Open 57 - Quack Mafia (Game Over) before 545
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Yes breaking the set up would be great. Only problem I can forsee is that knowing who the Quacks are means three dead townies. Don't know if that's worth the trade off.Tarhalindur wrote:Second thought - I was in the first Quack Mafia, and my thought then is still my thought now - the setup *should* be breakable. But how? I'm trying to think about that.
MoS mentioned he had a breaking strategy in the sign up Queue, guess we can wait to hear from him.
Also do Doc protects and Kill requests add up in a numerical fashion, so say Mafia and Quack target the same guy as a Single Doc will he die, but if a second Doc were to also target that person would they then be saved?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Not sure how to proceed from here. I didn't like the circle protect idea, but didn't log in in time to prevent the no lynch, and didn't want to point out the flaws to the mafia in twilight. On to some numbers:
If One Quack/Mafia is scum then two Doc/Mafia are town therefore odds of lynching scum are:
Quack:1/3 = 33% chance proper lynch
Doc: 2/6 = 33% chance proper lynch
So here odds are even BUT:
If no Quack/Mafia are scum then three Doc/Mafia are town therefore odds of lynching scum are:
Quack: 0/3 = 0% chance proper lynch
Doc: 3/6 = 50% chance proper lynch
So all added up we get (this is weighting odds of mafia no kill equally with odds of mafia kill, that of course is open to debate):
Quack: 16.7%
Doc: 41.7%
Seems lynching someone from the non-killing pool would be in our best interest today based solely on the numbers.
Since we had almost no discussion D1 there's pretty much nothing to go on. But in order to move towards a player oriented discussion I'm going to
FoS Tarhalindurfor the in depth analysis showing how poor a strategy the circle protect was and still voting for it*
FoS Omanfor voting No Lynch, then later stating the breaking strategy can be broken*
FoS Lulubellefor voting no lynch because we "might as well move things along," even after she was the first to point out a fatal flaw in the strategy
vote MoSI've seen mafia before put forth fatal plans. Have them fairly universally accepted, and then come in the next day and blame everyone else for following their idea. I'd say that's a possibility here.
*note these players are from the Quack pool, yes I understand I'm not following my own advice.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Sorry the Holidays took up way more time than I had expected.
Been trying to think of a way to salvage the situation, and I can't really come up with one. It seems if there were a way to confirm the two/three Quacks that were outed that'd be quite helpful to the town, but I can't come up with a mechanism to do that other than more needless killing, or choreographed Doc protects that let scum know exactly who is exposed for killing.
I guess the upside of this is that most, if not all of, the Quack's know who they are for certain and we shouldn't be getting any more unexpected deaths. Also if they wanted to be ballsy they could use their power as a limited cop investigation, but this is probably a bad idea as it will result in a town death if wrong and could end up being confusing based on Doc protects and such.
@ Oman, how likely do you think the No-Kill was? I think it's pretty obvious that the town would have to abandon the circle protect strategy. And I find it interesting that assuming a No-Kill exonerates your night actions.
@ Lulubelle, I don't really buy the argument that because Vollkan and Tarlahinder were on board with the circle protect strategy means that it was OK to just hop on the bus and "move things along." In fact I was ready to charge after Vollkan heading into today because it is very uncharacteristic of him to go forward with a strategy without a) posting at least three page long posts about the pros & cons and b) posting at least five mathematical interpretations of the possible outcomes.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
I'm not accusing you of sitting back and letting it get accepted. I'm accusing you of putting forth such an obviously broken plan from the start. Here's the Heading of our Open Game in the Queue:Mastermind of Sin wrote:How can you possibly accuse me of sitting back to let my plan get accepted? You guys proved that my plan was dead and then rushed it to night before I even had the chance to check the thread. I couldn't have possibly posted after proposing my plan, because it was night already.bolding mine
It's pretty obvious that Quacks don't kill mafia. So I do think you could have put this forth in hopes that it would go through, and then you would be giddy to see it "quicklynched" into effect the next time you log on. However, I also see blame laying with some of the sheep that followed such a plan.Open Queue wrote:Quack Mafia (Open 57) - 3 Mafia, 6 Doctors, 3 Quacks (will kill non-Mafia, but think they're Docs), DayStart (12/12) - Mod: Crub
Therefore, since these people voted for it:Mastermind of Sin,Disciple Slayer,Tarhalindur, Oman,vollkan, Lulubelle,thedragonsprincess
And three of the seven voters ended up dead (bolded), I would say it's at the very least likely that one or two scum remain from the other voters:
Mastermind of Sin, Tarhalindur, Oman, and Lulubelle
Note that according to simple math Tarhalindur and Oman are less likely to be scum so I think a decent choice today is between MoS and Lulubelle. Since MoS originated the plan I think it's more likely he is scum. Obviously we have very little posting history to work with, so some discussion would be nice, as I would rather base a lynch off of actual game interactions.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Tyler that fifty-fifty statement doesn't sit well with me. I don't like people making false numbers.
