they are forced to claim
1) is always a bad idea even in a regular game and here it provides a good case for being lynched.
2) is slightly more complicated. If a vanilla is at L-1 and is asked to claim, they basically have 3 choices:
a) Claim vanilla = Lynched
b) Don't claim anything = By not claiming they are indicating they are vanilla (or potentially scum/cult leader who does not want to risk claiming a power role). Hence, they are effectively doing the same thing as a).
c) Claim a power role. This gives rise to another 3:
i) They claim a role which nobody else has. No counter-claim & probably NKed
ii) They get counter-claimed. They will be lynched and counter-claimer gets NKed. Not good, obviously.
iii) They claim a role someone else has, but that person does not counter-claim. This should cause the power-claiming vanilla to be NKed. If not, then things get confusing.
All in all, things are messy...-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Cross-posted.
See my post above for how messy the claiming thing is. The only circumstance where claiming today will be pro-town is if you are a power role at L-1, other than that a claim will likely be of no help.CKD wrote: That being said, I DO NOT THINK ANYONE SHOULD CLAIM Day 1. There has been a lot of talk about claiming or when to claim, but I do not think it is a good idea.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Then unvote.Just for the record, my vote on Flameaxe was and is totally random.
MoS wrote: Why is everyone voting Flameaxe?
I'll give my reasons:Trojan wrote: I don't know about this bandwagon on Flameaxe; to me, he hasn't acted any scummier than anyone else.
1) Making a serious vote for BS on the basis of BS being 'culty'. A nonsensical justification (and possibly a freudian one)
2) Justifying the vote on the basis of pressure and discussion. BS was already talking and discussion was already happening
3) Misrepresenting the case for lynching claimed vanillas, presumably to legitimise his vote on BS-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
For the record, I said almost exactly the same thing as Rump is saying now in my first game of mafia. The "everything I say can be turned against me" fear is something I had and which a lot of newbies whinge about.Oman wrote:
Its not your problem IF you're town. Your problem is finding scum, not getting out squeaky clean.Rump wrote: Yeah, I don't know what's going to make me look scummy or not. (That probably made me look scummy, but I wouldn't know.)-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'll try to kickstart this:
Rump explaining
This doesn't explain anything really.Rump wrote: Mostly because he seemed to misinterpret BS's post to, as vollkan said, legitimize his post . However, looking back, I can understand how anyone would misinterpret that.
The reasons in brief given by me were:
Fine, you think 3) is possibly understandable; but what about the rest of these?Vollkan wrote: 1) Making a serious vote for BS on the basis of BS being 'culty'. A nonsensical justification (and possibly a freudian one)
2) Justifying the vote on the basis of pressure and discussion. BS was already talking and discussion was already happening
3) Misrepresenting the case for lynching claimed vanillas, presumably to legitimise his vote on BS
Also, Tyhess respond to CKD and Pwayne.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well, I also said that BS looked like he had simply made an "honest mistake" and Oman said thatTheo wrote: Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence - I can see scum doing this if Doctor's town - he was incredibly scummy first three or so pages and doesn't want us to assert pressure and bullying tactics to catch scum - I see that as very anti-town whatever the method of game. Seperately I've seen a lot of scum do them list things, ppl think they look great, so scum do the odd one liners to impress. Anyways all for now.
So, in terms of "defending" BS, Pwayne is hardly singular.Oman wrote: I think our good doctor has tried (and phailed!) to come up with a good plan.
Something else,
and now,Theo wrote: Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence
Subtle shift. People criticise you for voting on the basis of Pwayne defending BS, so you shift you main reason to being the opposition to bullying, which was a minor factor from before.Theo wrote: I don't like pwayne more for his suggestion to not use pressure votes and bully players etc. Plus his recent list doesn't sit too well with me.
Does this mean that your basis for suspecting Pwayne is that he is opposed to bullying tactics? If so, why does that make him more likely to be scum? I personally have no problem with bullying tactics, but I have encountered many players that oppose them.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
The post, I presume:Theo wrote: It's more the tone of your post that I find an over-reaction.
I don't see any "tone" beyond a slight hint of Oman being suspicious of you. Given the basis for your vote, however, I think that is wholly reasonable.Oman wrote: I don't like that vote on Pwayne at all. I think the defence of a play whos alignment is unknown should not factor into the concept at all. We have three factions here, only one of them knows who the others in their faction are (there is only one cultist now, scum know eachother). I don't like the idea of Pwayne being scum because BS looks scummy, but you say Pwayne is scummy is BS is town as well...hmmm.
I don't like it really.
