Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[mneme]

Hmm. Lemmme see some dice.

Original Roll String: 1d11

1 11-Sided Dice: (3) = 3

[mneme]

booyah!

vote: Johoohno

(obvously, random).

[mneme]

Hmm.

Given a player without a vote, the "meta" nature of this game, and Primate's extra vote, I'm guessing we have a player who can take a vote from one player and give it to another (either Primate as a vote-thief, or a third party vote-mover).

unvote
vote: Mr. Stoofer

[mneme]

Of -course- sloppiness is lynchworthy. So is saying "I did X" when you did nothing of the sort. It might not be as signfiicant as something else someone does, but sloppiness is every bit as lynchworthy as, say, consistently being third on bandwagons.

[mneme]

Wow.

Stoofer is scum. No two ways about it.

He lied about his vote early on, then brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

Who am I voting, again? Oh, right, that guy. I'm pretty sure I'll be voting him at the end of today, too; at this point it would take a cop claim or something of similar magnitude to get me to change votes.

[mneme]

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that? [Bearing in mind you are so ready to call what was clearly an honest mistake a "lie".]

Er, post 68? You're still voting Primate, you know, and post 69 from Fonz made it clear that your vote was the #5 vote...

I'm not suggesting that you lied as a matter of strategy, nor am I invoking LAL. But the level and type of inattention involved in your prevarication regarding your "lurker" vote (not to mention the error in the vote itself), combined with the levels of inattention involved in your -1 -on-Primate vote read "scum" to me.

Players make mistakes (I make a lot of them), but the type of the mistakes are often pointers to alignment.

[mneme]

He ... brought the player with a competing wagon to L-1 without comment.

In which post did I do that?

Er, post 68?

I'd rather

vote: Primate

however.

I think the points made in posts 62, 63, 64 are good ones; especially because I know that Primate is a very thoughtful player and I just can't see him being so generous with his second vote, to a player whose alignment he (supposedly) does not know, without an ulterior motive.

What are the words in blue if not a comment? Please explain to me why your post [80] is not a lie?

Er...I don't -care- whether you explain your votes when you make them. If I want to know an argument why -I- should vote for someone (or, for that matter, if I want to know why you are voting for someone), I'll ask.

I -do- care whether point out, when you put someone into the hammer zone, that you are doing so. Not doing so risks lynching two people -- the target and the unwitting sap who hammers.

Voting primate in that way was an extremely anti-town action.

Right. But Fonz unvoted in [69] too, leaving him on L-2.

Right. Town points to Fonz, scum points to you.

So what's the problem? And if it is a problem, why doesn't it apply to everyone who is still voting him?

Because they didn't bring him to -1? There's nothing wrong with the Primate bandwagon -- I might be on it if there weren't a better candidate today. But each vote progressively reduces difficulty of lynching someone -- in a 5 player game, the first vote takes you from needing 3/4 of the game to needing 2/3 of the remaining game, the second to needing 1/2 of the remaining game, and the third to needing 0% of the remaining game. And these numbers are even harsher in a larger game -- in a 12 person game, l-3 needs 3/7 to lynch, l-2 needs 1/3, and l-1 needs a mere 1/5 (and, of course, L needs 0/4). Drastically increasing the ease of a quicklynch without any real deliberation is antitown.

[mneme]

Seems to me that this "lie" wouldn't have much benefit for scum. Did anyone really think that kingpin was in some kind of danger of being lynched after that vote?

I think this is pretty obvous, but...

Yes, Stoofer's "lie" wasn't at the LAL level; it was carelessness. But that kind of carelessness when placing a vote or explaining it isn't protown.

[mneme]

Mr. Stoofer. Stop struggling, it just makes the hurting worse.

I didn't say you voted Primate without comment. I said you brought him to L-1 without comment. These aren't the same thing. Any sane player would know what I meant.

Moreover, you did lie. You've admitted you lied. Feel free to join Liars Anon. any time now. You -also- were careless. I don't think your lie is of the sort that needs bring automatic lynching (ie, false role claims and other "this seems like a good idea, but on a meta-level, it just isn't" lies), but it's not doing your credibility any good.

There's a huge difference between "Stoofer thinks what mneme says means something than different than what he actually meant" and "stoofer said this was his thought process, but this wasn't actually, you know, true; he just described what probably would have been his thought process if he'd bothered".