Also there obviously were "ignorant" townies on the wagon as three of them turned up dead. I'm simply stating we might take advantage of the fact that an obviously pro-mafia quick-no-lynch went through, and only four people survived it. To me this means we may be able to lynch from this pool of players and have a greater likelihood of catching scum. I'd at least like to discuss the idea.
Also greatly looking for to mass-prods Crub.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
So then you do think that MoS sat back and deliberately waited for people to adopt his plan. Your vote suggest you must believe that's the way it played out.Lulubelle wrote:That said, I have to agree about MoS's actions. He put forth that idea in the first place, merrily sat back as the town tripped over itself to agree with him, and then blamed everyone else when it turned out sour.
Vote: Mastermind of Sin-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Tyler, the Fifty-fifty was just me not liking people putting numbers on things that aren't at all quantifiable. It makes it sound like he's just as likely to do one thing than another, which effectively erases the argument. And that statement coming from another player looks like a partner protecting a scumbuddy
There's no risk in him proposing a poor strategy. He can easily take it back saying "whoopsie didn't notice that" without much of a problem in the future, but if it works the payoff is big (as we see here town's down three with only a page of useful information generated).
As far as who he would lynch, that's a question you should address to him.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
The no kill strategy only works if the circle-protect strategy is played out to its full conclusion. No kill is actually detrimental if the town aborts on the circle protect strategy N2. But no kill or not the game could realistically be over if the circle protect strategy were taken to it's logical conclusion on N2, depending on where scum are positioned in relation to quacks. So if the mafia thought it through they would likely realize that the circle protect strategy would have been aborted and put in a NK. However, this doesn't neccessarily have to be the case.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
It was actually pointed out by a number of people that Quacks don't kill townies. In fact you posted this information directly after MoS's submission of the plan:Lulubelle wrote:
I have to say that I really, really dislike this reasoning. It was a very easy mistake to make, and one that I made myself at first while looking for breaking strategies pregame.shaft.ed wrote:I'm not accusing you of sitting back and letting it get accepted. I'm accusing you of putting forth such an obviously broken plan from the start. Here's the Heading of our Open Game in the Queue:bolding mine
It's pretty obvious that Quacks don't kill mafia. So I do think you could have put this forth in hopes that it would go through, and then you would be giddy to see it "quicklynched" into effect the next time you log on. However, I also see blame laying with some of the sheep that followed such a plan.Open Queue wrote:Quack Mafia (Open 57) - 3 Mafia, 6 Doctors, 3 Quacks (will kill non-Mafia, but think they're Docs), DayStart (12/12) - Mod: Crub
Next we have Oman confirming this two posts after yours with the Mod posting the info in the Thread:Lulubelle wrote:
Am I missing something here?Mastermind of Sin wrote:Plus, with 3 of the 4 kills being randomly assigned, we've got a 3/11+3/10+3/9 chance of hitting at least 1 mafia during night 1, which is a 90% chance of eliminating scum on the first night. That's pretty good odds.Crub wrote:3xQuack Doctors - Will kill anytown aligned playerthey protect each night.
Then the next post by Tarlahindur:Oman wrote:Crubmod:Will Quacks only kill Town players?