FoS: Theo-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Wait, hang on. You accused him over-reaction but now you are saying you were actually puzzled he did not suspect you outright?Theo wrote: Ok looking back the tone doesn't seem all that bad, it did originally jump out at me that Oman commented on nothinge else and I found it puzzling that he (Oman) doesn't express any outright suspicion on me, it's more a defence of Pwanye if that makes sense - probably not. I guess if anything I over-reacted to Oman's original post
And no, don't try to turn this into a game of people defending Pwayne, the issue is people attacking your vote.
Way to go and dodge the shifting I just pointed out:Theo wrote: I've got my eye on pwayne because I found him defending Blackstrike more than anyone, asking Curious/Flame in 45 to not bully him, not use pressure votes to extract information.
[quote="Vollkan]
Something else,
and now,Theo wrote: Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence
Subtle shift. People criticise you for voting on the basis of Pwayne defending BS, so you shift you main reason to being the opposition to bullying, which was a minor factor from before.Theo wrote:
I don't like pwayne more for his suggestion to not use pressure votes and bully players etc. Plus his recent list doesn't sit too well with me.
[/quote]
Now what you have just done is to combine them all together as salient factors, but it is yet another shift from your previous positions.
I find it interesting that you represent several people taking a common position (which happens to be against your view or your vote) as "following".Theo wrote: As far as pwayne not being the only one to defend Blackstrike again I'm being overly attacking towards him, I will say he was more defensive than anyone else but Oman, Volkan do both show support for him only after Tyhess votes Blackstrike for acting oddly. Oman then shows support, Trojan follows up straight after - more a following kinda post - similar to his one above, Volkan you then do so.
I don't see why you only recently re-reading affects your ability to vote for sensible reasons.Theo wrote: Hence perhaps I'm being severly misguided on Pwayne's defensive nature, defensive players could just as likely be town/scum and without having any prior knowledge of meta-gaming of Pwayne unvote - after all I only re-read properly a couple of hours ago.
For that very slippery response, you've been upgraded to first class:Unvote, Vote: Theo-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
[quote"BS"]
Does anyone else see the odd thing I notice about this list?Theo wrote: Ok to finish early good list - Flameaxe, Curious, Volkan. Not really any vibe - MoS, Oman, ac1983fan, Trojan Horse. Not liking a lot probably due to newbishness/scummyness - RumpWat, Tyhess. Not liking even less - pwayne66, Dr.B.
[/quote]
The fact that Theo says he doesn't like one group due to "scummyness" but then lists Pwayne and BS as "even less" initially looked a little odd to me, but not after I thought about it. It looks like he is just saying that you two are the top of his suspect list.
Unless, as I suspect, you are talking about something else.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'm not on the list; I may be the person you forgot.Oman wrote: My town-looking list includes: Pwayne and CKD for now (I feel like I've forgotten someone).
Scum-looking list includes: Flameaxe and Theo
Cult-looking list includes: CKD and tyhess (of course, it can only be one).
I am a little put off by Tyhess's voting rationale. I really dislike it when people just vote on the basis of someone else being persuasive. Inevitably, we all form our impressions based off other people's arguments from time to time, but it still frustrates me a bit when Tyhess explains his actions simply by saying that I summed it all up.Tyhess wrote: And Oman. Everthing That I beleive about Theo was summed up by Vollkwagon.
I am getting a very newbie read on Tyhess, more than scummy at the moment.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I have thought about this myself. I think that as long as there is only 1 cult member (right now, the leader) the cult leader has no reason to act any differently from a pro-town player. I mean, if he hunts scum actively then he works against an immediate threat but, unlike townies, the cult leader benefits even if there is what to us is a mislynch. At the moment, he doesn't have any altar-boys to worry about, in contrast to the scum who obviously have their scumbuddies.Oman wrote: Now why am I voting for the suspected mafia instead of suspected cultist? Because I have limited experience with cults and I'm afraid that a town player would act remarkably like a cultist, especially a powerrole.
I'm gonna stick with scumhunting for now, I'm more confident.
As the game progresses and the cult grows, I think we can expect its behaviour to become more "mafia-like". As it grows, it has more members to protect and, thus, there is more likelihood of us being able to sniff out some connections.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Of course, the cult leader will be thinking about recruitment strategies, but that doesn't mean he will ACT any differently. The act is crucial because without behaviour it is impossible to hunt the cult leader. Hence, the cultist has no reason not to act like a town, at least for today.tyhess wrote: I agree with oman about scumhunting at this point, but the cultists acting like the town at this point?? I would think that the cultist would rather be looking for vanilla townies as much as he's looking for the scum. That's how he's going to win-recruiting townies. If I was a cultist that would be my goal at this point.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Good point, but I don't think that what I said was a tactic so much as an inevitability.CKD wrote:
Maybe we should stay away from the "future cult behavior tactics" conversation until the future. No need giving anyone advice how to act (now or) in the future. I do agree that the cult leader is most likely acting townish (or lurkish) Day 1.Vollkan wrote: I have thought about this myself. I think that as long as there is only 1 cult member (right now, the leader) the cult leader has no reason to act any differently from a pro-town player. I mean, if he hunts scum actively then he works against an immediate threat but, unlike townies, the cult leader benefits even if there is what to us is a mislynch. At the moment, he doesn't have any altar-boys to worry about, in contrast to the scum who obviously have their scumbuddies.