In the former case, it's actually your reading at fault; I made it clear what I was saying and what the problem is; it was clear then, it was clear when I restated it so anyone would understand it, and it's clear now. Your reading made no sense, and doesn't even fit the way I play the game; I've gone down on record -numerous- times as not caring whether people explain their votes when they make them.

In the latter, it's your writing at fault; you were careless, then you made a plausible explaination for your carelessness that wasn't actually true, then you've been playing a defensive game ever after except for the time you tried to get someone to hammer Primate accidentally (I have no reason to believe you accidentally brought him to L-1, and every reason to believe you did this "careless" thing deliberately).

[mneme]

Mneme has actually really surprised me. I expected him to lurk and not really do much, but he's been fairly decent. I'd put him as town.

META

Er, say what? I don't ever roll this way.

Have we even played together? (if so, I'm assuming an alt).
/META

For Dots, I am 60/200 sure of Johoohno being scum. When this tips over into 100/200, I will likely include my second vote. Neutral people get 30/200.

Ok, so why do you think Johoonhno has a 30% chance of being scum?

[mneme]

There's no explanation for his actions as scum, either--therefore, he was acting irrationally, or sloppy, and I don't see why scum would be more likely to be sloppy than town.

Scum are, in fact, more likely to be sloppy than town.

Scum don't really have to scumhunt to pick bandwagons that will benefit them -- they know who their buddies are, so they can be assured that anyone they lynch that isn't on their team (ie, anyone for an SK, anyone not in their group for mafia or cult). This tends to make them sloppier during the day than town, who in order to win, need to sort players into their team and not-their-team -- largely from the content of day posts.

[mneme]

Stoof: That would seem to imply that if Emp is not scum, I am and vice versa.

False opposition, maybe?

[mneme]

Scum are, in fact, more likely to be sloppy than town.

I disagree whole-heartedly. While you have a point about choosing their bandwagon, scum have to make a concerted effort to try and remain hidden whereas the town does not.

You appear to disagree half-heartedly.

Typically, scum are interested in different things during the day than town are -- they're interested in doing things will look good, not attract attention, and be defensible (as well as their day goals of hunting opposing townies and power roles), whereas town are most interested in identifying scum during the day. So scum will be sloppy in certain aspects, whereas town are far less likely to be self-concious in others (notably, in managing spin).


In fact, I find the

sloppiest

play tends to come from those people who have solid roleclaims that they can fall back on if need be. I'm not saying that Stoof falls into this category, just that I disagree with your conclusion.

Even if the explanation is sloppiness, isn’t it more likely that he’s guilty, and he’s overdoing it either to either justify his first errors or else because it allows him to get away future antitown actions?

It seems

most

likely to me that, regardless of his alignment, he honestly believes that he's making sense to someone other than himself right now.

What would the rest of the mafia be doing during all this? They should be hoping that another lynch could be put together before Stoofer crashed. And that looks like Primate. Assume Primate’s town. But as of Fonz’s unvote, the Primate wagon failed. Which the mafia should have realize immediately:

First of all, I find it incredibly amusing that I told you exactly what I would do if I were scum in this position (giving my honest opinion on Stoof, ignoring our alignment), am currently doing exactly that (thereby at least partly incriminating myself), and you don't believe me.

Second, I disagree that the Primate wagon failed -- The controversy surrounding his decisions still rages and I myself am strongly considering joining it (my current vote isn't doing anyone much good).

Cam[/quote]

[mneme]

I think scum would have backed off by now, as mneme seems to have done.

Say what? No, you're scum. Still not planing on unvoting. I'm just waiting for the rest of the town to lynch you.

[mneme]

Mathcam: very funny. Sorry for failing to trim most of your post from the end of mine.

Re Stoof -- I've seen solid play from him in other games as town. Not so here.

So, what do you think of the case on stoof -- in terms of:

Initial sloppiness.
Defense against claims of sloppiness (including casual lying as part of same).
-1ing a player precipitously and without announcing it.
Crappy defense once attacked -- major OMGUS against Emp and YT, craplogic as part of defense.

[mneme]

DotS is innocent.