Correct - Crub
So no I don't think it was an easy mistake to make. And what really amazes me is how many people hopped on board even after it was pointed out. Re-reading this section it's really difficult to see who isn't looking scummy.Tarlahindur wrote:This sounds right to me, but the correct strategy post-N1 needs to be altered in order to account for the fact that Quacks can't hit mafia.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
I'm not saying it isn't plausible that he missed it. I'm saying it's rather convenient that something advertised as a breaking strategy for town actually works out as an assured mafia win when one detail is overlooked. I think you may lend a lot of credence to over-looking this detail because you missed it yourself. MoS had been advertising his knowledge of a breaking strategy during sign-ups. He had a lot of time to double check his work.Lulubelle wrote: I realize that. I just think it's plausible that MoS didn't see the easily-missed "will kill non-mafia" in the role description when he formulated the circle-protect strategy and that it's plausible that he didn't poke his head in on the thread again before it when to night. As I said before, I missed that at first myself.
That's what's really bothering me. It seems like such an obvious thing to me. But when a guy like vollkan supports it and is now a confirmed townie it really makes me wonder if it wasn't easy to miss the flaw. It should be pointed out however that one of the confirmed innocents (Disciple Slayer) voted prior to the discussion of the Quacks not killing mafia. I guess the part of me that thinks scum would love to push this into action would say that it's a good thing we have so many confirmed innocents so that increases our chances of hitting scum from the voters. But the paranoid part of me says that the lynch went through in about 10 hours, the scum could have sat back and watched it go through not wanting to get their hands dirty.Lulubelle wrote: So then, what do you make of the fact that 4-5 of the 7 people that were on the no lynch bandwagon are confirmed townies?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
I agree that the wording was poor, but what Lulu was pointing out is that at most 1 of the 3 "Quacks" can be mafia. Since two of them voted for the No Lynch, at least 4 of the 7 voters must be town aligned.Oman wrote:Wait, aside for the dead docs there are no confirmed townies, okay?
Only scum that didn't kill the person they were meant to protect, and the rest of us.
Also seeing as how fictiondepartment disappeared over the night phase. Should we be worried he didn't partake in the circle protect? I guess if he does turn up Quack later that would indicate that one of our three presumed Quack/mafia would have to be mafia?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Tyler, check out my maths post earlier. I think that it is actually better to lynch from the non "Quack" pool since taking into account the possibility of a mafia NK, it is more likely that we will hit scum from the "Doc" pool.TylerJ wrote:Yeah that would be weird. So it seems to me that the best bet would be voting from the quack pool. But when it comes to scumhunting, it would have to be either lullubelle or MoS. That says aboslutely nothing new and gives us little to none zeroing down...
Kuribo, when I say Quack/Mafia or Doc/Mafia that just means they are likely one of the two roles mentioned. We know the people that killed must be either Quacks or mafia and we know that the people that didn't kill are more likely Docs or mafia though there is a chance one of the non-killers is a Quack of one of the killers comes up mafia.
And man, now I know why Day 1's, while painful, are so helpful. There's so little to go on today.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Phate under other circumstances I don't think I'd mind as much, but if we mislynch today mafia get a NK and a Quack kill also occurs it's game over. Not to mention that if a Doc protects the same person as the Quack but is NK'd then the information is false. I think it just creates manipulatable information at the risk of killing of townies when we're already in a dangerous situation.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
OK I've been thinking about my assumption that it's less likely there are Mafia in the Quack pool and I think I may have been a bit off. The reason being is that it not very likely that if all three Quacks target the person above, they will all score a kill thus avoiding mafia (as would have to be the case here). Odds of all three Quacks not being directly below any of the mafia should be about 30% (someone check this just in case). So it's more likely that one of the kills came from scum.
Also, the incentive for scum to kill is pretty high. If they did turn out lucky and get three Quack kills, adding one of their own would open us at 5:3 basically LyLo at the start of D2 following a 2 page D1. I don't think their chances to win could get much better. But opening up at 6:3 is entirely different. Thus I don't see the scum passing up the NK even though it was a breaking strategy for the circle protect. This is because the circle protect itself was a broken strategy, they didn't need to break a broken breaking strategy.
So after all of this I simply conclude that I was wrong before, I think it's just as likely there could be scum in the Quack pool, if not more so.
Also I didn't state this above, but I didn't think Phate's post was considerably scummy and I think the votes could be seen as opprotunistic.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
MoS that's a horribly idea.