As the game progresses and the cult grows, I think we can expect its behaviour to become more "mafia-like". As it grows, it has more members to protect and, thus, there is more likelihood of us being able to sniff out some connections.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I really hope you aren't being serious...Tyhess wrote: Volkawagon your putting word in my mouth your scum too jsut like the people that can't count!!!!!!!
If he thinks the Theo case is crap, then he doesn't need to point to somebody more suspicious, he just needs to argue that the case itself is flawed.Oman wrote: Tell me why its crap, I voted theo for starting a crap case, and now I'm being fosed for that being a crap case. Tell me, who is scummier than theo right now?
Also, MoS, do you have anything to say at all about this game (in which quite a lot is happening) other than one line remarks about the number of people here?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
No he doesn't. If I were to vote X on the basis of me not liking his avatar and you were to, rightly, call me out for that being a stupid vote reason there would be no onus on you to prove someone else was scummier than X.Oman wrote: No to me he needs to point to someone more suspicious. What he's basically saying is that this bandwagon is invalid. If this one is invalid, then he needs to propose a better one lest the town stalls.
It is more helpful to give an alternative, but it is not necessary.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Over-reaction much? I don't think anyone has said you are scum for wanting to edit.tyhess wrote: TRYING TO EDIT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING BUT TRYING TO DELETE A POST. Just so everyone know that and stops saying I'm scum for trying to edit my post.
Newb..not scum.Trojan wrote: Combine that with the fuss over not being able to edit his posts (which we aren't allowed to do), and tyhess has been acting like amajor newbso far
Guilty conscience perhaps?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I didn't mean that newbies can't be scum. My point was that Trojan said that tyhess was acting like a "major newb" as though that was a factor legitimately warranting suspicion.CKD wrote:
I am beginning to see your point. However, newbies can always be newbie scum. Going to down grade however,Vollkan wrote:
Guilty conscience perhaps?Trojan wrote: Combine that with the fuss over not being able to edit his posts (which we aren't allowed to do), and tyhess has been acting like amajor newbso far
I agree that Tyhess is looking rather like newb scum: bandwagoning opportunistically and showing extreme defensiveness; but I think I want to see a bit more before making a firmer judgment.FoS: TyhessI am interested to see how his reactions change with more slightly more pressure.
Also, I just noticed I had the "guily conscience" thing in the wrong place, if that wasn't obvious. It was meant to be below the Tyhess quote. Not that it is a major point or anything; but it doesn't really make sense where it is now.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Sorry; I just cross-posted.
[quote"Tyhess"]
Yeah I can see how that would look. That's just my style of play, changing quickly with what I feel is right, but I can see how that looks scummy.
[/quote]
Well, I said you were being overly defensive and then you go and make that rather calm post as I was typing.
I'd still like to know why you over-reacted regarding the editing thing.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
That's all well and good, but you said:Tyhess wrote: Sometimes I Just act weird like that. I didn't look at it like overreacting; I wasn't mad or anything, I was just throwing that out there because people kept saying it, and I wanted to use CAPS. I looked at it like having a good time writing a post. That's probably not a good idea in this game, but whatever.
The only reference I can find to the edit is:Tyhess wrote: TRYING TO EDIT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING BUT TRYING TO DELETE A POST. Just so everyone know that and stops saying I'm scum for trying to edit my post.
Trojan only says you are being newbish (as I have already pointed out). He doesn't say you are scum for that alone.Trojan wrote: Combine that with the fuss over not being able to edit his posts (which we aren't allowed to do), and tyhess has been acting like a major newb so far.
Admittedly, Trojan does vote you seemingly on the basis of:
1) your wagoning
2) Your newbishness
But certainly, he did not call you scum specifically for the edit, and he is the only person that even has expressed any thoughts on it.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Tyhess wrote: I remember someone else mentioning that against me at one point, but now I can't seem to find it?????/
Theo only mentioned it in a summary overview of the game; there was no judgment at all, not even one of newb.Theo wrote: Tyhess votes Dr calls him weird and then he wants to edit posts.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Agreed. Earlier I said:CKD wrote: that being said, how do you play when you are scum? I assume the same way right? Or do you just make posts that have comments on game theory and personal playstyles versus actual game content?