Temporarily assume DotS were guilty. His rolename would be black. He would have no way of knowing that the scheme wasn't protown roles=green/antitown=black, in which case he'd be lynched immediately for revealing he didn't know this in [153].

Huh? Does your role mention a color scheme? Mine didn't.

So why didn’t you say this when mneme called you on in on page 4, instead of calling her a liar?

"her?" Who do people keep making this mistake? Do I need to put my harp icon here to avoid this?

[mneme]

Temporarily assume DotS were guilty. His rolename would be black.

This appears to be pure misreading, but might not be...

Protown roles are green.
Antitown roles are red.
Nobody got "red" or "green" in their PMs.

Some roles apparently mention "black" -- but black is not protown or anti-town (by elimination, it's presumably neutral, unless it's a special kind of protown or antitown; meta, after all). So no, if DotS were scum, his role would not be black and he wouldn't have mention that it was.

[mneme]

---

mneme, you're being...

sloppy?!

Hmm?

Let alone vote-worthy, I was really surprised by mneme's suggestion that sloppiness was

lynch

-worthy, especially in this context.

Of -course- sloppiness is lynchworthy. So is saying "I did X" when you did nothing of the sort. It might not be as signfiicant as something else someone does, but sloppiness is every bit as lynchworthy as, say, consistently being third on bandwagons.

@ mneme

- Based on this post, would you be willing to lynch Stoofer right now for not reading the thread carefully in the first 24 hours of the game (being sloppy) and providing a false explanation for his actions (saying X but doing nothing of the sort)?

I'd certainly be willing to lynch Stoofer for the totality of his actions in this game. That's, you know, why I'm voting for him. No, as I said above, I wouldn't have been willing to lynch him (given other viable candidates) for -just- what you state above; just because something is lynchworthy doesn't mean it leads to a lynch, just suspicion. But close to half his posts have contained something worthy of suspicion, his recent ones not being an exception.

Also to mneme:

I'm not suggesting that you lied as a matter of strategy, nor am I invoking LAL. But the level and type of inattention involved in your prevarication regarding your "lurker" vote (not to mention the error in the vote itself), combined with the levels of inattention involved in your -1 -on-Primate vote read "scum" to me.

Is there a reason town wouldn't have done exactly what Stoofer did?

Yes, because town want to win. Nothing Stoofer has done so far seems calculated to do anything to make town win; there's nothing protown I see there yet. Townies who want to win don't pervaricate about their reasoning for votes, don't post crap defenses, and don't bring players to -1 without saying they're doing so, nor do they do so as early in the day as Stoofer did unless they're deliberately testing the waters, which I see every reason to think he wasn't doing. (As it was, well, yes, he did a good job of showng Fonz as town. But that's no credit to him).

MOD: Please put the roster in the first post. This site has a useful feature of letting people see the first post on every page of a game -- but that's not useful unless the first post contains the salient info (ie, roster of living, dead, and replaced) that makes the game more meaningful! Thank you.

[mneme]

Blah, blah, blah. Can we just lynch Stoofer already. I'd bet you a shiny nickel he's scum.

[mneme]

Mod: er, aren't you then favoring a very small number of players (those coming into the game for the first time) at the expensive of a larger and more signfiicant number of people (those playing the game -- who need the ability to easily find out who has replaced who -- and thus which players are actually which other players?)

I do not want to modkill Primate.

[mneme]

FWIW, I do believe in policy lynches for lying. But I don't think Stoof's pervarication rose to the level that invokes that as mandatory. OTOH, I think he's scum, so hey.

[mneme]

Can anyone verify that Primate's actions make sense in context of what happened?

Because WIFOM aside, "I did X, which was clearly contradicted by events" doesn't inspire one with confidence.

[mneme]

TSN: what are the odds that your action would have caused someone to be able to target Emptyger with an ability despite the redirection? Is this more of an 80% chance, or more of a 10% chance?

Your coming forward with a possibliity makes me somewhat less likely to switch to Primate based on the inconsistencies in his roleclaim -- but only somewhat.

[mneme]

FWIW, I had that exact point, and TSN's quasi-info is the only reason I'm not voting Primate Right Now. That said, I'd like more info on that point, and consider it somewhat bizarre that he refuses to provide it.