If all of our Quacks are Quacks and they circle protect the game is over at 3:3 going into tommorow (this is ignoring a lynch today).
Even if one of the Quacks is scum and your plan "works" the Doc circle protect is entirely broken because the mafia can easily kill one of the Docs. This means BCS for your plan = 3 NK's if this follows a No Lynch it's game over, if it follows a mislynch it's game over, and if it follows a scum lynch it will be 3:2 LyLo where we know one scum for sure based on surviving Quacks, so in effect it will equal 3:1 going into N3 and thus I think a town win. Doesn't look like good odds to me.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Yeah discussion would be helpful. Have to say I'm not liking MoS's "plans" thus far. The second one was just blatantly not going to work. Not sure if scum would realistically try to get that to pass, but maybe he's just trying to demonstrate how bad his plans are in general.
I guess I'm still happy with my vote. But I must say I find it curious gets two quick votes for his question and MoS gets one a totally separate player for his much more damaging suggestion.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
This is simply false. Under almost any circumstance MoS's strategy equates to instant town loss. Phate's suggestion is risky but doesn't neccessarily mean a town loss and could out a scum. I still don't think he should do it, but it's at least a slightly viable play.kuribo wrote:Maybe we differ in opinion, I feel that Phate's idea of randomly using Quacks as townie murdering cops is far more damaging.
Really wish you had come out with this earlier in the day when we were discussing it. Why bring it up now btw?kuribo wrote: Anyway, I should point out that I don't know if I'm a Doc or a Quack. The guy I replaced wasn't around, so he didn't perform any night action.
It's hard, too, because if I'm not the remaining quack, then that means that a Quack protected Mafia last night and thinks they're a doc.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
OK everyone a little posting action would be appreciated.
Also I think it'd be best if Kuribo doesn't target anyone tonight as there's a decent chance he's a Quack and one of the other three "Quack's" is thus mafia. Since the extra NK could end the game it seems like the safe thing to do. Any thoughts on this?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Yeah I'm not sure what to do about that one. We could play the night as vanilla, but that'd make it very easy for the mafia. Getting a Doc protect on the upcoming NK could be very helpful.kuribo wrote: We still run the danger that the last Quack targetted Mafia last night and thus thinks they're a doc.
Maybe we could go with this: If we mislynch play as vanilla, if we lynch scum people that think they are Docs put in a protection.
This would mean:
If we mislynch we open the day tommorow at 4:3 LyLo, a Doc protect would get us 5:3 still LyLo or a Quack hit would get us end gamed at 3:3.
But if we lynch mafia we open the day tommorow at 5:2 with a NK, a Doc protect would put us at 6:2 an effective extra lynch, but a quack hit and a NK would be 4:2 LyLo. The small risk seems worth the possible reward here.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Tarhalindur, I've got to disagree with you, my reaction was not scummy. I first reacted to Phate's suggestion becuase it is critical that we not have an extra NK this evening as combined with a mis-lynch that will endgame us. I then posted a correction to my earlier points. I had been thinking about this while off thread for quite some time and wanted to get it up in thread. Finally I pointed out that your and Kuribo's votes were suspicious,
this is very far from attacking you as you state your vote was made to bait attacks.shaft.ed wrote:Also I didn't state this above, but I didn't think Phate's post was considerably scummy and I think the votes could be seen as opprotunistic.
Finally, it's strange to me that your "trap" also nabbed an opprotunistic voter in Kuribo, yet you failed to even mention this possibility.Tarhalindur wrote:2) I was checking to see if anyone stepped out of their way to either further my seemingly poorly-reasoned attack
FoS Tarlahindur-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
And as noted Kuribo furthered the attack without any mention from Tar. Possible association noted.Phate wrote:
So if someone furthered your attack, they're scum, and if someone defended me, they're scum? It looks like the only way here to not be branded scum is to ignore the issue altogether - of course, then one would be called out for lurking.2) I was checking to see if anyone stepped out of their way to either further my seemingly poorly-reasoned attack (scum attacking an apparently vulnerable townie) or defend you (scumbuddy defense).-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
So...that game of mafia we were playing? Anyone?