Now MoS has just moved into theory stuff, other than one post saying Flame and Theo seem "genuine".Vollkan wrote: Also, MoS, do you have anything to say at all about this game (in which quite a lot is happening) other than one line remarks about the number of people here?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It's interesting that Oman states pretty clearly that he thinks that you have a "developed plan", so much that he says it is "rediculous" [sic]. However, in his next post, which was in response to me probing him to explain what he meant, he says:MoS wrote: Wait. I have a "developed plan" on theo and flameaxe? Does this mean they're town and I'm scum, and you think I'm playing them, trying to gain their trust?
I have more questions, but I want this answered first. No way I'm going to let you backtrack out of this one.
Oman has a point in that MoS did ignore the main reasons for the flame wagon and that Theo having content doesn't make him pro-town, however two points also emerge:Oman wrote: He completly brushes over the fact that flameaxe came under the microscope not for vote hopping, but for his poor case on Blackstrike.
His analysis of theo is in my mind incorrect, as even scum can have content, and that doesn't mean they're pro-town.
Basically his reluctance to jump on either of the major wagons for reasons I don't like make me think he's scummy.
1) Oman fails to make any further mention of this "plan"; and
2) He says you are scummy for NOT jumping on a wagon because your reasons for thinking Theo and Flame are pro-town are not good. Oman is basically saying that you should have joined the wagons unless you can articulate a good reason why not to, and he thinks you are scummy for that.
FoS: Oman. This will upgrade if your explanation doesn't satisfy me.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
And what is a "developed stance"?Oman wrote: Sorry Plan was probably the wrong word to use. Perhaps "developed stance".
MoS has ignored the actual reasons for the suspicions, but why does that make him scummy?Oman wrote: I think they're both scummy, and you're scummy for ignoring that they are or at the very least ignoring why.
Also, MoS, what do you think of theactualcases against Theo and Flame?
Theo: The case is mostly in my post #145
Flame: My post #94
He had no obligation to wagon, but you are going to suspect him if he doesn't give good reasons not to?Oman wrote: Actually I don't feel he should have joined the wagons. My point was more that he didn't and his reasons were unsatisfactory. I don't mind people not joining a wagon saying "theres enough on them" or "my gut says no" but the fact that he tried to put some "factual" (in the context of the game) reasoning behind it makes me uncomfortable.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Fair enough; this is a very reasonable thing to do.MoS wrote: I didn't read any cases on them. I wasn't going to be influenced in my opinions when asked to say what I think of them, because it's all too easy to just paraphrase the case and make yourself look good without really trying to say what you think. I only read their posts in isolation before saying how I felt about them.
Oman; you are making my brain hurt. Your "developed plan" / "connection" thing is completely baseless conjecture. MoS has explained why he didn't see them as scummy; that doesn't mean he is buddying up and I really can't see the grounds for alleging a connection.Oman wrote:
scumMY! I don't know you're scum. My theory is that you are connected to one if not both in some way. I don't think there is three scum in this game (rules post), but I believe there is a connection or if they're town., you're trying to form one (buddying up).MoS wrote: So, your theory is that I'm scum and They're possibly scum-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
[quote"Oman"]
Motives are hard to guess at in this game. But if you are scum with one of them it basically is a defence of them, to get them off the hook of being lynchbait.
[/quote]
If that's the case, why are you suspecting MoS? Sure, IF MoS is scum then maybe this argument has some persuasiveness, but given our current level of knowledge I can't see the basis for saying his behaviour is more scummy than pro-town/neutral.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
My scumdar:
Mastermind of Sin:Lurker and then just posted theory stuff. Things seem to have sparked off with #209 which was the “Theo and Flame seem genuine” post. Evidently, people think he has been overly-defensive, though I am a little unsure as to whether I would react differently if someone accused me of having a "developed plan". I don't think the suspicion of him is unreasonable or baseless, but I don't feel strongly about MoS yet.
Oman:I noticed, as White has, that Oman seems to agree with me a lot. I was a little off-put by his “developed plan” thing, hence my FoS, but his subsequent explanation of it being “developed stance” made it slightly more sensible. A few little things here and there, but I don’t suspect him to any significant degree.
ac1983fan:Lurker; nothing to say.
Dr. Blackstrike:Newbish lurker. I never really developed any suspicion for him, mainly because he was so quick to admit his error with regards to that plan.
curiouskarmadog:Seems pro-town. My scumdar hasn’t hit any pings yet for CKD.
pwayne66:I was in agreement with him on the BS thing and was pleased he stopped the BS wagon. I think White is correct regarding the pacifism thing and sometimes taking things personally, but I am willing to put it down to playstyle more than scumminess.
tyhess:Numerous scummy actions, but also a complete newb. He has suspicion from me, but I need to see how things develop.
Trojan Horse:Seems legit; no pinging as of yet.
Flameaxe:I suspected him early on, but by slipping out of the game everything has progressed beyond that point. I will be watching flame or his replacement.