FWIW, I -don't- support a massclaim:

1. Meta. Day 1 massclaims are bad for Mafia. Not this game -- every game; they just make the game less fun and less meaningful.

2. If the game is well designed, a day 1 massclaim will help the scum a -lot- more than it will help the town, as the scum will claim plausble roles, and meanwhile get a nice laundry list of who they need to kill. They might even have safe claims. Do we really need that?

[mneme]

Actually, TSN's waffled more than that. TSN has said he has info that -might- explain Primate's night action -- not info that actually does.

Info that -would- explain primate's night action + vote change, well, ok, fine, I'd work with that; it means TSN is committing to something and we're holding him to his word that things make sense.

Info that might explain it? But TSN doesn't know this? No, that doesn't work; we need to be able to evaluate it too.

[mneme]

Why can’t the town consider that when we’re ready to evaluate TSN’s claim? Nothing’s going to change between now and then regarding Primate and him.

Er....something's going to change; specifically, we're not unlikely to lynch Primate.

Speaking of which...sorry, Stoofer, I'll get back to you later.

unvote
vote: Primate

For that matter, why are you against a massclaim? Because, it sounds like you were against Primate until TSN came forward, and now are thinking Primate innocent and TSN guilty.

Huh? I was against Primate (but voting Stoofer) until TSN came forward, and am still against Primate, but wih TSN would give me something useful. I don't consider TSN more suspicious than Primate is -- but I do consider what he's given us so far completely useless in terms of proving Primate pro-town.

If you don’t think claims could be useful, how do you explain your switch on Primate? Are you expecting a fuller claim from TSN to be any different than the Primate situation?

Yes, I expect it to give us something to go on re Primate. I'm fine with vague supports in general -- "Internet stranger is supciious" "dude, don't heckle IS; he's cool" "ok,, if you say so dude" -- but given the solid claim I want something more solid (and note upthread what I actually -asked- -- which TSN never answered).

You’re making a broad generalization without any support whatsoever for your position. Would you oppose a massclaim in lynch-or-lose? D4? D2?

What is this, strawman-building day?

D1 is not LoL, and not D4. A well designed game doesn't favor town in a too-early massclaim, because the scum, with extra info, can pick out info they find useful and ignore the rest, whereas the town cannot pick out mafia claims from town claims.

In a badly designed game, a D1 massclaim can prove to be a breaking strategy -- but it's still not all that much fun to see all the magic too early, and usually, "BW-till-claim, then evaluate claim" is the right approach to achieving said massclaim anyway.

Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims.

I also don't think they're a good strategy here, but I'll particpate in one if the majority wants to enforce one. Is anyone counting votes?

[mneme]

Stoof: no, but it's sloppy. Yeah, he's at -1, I wasn't sure whether I was bringing him to 4 or 5. And no, it wasn't a sign that you're definite scum either, though that's the way to bet.

TSN: please don't misstate what other people say. It makes you look like scum. I said two argments. Apparently, 1=2 to you.

For that matter, if you read the thread, you'd see that I never asked you for a full claim. I asked you to answer my questions. If you don't think Primate is likely scum, perhaps you should -- even if it involves a full claim. Because this "I might be able to explain it, but I won't" doesn't cut it.

Anyway, what's so useful about outing all the doc and vig and cop types in the game and how they work in combination? How does this help the town? Doesn't it just provide too many targets for docs to protect and expose the doc types?

[mneme]

Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims.

That definitely sounds like saying you oppose massclaim based on reasons beyond the game to me.

unvote
vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

If you're not scum, you're certainly playing like one. Town don't selectively quote only the points that support their argument. Lets go to the video tape, shall we?

Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims.

I also don't think they're a good strategy here, but I'll particpate in one if the majority wants to enforce one. Is anyone counting votes?

And in my initial anti-massclaim post:

FWIW, I -don't- support a massclaim:

1. Meta. Day 1 massclaims are bad for Mafia. Not this game -- every game; they just make the game less fun and less meaningful.

2. If the game is well designed, a day 1 massclaim will help the scum a -lot- more than it will help the town, as the scum will claim plausble roles, and meanwhile get a nice laundry list of who they need to kill. They might even have safe claims. Do we really need that?

Wow, yeah, I'm just saying that it's my meta; there's no actual game reason I'm stating supporting my argument, nope. Well, at least, not in the bits you chose to quote.