Just to recap my thoughts. My number 1 suspect is MoS for his two failed strategies and his "OMG Why did you listen to me, FoS everyone" to start the day.
Not liking Tarlahindur's gambit just now, as Phate points out it basically would "catch scum" regardless of the response.
And Tyler, I guess I can belive your busy-ness, but has it been going on for the whole game? You've been heavily lurking, and only have to contributing posts in this game.
Crub any luck with the replacement?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Um there really hasn't been that much mafia theory as of late. It's going nowhere because noone's posting. And I'm not liking the request to hunt scum while not hunting scum yourself.kuribo wrote:This game is going nowhere because people have dragged it into endless mafia theory.
Can we just hunt scum?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Wow, Tar lots of problems with your last post.
First you start by attacking the weak point of Phate's argument that someone not responding to you could be called out for lurking. That was obviously incorrect. However, you barely even address that fact that you could call someone scum for agreeing with you or for disagreeing with you. You just say "in your experience" that is the way it is. Conveniently if you get both the one that's the attacker is more likely scum, but what happens if you only get people agreeing with you, you said they are scummy so how does that work?
This leads me to the next point. You have one "tell" which I would argue is incredibly weak, and you are expanding this to the point were it must always catch scum. I've never seen a scum trap that works so well, yet you're ready to lynch based on a single "tell."
I would like to point out to you that the last few pages consists of very little dialog from about half of the players in the game. We also have a replacement that hasn't even posted the entire day, yet you're already willing to move to a lynch. That is quite hasty and meshes well with your glaring glossing over of MoS's breaking strategy yesterday that basically put the seal of approval on the whole thing while completely debunking it.Tar wrote:we should lynch either Phate or shaft.ed today
You also are basing your entire tell on the fact that I was attacking you. Yet when you first voted for me you said:
So how does a weak attack fit into your experience. I would hardly call my earlier post an attack.Tarlahindur wrote:attacks kuribo and myselfalmost as an afterthoughts.
That's merely an observation. Yet you're basing your entire scum read of two players off of it.shaft.ed wrote:I didn't think Phate's post was considerably scummy and I think the votes could be seen as opprotunistic.
You haven't given any other substantiating evidence that I am scum. You also keep stating:
So the only reason you think Phate is scum is because Oman is giving you a town read? You haven't made a single point to substantiate your case on Phate either.Tarlahindur wrote: I already found Phate to be the most likely scum candidate among the claimed quacks (since I have a town read on Oman and I know that I am town);
In my experience, I've found that when someone is having trouble fitting scum into their scenario it's because they are in fact themselves scum.
unvote vote Tarlahindur-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Wait are you saying that you suspect one if the "Quacks" is scum and thus youTylerJ wrote:Okay, most of the game has been game theory. I couldn't get anything new and started to loose comprehension two pages ago. I should also state that I wont do a night action tonight either for the same reason kuribo isn't.maybe a Quack, or that you didn't get a night action in and just now decided to tell us about it?
This game is getting painful.
Oman I don't think you ever answered Lulu's question about which MoS plan.
And farside, welcome to the game. I do think Lulu has be agreeing with me a bit more than an average player, but I guess I can't fault her for that Seriously I have noticed it, but wanted to see how far it could go.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Man I need to pay more attention. I totally forgot about/missed that point.Lulubelle wrote:
Actually, he told us about that a while ago.shaft.ed wrote:Wait are you saying that you suspect one if the "Quacks" is scum and thus youmaybe a Quack, or that you didn't get a night action in and just now decided to tell us about it?
kurib, care to comment on Tarlahindur?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
While I agree with the above statement, I also feel that MoS's "plans" could quite well be the act of scum. Wish he had more posting to base his alignment on as the "plans" seem to be the only major tell he has given off.TylerJ wrote:I still feel that people are pushing for an opportunistic lynch on MoS.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
OK so what troubles me about this game is we basically have three events to base everything on.
1) MoS's craptastic plans and whether or not they were intentionally bad.
2) Tarlahindur's attack on me and Phate.
3) The blow back from Tarlahindur's attack on me and Phate.
Thus far a number of people are wholely responding to #1 and apparently ignoring #2-3 which means in their world there is only one important event. I think those people include:
MoS, Oman, Kuribo and Tyler.