White (r. Rump-Wat):Very strong contributor and is doing well at moving discussion forward, which can only be a good thing.
theopor_COD:When I voted him, he was being slippery as all hell. Has been rather lurkish since then and I really would like to see some more discussion to either confirm or diminish my suspicions.
On a completely separate note,
This sort of thing is something I am noticing in a few games and it confuses me a little. I don't know exactly what it is in my behaviour that is taken as "judge"-like and, likewise, I don't know whether this is good or bad for me.White wrote: Vollkan - I particularily don't like that Vollkan has run into virtually zero opposition to all of his views. He comes across like a mediator and judge, his words supercede others. This I don't like. However he hasn't really done anything deserving of a scum metal.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Tyhess, I am a little confused.
And yet you express no suspicion of anybody, other then that you are watching BS over the stuff from page 2.Tyhess wrote: theopor_COD: Still my vote. Possibility to change quickly.
As such, why do you say you vote could change quickly? It almost looks like you are trying to give yourself a way out to jump on a wagon.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I object to posting "List your Top 3 Suspects" because it is very easily exploited by scum trying to latch onto a consensus. Scumdar posting is somewhat better because it provides a fuller picture.White wrote: I like Tyhess's idea to post your top 3 candidates, that way we can focus on who's the most suspect and maybe start pressuring them, perhaps get a day1 crack.
That said, I will list the three people I think pressure will be most helpful on in terms of clarifying my impressions of them:
1) Theo - Early scummy behaviour and not enough posting from him since to really dissuade me. Hence, pressure could bring something out.
2) Tyhess - Newby and scummy. I am interested to see his reaction to pressure.
3) MoS - Even though I don't have particularly strong suspicion of MoS, I can see the arguments against him and I think a bit more pressure on him could be productive.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well, the "If MoS is scum this has validity" I think you mean this post:Oman wrote: Vollkan: Defends trojan a bit, but in true vollkan style. Seems to be on the right side of everyone. Either agreeing or being agreed with. Works hard on either side of the MoS/Oman debate. Makes a comment about "If MoS is scum this has validity" (or somewhat) but I don't see how this is even logical. If we knew mos was scum we needent worry. I also don't like the way MoS's not reading the game was "rational"
That doesn't make sense, thanks for pointing it out. The bolded MoS should be "Theo and/or Flame". I was trying (and failed) to say that because most of what you had said against MoS was based on the Theo/Flame thing, I disagreed with suspecting him on the basis of potentially being a scumpartner. As in, relations are not suspicious on their own until a role is known.Vollkan wrote:
If that's the case, why are you suspecting MoS? Sure, IFOman wrote: Motives are hard to guess at in this game. But if you are scum with one of them it basically is a defence of them, to get them off the hook of being lynchbait.MoSis scum then maybe this argument has some persuasiveness, but given our current level of knowledge I can't see the basis for saying his behaviour is more scummy than pro-town/neutral.
As for the "rational" thing. I was saying that it was sensible for MoS to read the thread in isolation from our arguments. This is not to defend his subsequent refusal to comment on them. It's the same reason why I suggested we not argue with White until he had finished his reread. If people read with a specific argument in mind, it may prevent what is hopefully as close as is possible an objective analysis.
If by "neutral" you mean pro-town, then what is the point of even saying this. You are basically saying "White is newb, scum or town". Ignoring the fact that newb is not an exclusive option, this is pointless.Oman wrote: White I dislike white's analysises. Basically you're either newb, scum, or neutral.
If you don't mean pro-town, then what?
And why don't you dislike the analyses?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It's kind of obvious really; I don't even think it is a town tell.
If I am correct, what Theo is getting at is that Tyhess said the cultist knows everyone else is protown. By this logic, there are no scum. Theo seems to be inferring that this means Tyhess is not scum based on the fact that he didn't say "he knows that everyone else is town or scum".Tyhess wrote: I think that the culist would be acting more to find out the town (ie lurking) than a mafia would be, considering he knows that all but one person is protown.
Frankly, I see no reason to deem it a town-tell. There is nothing preventing it being a scum error, or a scum tactic (much as I doubt the latter of these).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Cross-posted with Pwayne.
I see no town-tell, yet alone a "vanilla-tell". Hence, I don't get why Theo accuses Oman of fishing.Pwayne wrote: hmm... I am torn here. It seems that people are begining to read the "don't claim townie" theory into the "I don't have to answer questions" theory. Is there a legit reason to believe that Oman is fishing for vanillas? If so I would like to hear it.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Yes; the original statement is not suspect. I will leave it to Theo to explain why he used the word "fishing".Pwayne wrote: On the other end of the spectrum, theo's original statement seems innocent enough. It seems to be more of an off the cuff statement than a case for tyhess' innocence. His reluctance to answer the question might be a reflection of that. (ie- he doesn't have a real reason).