TSN: what are the odds that your action would have caused someone to be able to target Emptyger with an ability despite the redirection? Is this more of an 80% chance, or more of a 10% chance?

I don't have odds to give you. It depends on factors in the setup I don't know.

But I do have a question for you: I'm assuming you have a night action. If so, how do you select the one person you target?

I use my judgement. Which is what I'm asking you to do above, or claim; you are at a certain level of certainty, but seem not to be willing to share it, just vague assurances you won't commit to.

[mneme]

And an OMGUS, too.

TSN, your defense of Primate was protown, but that only goes so far.

Anyway, see you Monday. Same bat time, same bat channel.

[mneme]

Emptiger's "pledge" is pointless. Johonoo is correct; without a massclaim, anything to do with claims is -not- useless; it's just unreliable. I don't "understand" that anything to do with claims is useless because it's simply not true.

Stoofer: Re primate, nothing's changed. But then, my only reason to consider him scummy was his claim, and while TSN's non-defense isn't actually useful for validating the claim, it does tie (vaguely) indicate that -if- TSN is not scum, Primate might not be lying scum.

Re TSN: er...I'm not attacking TSN because he defended Primate, and, in fact, I -never- attacked TSN because he defended Primate.

That's a good catch, also, about how mneme attacked me over my "protown" defense.

Ah, TSN is lying scum, then. Or at least, a very, very careless reader.

Emptiger, even more so:

TSN’s vote was anything but OMGUS. But more importantly, if you thought TSN’s defense of Primate was protown,

why did you attack him over it

!

I never attacked TSN over his defense of Primate; I asked him to clarify his defense, because it wasn't useful. At one point, I tried to push him on this...by voting -Primate-, not TSN. (that's when I brought Primate to -1. I'd been counting to see that he wasn't close to a lynch, but didn't recount right before the vote to see if he was now at -1...oops, sorry about that). But I considered TSN's non-defense to be somewhat protown -- you don't want to tie yourself to a buddy this early if you're scum, and acting on role-related info to save a non-ally is pro-town.

So Emptiger, why did you lie here, claiming I'd attacked TSN over his defense of Primate? And town, why did you let that stand?

However, since that time, TSN has:

1. Backed off on his defense of Primate and refused to make it useful, as well as refusing to tie his alignment to Primate's in any even vague fashion.

2. Deliberately misrepresented my position (re massclaims) for rhetorical purposes. Including, at several points, lying. "In other news, we can ignore mneme's objections since he concedes it has nothing to do with whether it would be useful in the game." er, what?

3. Asked his ridiculous leading question which seemed intended to elicit a half-claim for no reason.

So overall, I'd characterize him as "lying scum, trying to buddy up to a townie" making TSN as scum, and Primate as townie. Or he could be lying scum trying to save a buddy without tying their alignments together and trying to avoid hinting at a role he can't prove. Either way, we should lynch TSN.

And TSN: -if- I have an ability with a night choice, I use it by PMing the mod. Or emailing him. Or IMing him. Or calling him. Or asking a mutual friend to walk over to his house and tell him what I want to do. What's your point? I might have an ability that chooses one target, two targets, whatever.

[mneme]

He brings Primate to L-1 in post 300 without any mentioning of it. When the L-1 is questioned (post 302) he tries to shift focus (post 304) and finally shifts vote as well to TSN (post 306).

A fascinating interpretation.

And all this from a person who has been very single-minded on stoofer all the way up to post 300, now he is voting wildly all over the place. And since May 19 he has been silent. Could be a way to avoid notion and keeping his head low.

Or, you know, there could have been more or less nothing to say last week when nearly nobody was posting, and I could have a largely-kept rule of never posting on weekends.

How can I have "my head down" when nothing is happening?

Anyway, I still think Stoofer is likely scum -- but TSN has gone to the top of my list right now for the craplogic/creative reinterpretation in our massclaim discussion.

[mneme]

Talk about “craplogic/creative reinterpretation”. Like with the lynch-1 issue, you have a badly hypocritical way about you.

Repetition doesn't actually make something true, you know.