I would like to posit that these people may be scum trying to lurk in plane sight and do not want to comment at risk of missing a lynch opportunity. I'd further state that Oman and MoS are less likely to be scum because MoS would naturally try to push suspicion away from himself to either myself or Tar whoever he thought he could get to take the heat, and Oman is less likely as he is pushing for MoS while Tar's votecount was moving upwards. That leaves me to believe that kuribo or Tyler are possible scum candidates that have gone undetected.
And Tar I know I owe you a reply to your last post, sorry I don't think I will have time to get it up today.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Tyler, I'm not trying to paint everyone as scum, I'm trying to move discussion. I prefaced my post stating that I really dislike making lynch decisions based on such a small number of incidences and put forth an alternative way to look at players in order to generate further discussion in a new vein. As farside points out it's interesting that my querry stimulated your longest post to date. I also find it interesting that I'm getting more of the same avoidance from Kuribo. And am a little annoyed that noone wants to post in this game ('cept maybe the Aussies haven't had time yet).-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
I still don't agree with this idea. It's very convenient that either way someone responds to this you get a scum-tell. And I would still argue the opportunistic vote is more scummy than the defense.Tarhalindur wrote:I was looking for either of two possible tells: scum stepping up to defend their scumbuddy or a weak townie (in the latter case, it's often done to get a pet townie), and scum trying to push a quickwagon (both well-known tells). On the whole, I consider the aggressive defense to be the more significant of the two.
I don't think you've meta'd me yet.Tar wrote:(barring a player with a well-known history of aggressive bussing)
I can completely understand your annoyance with the lack of scum hunting going on. I feel that people are disenchanted following the disasterous N1.Tar wrote:You are arguing scumminess when what you are actually looking at is playstyle. My knee-jerk aggression in part due to me trying to bait out scum interactions and also due to me trying to get the game hunting and, you know,trying to get people to start hunting for scum.
I can see from some of your MD postings you are interested in the mechanics of this set up. But that just makes me more surprised that you wouldn't have noticed the failings of the circle protect.Tar wrote:I supported the circle protect because I was in the original Quack Mafia and saw just how damaging it was for docs to randomly protect and the possibility that the setup was breakable (hell, the only reason I joined the game was to test and see if the circle-protect strategy would work after thinking of it and, IIRC, mentioning it in the original game). In retrospect, I was wrong, but I was blind to its flaws at the time.
Point taken that I can be scum buddying to Phate in this scenario but you did state:Tar wrote:You are either misreading or misrepresenting my post. Just because Phate is the *most likely* of the claimed Quacks to be scum does not necessarily mean that he *is* scum - by itself, it is nothing more than a minor scumtell. Just because you defended Phate does not necessarily mean that you are scum - by itself, it's just another scumtell. It's the combination of lots of little tells (and one really big one) that make me think you are probably scum.
Clearly you must think we are partnered.Tar wrote:Confirm Vote: shaft.ed
HoS: Phate
Note that at this point I am willing to switch between these two (as they are my top two scum candidates), but at this point I think that we should lynch either Phate or shaft.ed today.
Actually this is entirely inaccurate. You voted me on Jan 13, and had to confirm vote me before I voted for you on Jan 19. My vote came after you further clarified what I find to be an opportunistic strategy and is in no way an OMGUS vote. And if you were paying any attention to the voting record, Phate is actually the last person to vote for you on Jan 27. Lulubelle voted in the post immediately following my vote. If you are accusing anyone of buddying with me it should be her.Tar wrote:That said, there is one HUGE scumtell that I am seeing in your posts, one that I have not been emphasizing enough, and it's the argument that you are conveniently ignoring. When I voted you (a vote on slightly inflated reasons, I admit, but one that I am pleased with regardless), you immediately responded with OMGUS (understandable but still scummy)... and then Phate, who you had defended earlier,immediately started defending you by attacking me, and you two have been on pretty much identical wavelengths ever since. I find it difficult to believe that two players would start building on each other's arguments unless one and probably both of them are scum.