What do you mean?I can see where Oman's vote might be seen as an over-reaction, but my fear is this: that the town is becoming one where helping each other find scum is no longer the goal, rather seeing who got thebiggest ballsis. If this is the case, the mafia/cult's path to success will be lot easier.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
How do you propose we "work together"?Tyhess wrote: I think that this goes right into what pwayne said...we are not working together at this point .... we need to try to narrow down who we are attacking.......i realize that I'm probably going to be one of the 3, but I think it will be the easiest way to find the scum.
Also you are implying that there is some benefit in only focussing on a small number of people.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Here's why I disagree with you Tyhess:
Let's say A, B and C are the 3 people in the "spotlight".
The other players can be numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9.
Let's say during the course of the stuff against A, numbers 2 and 4 do something scummy. What do we do? We either keep focussing on A (which is wrong because it ignores things) or we shift to 2 and 4.
If, whilst on 2 and 4, person 5 does something really scummy then things move to 5. etc.etc.
Or, in the alternative, we go through A, B and C and nothing comes up. Then we start on 1,2 and 3. During the course of pressing 1, A and C do something scummy. Do we then flip back to A and C or do we continue on?
Maybe these example sound facetious, but the point I am making is that any effort to focus on a particular person/s will inevitably lead to an expansion of suspicion back to the original 12. You cannot expect 9 people to focus solely on 3 people and ignore the posting of every other person within the 9, particularly when there is no unanimous agreement on a "top 3".-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Way to completely misrepresent me by saying I suspected you at number 3 when I "didn't feel strongly".vollkan - agreed with me a lot and defended me a bit, somehow managed to put me at his #3 suspicion when he "doesn't feel strongly about MoS"
I was very clear that I was not placing you third because I felt strongly about you, but I was doing it because I felt there was a need for a bit of probing. You only took one snippet of a sentence and changed what it meant. You get aVollkan wrote: I object to posting "List your Top 3 Suspects" because it is very easily exploited by scum trying to latch onto a consensus. Scumdar posting is somewhat better because it provides a fuller picture.
That said, I will list the three people I think pressure will be most helpful on in terms of clarifying my impressions of them:
1) Theo - Early scummy behaviour and not enough posting from him since to really dissuade me. Hence, pressure could bring something out.
2) Tyhess - Newby and scummy. I am interested to see his reaction to pressure.
3) MoS - Even though I don't have particularly strong suspicion of MoS,I can see the arguments against him and I think a bit more pressure on him could be productive.FoSfor that.
So, we are expected to believe that you have intentionally been playing scummy so as to attract votes? The whole problem with this is that any suspicion or otherwise of people based on their responses to your wagon simply assumes that you are pro-town, which is a poor foundation on which to start basing suspicion of people.MoS wrote: Exactly. If you were scum, and for all I know, you might be, you'd be attacking me. Because scum feel that attacking the obviously scummy person makes them look protown, they are more likely to do it. Scum tend to stay away from attacking newbies that are scummy too much, because it's not protown to bully newbies around when they likely just don't know what they're doing. So, I gave them an IC target, someone they couldn't resist to jump on. And it seems to have worked. Now we just need to evaluate. That's what this whole game is about, isn't it? Look at what people do, who votes who, who defends who, and find scum. So let's do that.
Also, MoS, if this is your strategy, for how much of this game have you been adopting it?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
You make a good point.Tyhess wrote: Wait. So you purposefully got us to vote for you, but since some of us are voting for you, then one of us is defiently scum. That makes a lot of sense. Basically what you're saying is that if anyone votes for you they were looking for an easy way out and they are scum. You said youself that you put yourslef in that position, meaning that you admit it is scumlike. So basically we're not suppose to vote for someome who puts them in a position to look like scum based on the fact that they say it'll make us look like scum.....
If MoS is town, then it is quite likely I would say that scum is/are on his wagon. However, the problem is that MoS has been scummy by his own admission, he says intentionally. As such, I don't think the fact that people have wagoned on MoS is evidence of potential scumminess at this point of the game, because we don't know MoS's alignment. I mean, suspecting one of the wagoners might be valid, but it requires an assumption that MoS is pro-town.