Re lynch-1 -- I messed up, and voted Primate to -1 without realizing I was doing so. I admitted this, and that it was a screw-up, in 304 -- I then moved on, because while I'd certainly find it suspicious were I not me, I -am- me, and know I'm not scum (and, after all, tells don't always indicate scum). It's not hyprocritical for me to mess up in the same way I've attacked someone else for; it's just a screw-up. (the difference is in reaction and response; Stoof has done a lot of suspicious (IMO) stuff around his screw-up, including claiming it wasn't a mistake at all. So were I a third party, I'd be voting Stoof over "me" -- but other people need to make their own decisions, of course.

I said in [310] why your attack on TSN is wrong. You responded by attacking me in [318].

That's a very creative interpretation of your claiming (falseley) that I'd attacked TSN because of his defense of Primate, and me calling you on it.

As above--just repeating false accusations doesn't actually lend them weight. Could you try, say, quoting or pointing to any point where I attacked TSN for defending Primate? I double-dog dare you.

I showed you in [324] why your attack on me is factually wrong, and why your attack on TSN is now suspicious.

No, you didn't.

Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?

Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims.

That definitely sounds like saying you oppose massclaim based on reasons beyond the game to me.

unvote
vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

If you're not scum, you're certainly playing like one. Town don't selectively quote only the points that support their argument. Lets go to the video tape, shall we?

Here's what seems to be the sequence:

Emptiger claimed that I attacked TSN for defending Primate.
I responded that I'd not attacked TSN for defending Primate, but that while I'd asked for more info to substantiate his defense, that there wasn't a hint of my attacking TSN until he mis-represented me regarding the massclaim question.
Emptiger then claimed that he'd explained why this was "factually wrong" -- by using a thread pointer (partial quotes or at least url links are better, IMO)...to the above-quoted post where I attacked and voted TSN...over his misrepresentation on the massclaim question.
I ignored this, as it was obviously false.
Emptiger repeated it again, compounding his error.
This post.

Re you having potential information that would negate TSN's info re Primate: Would this info also potentially affect Primate's claimed night action and your still losing your vote?

[mneme]

TSN: Because your argument was ad homenim. The fact that I don't like day 1 massclaims doesn't invalidate my non-"I don't like day 1 massclaims" argument. Claiming that my argument -can- be dismissed for that reason is both a logical falacy (ie, craplogic), and when done in a way that makes it seem like I made no other argument, misenterpretation.

FWIW, Emptiger, by his defense of you, is somewhat rising in my thoughts as scum -- I think his arguments and selective-interpretation may be even worse than yours (in that situation).

Re my bouncing between Stoof, Primate, TSN, and Emptiger...I'm happy to vote people for throwing off scumtells like they're in sheding season, and it's a bit of a target rich environment. Would that it weren't, I'd rather have a thread bereft of craplogic, and misrep, thank you.

[mneme]

TSN: you don't actually know what an ad homeneim argument is, do you?

[mneme]

You weren't making a personal attack, but you were claiming that my admission that I didn't like (day 1) massclaims invalidated my argument against it...and you still haven't actually responded to that argument directly, though you've made some good points about it indirectly.

I was interpreting your statement, y'know, when you said "it has nothing to do with in-game reasons," as saying your argument has nothing to do with in-game reasons.

Except that I didn't. I said, parahprasing, that "regardless (of this logical, in game reason I just made), I don't personally like day-1 massclaims". "regardless" means the two things aren't related to one another; it doesn't mean they -are-, as you seem to think. Consider: "regardless of what color the sky is, I'm agoraphobic."

Anyway, what do you think of Emptyger claiming I attacked you for backing up Primate's claim?

[mneme]

I'll concede that you might have meant something different than what I thought you meant if you'll concede that I wasn't somehow intentionally trying to twist your words.

I'll conceed its possible that you misenterpeted me (and quoted the points that you'd misenterpreted rather than the adjacent ones that seemed to express the opposite sentiment because those were the ones you'd focused on).

Emptyger's claim made sense when I first read it, but I'm sort of souring on it. Or, at least, I'm souring on it making you scummy. You're still wrong about it me being scum, and you aren't going to convince me that any additional claim would be at all beneficial, except, of course, in the context of a massclaim, which would be a good idea.

I don't, at the moment, any way, think your scumminess (or not) is tied to emptiger's scuminess (or not).