Again multiple players have pointed out the flaws in your plan. I don't know why you are zeroing in on me and Phate when there are at least 3 other players that have issues with your "trap."Tar wrote:It's not just that you have both defended each other, it's not that both of you are leading an OMGUS attack on me -your primary scumtell in my eyes is that you seem to be on the same wavelength as Phate to the extent that you are filling in his argument for him, and vice versa.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
I've never played with MoS but I have heard of his scumhunting abilities. And I do agree almost every post has been in defense of his poor breaking plans.Tarhalindur wrote:In short, the reason why I am now voting MoS is, when I looked over MoS'es posts, I couldn't find any MoS scumhunting in this game - instead, MoS is focusing primarily on game theory. This would ping my scumdar even under ordinary circumstances (it's the Information Instead of Analysis tell), but it's more damning than usual coming from MoS since I've used to MoS being an aggressive scumhunter.
The clearest example of this was hard to spot when I was just reading through the thread, but became blatantly obvious when I looked at MoS'es posts:if you ignore MoS'es random vote on Day 1 (which he immediately unvoted in favor of No Lynch), then MoS has not voted for anyone during the course of the game. Coming from MoS, that's very, very noteworthy - if not lynchworthy, then at least a sign that MoS is in serious need of some pressure.
I'm not as sure about Tar as before. He may be trying to divert his wagon over to MoS. But MoS has been at or near the top of my scum list all day. I'll leave my vote on Tar for now, but I could definitely get behind an MoS lynch.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Allright deadline's almost here. I guess I'm happy with an MoS or Tarhalindur lynch, but I'm leaving my vote on Tar because I think he is most likely scum. I think it's a bit convenient that he shifts his focus over to the only other viable candidate for a lynch when his ass is on the line with deadline approaching. Also won't leave out the possibility of bus'ing here as it's possible for both Tar and MoS to be scum.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Phate it's three at deadline and MoS already has four. If you'd rather a Tar lynch it seems leaving your vote in place would suffice. Since farside hammered I guess my trying to persuade you is pointless.Phate wrote:I'd rather a Tar lynch, but MoS is my second choice.
Unvote
Vote: MoS
But... I'd really rather a Tar lynch.
Farside, same point to you MoS was at 4 when your vote went in, the likelihood of a no lynch was almost zero why the hammer vote?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Crub, just wondering if the label of "town" on page 1 will go for both quacks and Docs, ie we'll never know the difference.
Correct - Crub
Not sure where to go from here. Tarhalindur is still my top suspect. I feel he may have moved his vote over to MoS simply to push the alternate bandwagon. Oman pretty much lurked through the last 2/3rds of the day and had tunnel vision on the mislynch. Second teir suspects would be kuribo and Tyler for similar non-contributive playstyles.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
QFT emphasis mine. Oman please explain yourself. This is not the time for "I think" "I have a hunch" or "my gut tells me" voting and you just pointed that out.farside22 wrote:
I get a HoS for voting and he votes because he is sure? I feel like I missed something.Oman wrote:HoS Farside
for a Lylo vote. One thing saved you: scum rarely vote first in Lylo.Horrible reason
Shaft.ed looks town for asking Farside to remove the vote.
I also think Shaft.ed is town from the last two days.
Vote: Phate
, and am willing to vote on it.I think he is scum-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
FoS Phate
FoS Oman
Would you guys please not vote eachother for little to no reason. We are in LyLo. One misplaced vote can lead to a scum quicklynch. And you are both voting without making any case. This is either poor town play, scum trying to get momentum for an early day lynch, or scum distancing. Whatever of the above it is, it's not protown.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Yes Oman, Phate and Tar are the claimed quacks. Meaning that at most only one of you three can be scum. Also meaning that at least 2 of me, Tyler, farside and kuribo must be scum. So mathematically it's in our best interest to lynch from the latter group. I would strongly suggest this course of action.Phate wrote:Let me rephrase.
Tar is the other claimed quack?-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
Oman, Phate and Tar all scored NK's N1. Thus at most only one can be scum.
I take it that noone is interested in my numbers. That makes me sad . If it's down to Phate or Oman I'll do a reread and see what I can come up with. But I would like more input. Tar & Tyler, can you please get up the strength to post something we need to get this one right.-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis
-
-
shaft.ed dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- dem.agogue
- Posts: 4998
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: St. Louis