And you're okay with that? A "trap" as MoS has laid it is just as likely to catch town as scum; it is not helpful at all unless MoS's alignment is known and, even then, because it is so reasonable for town to jump on the wagon it really proves nothing.Theo wrote: He hasn't done anything overly scummy in my eyes, call it a defence or whatever but I feel he's pretty laid back and looking more to trap people than attack easy targets.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
MoS does kind of have a point here; I myself am among those who were not convinced by the case against him. The early accusations of defensiveness seemed to have no basis of me and then things very quickly jumped to him saying it was intentional.MoS wrote:
As I said with Tyhess, I fail to see how me doing this intentionally is relevant at all. If I was accidentally scummy, it wouldn't change what I did, and it wouldn't change who was going to attack me. It's not like all the scum could tell the difference between accidental and on purpose. They're going to act the same regardless, for the most part. There are town on every wagon, but people still look for scum on wagons, yes? There is no reason it can't be done in this instance. It's not like I was so obviously scum that no townie in their right minds would stay off my wagon. This is evidenced by the fact that only 4 people have voted me out of 11 possible. I gave the town a wagon, and there is very, very likely to be one scum found on it.Vollkan wrote: If MoS is town, then it is quite likely I would say that scum is/are on his wagon. However, the problem is that MoS has been scummy by his own admission, he says intentionally. As such, I don't think the fact that people have wagoned on MoS is evidence of potential scumminess at this point of the game, because we don't know MoS's alignment. I mean, suspecting one of the wagoners might be valid, but it requires an assumption that MoS is pro-town.
The problem is that nothing MoS has said can be seen to have any basis without knowledge of his alignment. Maybe the wagon is informative to MoS, but it says nothing to the rest of us other than that people chose to wagon on someone who was scummy (though I question the scumminess of MoS at least initially).
MoS, you say this was your plan, presumably you have some idea of how to make it actually function to our benefit? It is no good saying we should focus on the wagonners and not you, because that requires a significant assumption on our part.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Key word in what I said wasPwayne wrote: This still gets me. It seems that all of the MoS apologists have reduced his actions and the case against him as defensiveness while the case against him is about refusing to cooperate.
I didn't buy that argument which seemed to be the main thrust of the case at the time.Vollkan wrote: Theearlyaccusations of defensiveness
He has refused to co-operate since then, though now he has merged that with his ridiculous "I'll act scummy to trick people" thing. Maybe he sees that as a contribution, though I don't.
Don't interpret this as me pandering to his inaction; I have been saying all along that we should pressure MoS. That was the very reason I put him at number 3 on that list, if you remember. I hadn't seen anything notably scummy-defensive from him, which other people said they had, but I could see that his behaviour was odd and he definitely needed to contribute more.Pwayne wrote: For me, this bandwagon is and always has been about pressure. If the town is going to win, it is going to be because EVERYBODY posted content and answered questions. Instead we are rewarding and praising some attention starved, John Wayne wannabe by saying "It's ok if you don't want to talk" and "oh jeez, I don't know why everybody is being so mean to you..."
By my count, MoS is at L-1. He shows no signs of making any contribution now that he has placed himself into this "I'll act scummy to attack my wagoners" thing because he sees that as his great contribution. And his posts are definitely beginning to take on a veneer of defensiveness (inc. swearing)
I see this situation as MoS not being overly suspicious in the sense of not having done anything I would normally characterise as scummy but, simultaneously, he is being consciously making no contribution which is of course anti-town and can be seen as scummy.
Oh, something else I noticed:
Trojan was not on your wagon when you voted him (though he is now). If you are so damned sure that scum are on your wagon why did you instead choose to go for the obvious newb?MoS wrote: Unvote, Vote: Trojan Horse
This feels way off to me. You hope he doesn't think you're "too" scummy? I see no reason to make a post like this. You've made posts like this earlier, asking me if I was going to attack you now, or something like that. You keep acting like you expect to be scummy, you expect to get heat from other players. It's almost as if you expect to be lynched. Other than these remarks, you haven't seemed that scummy, so I don't see any reason a protown player would be worried about their scumminess. You haven't done anything of note for a townie to worry about.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Crossed with both of MoS's posts.
MoS, there is value in studying relationships between players, but I don't really see your point. Why should we focus on making these assumptions when we don't know your alignment; any connections we do find are meaningless without that knowledge. Once we have that knowledge we don't have to assume, we can actually reason our way through things.MoS wrote: You can make as many assumptions as you need to make. You make all the assumptions. Making all the assumptions is better than making no assumptions. Assume I'm scum and work out who my partners might be. People are assuming I'm scum right now, but they aren't even trying to find my partners. I get accused of not being helpful to the town, yet the people attacking me aren't being any more helpful. If you're going to assume I'm scum, you should also assume I'm town and work out who might be scum in the situation. You need to consider all possibilities, and you aren't doing that. No one is.