Re claims: Er, what? Isn't this how we play mafia? We BW someone, when we have critical mass, we get a claim from them (if it's helpful; in some games, claims are worse than useless, as living claimed people are too much of a hindrance, but that's a rare exception); we evaluate the claim, possibly getting coroberating/conflicting claims from other people, then we either lynch or not; then repeat. The result is sometimes very like a massclaim, but the process isn't, as we're getting claims in a combination of proceedural and suspicion order. So saying "I'm not interested in getting or giving claims unless we have a massclaim" seems beyond the point; by and large, we don't get to a massclaim with a majority vote; we get there by getting enough claims that we figure it's worth beating the rest out of people and then doing so. If we have enough info to want to lynch before we're fully claimed today, what's the harm in it (or even better, from my POV, as the scum have a worse idea of who to try to kill).

[quote="TheSweatpantsNinja"

A well designed game doesn't favor town in a too-early massclaim, because the scum, with extra info, can pick out info they find useful and ignore the rest, whereas the town cannot pick out mafia claims from town claims.

I don't think its going to break the game, and I don't think (although I'd be pleasantly surprised) if it reveals scum. The problem is, judging by the set-up, its going to be impossible to determine whether claims are true or not, because clearly just about anything is going to be feasible. Having all the role information out in the open, with a lot of roles that are likely to be confirmable, while it might benefit scum in deciding who to kill, is likely to benefit us in being able to confirm night activities. (do you really think it likely that we have more valuable town roles like a cop?) Let mafia decide between killing a role switcher or a, um, whatever primate is (a reverse bus driver?).[/quote]

I do think it's likely that we have at least some cop-like roles, yes. And if Primate is telling the truth, we have at least one doc-like role (yes, his role is doc-like -- assuming he's town, while he can mess up investigations (like a roleblocker, which is also doclike), or pointlessly retarget kills, he can also retarget kills to scum, acting as doc+vig, given the right choices. And if we had a kill-immune protown player, he could retarget likely kills there, both proving the immunity and saving the target. I don't think we do, though.). -- keeping in mind that doc-type roles are -higher- priorities for scumkills than cop-like roles are, assuming both are out.

Moreover, I simply fail to see how deciphering claims is harder in an "honor system" where people do partial claims to verify/deny roles (ie, like a normal game) than it is with a fully claimed game. Yes, sure, the mafia, if they're involved in an interaction, may lie and get someone killed, but that can be found out eventualy, and is true in either case. But if all the conflicts are pro-town, we can unweave them without having to get full claims from everyone involved, and I think this favors the town more and the mafia less.

Re the Primate case, the possiblitieis I see are: 1. Primate is lying (possible. very wifom). 2. Emptyger gave away his own vote and is withholding useful info (I'm actually beginning to look this way, given Emptyger's other behavior. If Stoof isn't scum, Emptyger probably is). 3. You interfered with Primate's choice/action in some otherwise unexplained way (and some third party did the vote manipulation) and are revealing partial info. 4. Underpants. I mean, Other; someone else (probably scum, or over-cagy town) interfered with one of the participants. I do see how expanding our info base until we have at least one picture of what happened helps the town here.

mneme:
...Do you have any interest in clearing this up? Or, now that your attack on TSN has failed, are you trying to salvage something of it with an attack on me? I’d rather not put words in your mouth, but you’re not leaving me with much choice.

Really? Because it seems like the entire argument (mneme/EmpTyger, anyway) is all about your putting words in my mouth. (as opposed to mneme/TSN, which is all about TSN only quoting the words that supported his argument). Both of my cases against either of you are based on process -- not connection -- but errors of process, in this game, are scumtells of a high order.

<snip>
Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
<snip>

You keep restating my "X for Y" parts, which I perfectly understand, and ignoring what I'm actually asking you about, "Z".
We agree that:
X = you attacked TSN
Y = TSN defending Primate

[/quote]

Actually, we don't. TSN didn't defend Primate. Aside from my not remembering to count, this was the mistake with my Primate vote -- because pushing Primate up toward lynch wasn't useful pressure against TSN, who acted as he should in that case, as if, aside from wanting to reveal that he might have semi-useful info, he didn't care that much whether Primate was lynched.

But you seem to want to claim that I attacked him because he was defending Primate? Whereas my claim -- that I attacked him because his argumentitive errors were scummy, out of frustration and because, in fact, such errors -are- scummy, is oddly consistent with my attacking Stoofer because his sloppiness was scummy, and...oddly enough, with my attacking you because -your- errors are scummy. Which reminds me:

unvote
IGMEOY: TSN

You won’t clarify what Z equals.

Er, what? Z was so obvious, even a deaf bat could get it. I attacked TSN because he, multiple times, selectively quoted me in a way that distorted my actual statements. That's why I said I was voting him, and oddly enough, it's true.

Z better not be (3). TSN had a reason for his leading question, and if you were telling the truth in [318] you should have realized it immediately. (And for the record, if there is a massclaim, this is a strong reason why you should go towards the beginning.)

Not really, he didn't. 3 was out-and-out fishing. Hypocritical, at that, since TSN's approach has been "I'm not going to do an informative claim unless everyone else does it", and yet here he was, fishing for role claims.

Z can’t be (2), because in [308] you said that TSN had committed OMGUS. Which means that, according to you, TSN’s attack on you came after you attacked him.

Er, what?

In 305, TSN fished and quot/distorted me.

In 306, I voted him, and ate the fish, along with the hook.

In 307, he voted me.

In 308, I called that an OMGUS.

So, yes, I attacked and voted him before he voted or attacked me.

And your defense has been to ignore it or to grandstand with unsupported denunciations and double-dog dares or to call me and anyone who disagrees with you “lying scum”. TSN, me, mathcam, Johoohno (presumably, by his vote), and Stoofer all have disagreed with you, and you can’t dismiss all of us by calling us “lying scum”.

Are you even reading this crap? You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.

Hell, you also lied; I've not called anyone lying scum (you do know the quotes mean that it's what I actually said, right?) nor have I claimed anyone lied...except Stoof (about his own thought processes, after he admited to same) and oh, right, you. So "anyone who disagrees with me" is either Stoof and you, or it's TSN, you, cam, jono, and Stoof. It can't be both, you know.

…But, here’s the silly thing. I actually am less suspicious of you than others on my list, despite this. Rather, I think that you are stubbornly incapable of admitting you could be wrong,

Oh, look, another lie. Didn't I do this last post? Pointing out that I'd -also- (if weakly, calling my vote on Primate sloppy) done so earlier?

Sorry, Emptyger, if you can't keep to the facts in the thread, I can't see why you would do so with other things, like, say, your night action.

vote: Emptyger

[mneme]

Emptyger: if you can't play the game with even a pretense of honesty, no, I can't be "reasonable". But I can vote you, and am. And no, saying "if so and so is lying scum, ..." is not saying they're lying; -you- are liar, wheras Primate is only a liar if he's lied about his role (which is kinda, you know, obvious). I don't believe you are as stupid as you appear -- therefore, I do believe you are scum.

Fonz: There are some rare moments when anti-quicklynching can count against a player. In particular, if a player is -1 shy, particularly when the -1 was announced and there's no new evidence, this begs the question of whether the player is scum trying to avoid being on a townie lynch or trying to save a buddy that they were previously bussing. Of course, this isn't true in your case.

[mneme]

Bah.

Emptyger's been annoying the hell out of me, but at the moment, I don't think he's actually scum; he's trying too hard to find mafia.

Which, I suppose, is something like how he feels about me at the moment, given his last post.

unvote

[mneme]

How many inactive players do we have?

[mneme]

Am around.

Stoofer
Primate
Dits (that last post "why am I a candiate? Nobody's voting for me" was actually pretty scummy).

[mneme]

I'm not interested in actively pursueing a deadline lynch. Real lynch >>> Deadlne lynch, in terms of info gained. Can always have a mass jump-off on June 6-7 if we really -need- to, though really, mass chage of vote is far superior.

Stoof: Sleepy, mostly. And while my instinct is to always have a vote on somewhere, that's not always actually a good idea.

vote: DestroyeroftheSky

Worst non-defense evah.

[mneme]

Fonz: Unless you have special knowledge, Lynch > No Lynch.

While Primate is only among my top 5, not my top 3, I'm likely to put that theory into pracitce in the next hour or three.

[mneme]

No response = hammer. G'night (and have a good weekend), everyone.

unvote
vote: Primate