As I just said, this doesn't help particularly. The most you can conclude is "If X is town/scum then y is probably town/scum." Afetr X's alignment is known, the first stage of hypothesisng is not needed and the reasoning process if clearer and more conducive.MoS wrote: As I said before, it's logic to make all assumptions and see where it leads you. You don't just sit around going "hmm, I don't know whether or not this guy is scum, so I'll just sit here and not think about anyone else besides him until he's dead".-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Yes, there is value in that sort of analysis, but it cannot be practically used without alignment knowledge. That's the real problem here.MoS wrote: Like I have said previously, you don't need to know my alignment to analyze this wagon. This is not a game of absolutes. You can look at all possibilities for my alignment and make conclusions based on what you find out. The wagon on me has very nearly kept everyone from focusing on anyone else in the game, and that's exactly what the scum want. You can't just wait for me to die before looking for scum. When I come up protown, what then? You just wasted an entire day looking at me and no one else. That's what White and Tyhess want us to do, and for all their talk about me not acting in the town's interests, neither are they. It's all double standards when it comes to those two.
ie. Trojan's and Oman's votes do look opportunistic and I can see what you are saying about White and Tyhess being somewhat tunnel-visioned. However, because you have been scummy, I can also see how they may be justified in suspecting you and, as such, I don't think them to be wholly unreasonable.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
You intentionally act scummy, people hop on your wagon, you defend yourself and you call that a contribution? If you hadn't made this ridiculous play we could be actually doing this in a normal and more productive manner. Instead, you have brought the focus onto yourself by this ploy and are now getting irate about the fact that people have responded to you.MoS wrote: You think I'm not contributing? I'm one of the few people that are actually talking about more than one person lately. Nearly everyone that is attacking me has had blinders on for the last few pages. With 3+ people attacking me constantly, I don't really have time for much more than defending myself. Put yourself in my position and see if you would let yourself be lynched while you were off trying to find possible scum. I'm attempting to multitask, but I don't have a lot of breathing room to do it in. The few people that don't buy into my wagon are voices lost in the fog.
Which just shows that this wagon thing is pointless...MoS wrote: In addition, you yourself have acknowledged that I am not only attacking my wagoners. They are refusing to consider all the options, but I'm watching people who aren't on the wagon as well, as evidenced by your quote of my pressure on Trojan Horse. I'm not the one who is faking contribution, it's the people who are single-mindedly attacking me and doing nothing else.
Okay, for scum off your wagon your target was Trojan. Hardly a particularly strong ground for suspicion either.MoS wrote: How am I consciously making no contribution? I have been responding to the majority of attacks against me while looking for scum both on and off my wagon at the same time. What more do you want from me?
For scum on your wagon, anything you say is useless to us because WE DON'T KNOW YOUR ALIGNMENT! Saying "X is on my wagon and looks scummy to me for it" is useless to the rest of us. It doesn't help.
You're right. I saw "townperson" and so I immediately assumed newb.MoS wrote: Trojan Horse is not an obvious newb. Trojan Horse has been around a while, so if you think that's newbishness you're seeing, you'd better look again. Trojan Horse has, now that I look at it, been around Mafiascum longer than I have. 3 years does not a newb player make.
MoS wrote: And what happens when protown players are either dead or no longer protown after tonight? What then? There will be even more distractions and misinformation being spread around, in proportion to the genuinely protown people left. Better to get people's opinions on possible connections now than to have them be dead or recruited tomorrow.
Okay, I agree with you here, but each of these involves your own death.MoS wrote: After X's alignment is known, you can go back to your hypothesis and see which one was accurate. You should not wait to do this until after you have lost the opinions of several players in the game. There is no reason to wait, any urging to the contrary is merely an indication of someone that wants to rush through the lynch without considering other options.
Good point.MoS wrote: Having one scummy person to attack is not a justification for tunnel-vision. No protown player should ever assume that they are right about one person being scum and that no other options are possible.
I believe I will do a reread of Tyhess and White and see what I think.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I considered doing so, but I wanted to wait to see how the other people reacted to you being at L-1 before I did. In case any of them (ie. Pwayne has now done it) decided to unvote or something. I figured it would be bad if you claimed and we hadn't seen how people responded to you being at L-1 and, also, that if you had claimed a power role when people might have wanted to unvote then it could have been needless.MoS wrote: May I also point out that not a single person has asked me to claim yet, which shows that they intend to railroad me to death without getting a claim first. This is NOT protown.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It was my mistake. I saidCKD wrote: and where exactly did the -1 conversation come up....I remember reading it and suddenly MoS was at -1 (and I thought "what, going to have to count that")...I have caught up to find that it was screwed up somewhere, now I read back I cant find the first mention of MoS being at -1. Also the flurry of unvotes look sort of suspicious too..
It is rather interesting about the "flurry" of unvotes that followed me making that blunder though.Vollkan in #459 wrote: By my count, MoS is at L-1. He shows no signs of making any contribution now that he has placed himself into this "I'll act scummy to attack my wagoners" thing because he sees that as his great contribution. And his posts are definitely beginning to take on a veneer of defensiveness (inc. swearing)-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia