Mini 740 - Communiqu├® Mafia 2: Game Over and the Winner is..

[roffman]

vote: Extomancer

Bandwagon a day 1, page 1 lynch

[roffman]

Are you advocating this?

It's always nice to see something new, and since I've seen the day 1 page 2 random bandwagon, i figured i'd go for the page 1. Probably not getting there though .

[roffman]

welcome

vote: hohum

[roffman]

The fact is, the vote didn't seem random. You voted while referencing a post casey made, therefore your vote was based off that quote. The implication is that your vote is a direct result of casey's offensive against the bandwagoners. When asked to assign motivation, you claim the vote was random.

This leads me to conclude that either:
A) The vote was random and the statement about quicklynching is irrelevant and put in there via incorrect sentence structure.

B) You tried to apply early pressure with a vote and a reason, but when called on it, you didn't have any actual reasons so you defaulted to "random vote".

So, which is it?

[roffman]

it's a random vote. I never claimed i wasn't. Also, what was I called out on exactly? Ectomancer's post was a fragment of two sentences thrown together. It didn't make sense, that's why I asked for clarification.

Seriously, we're uh, 2 pages in now?

Unvote

FoS: roffman

for reading more into a random vote than what is actually there.

FOS'sing someone for constructing a case against you, even if it is based on a random vote, just seems like a scum move. Also, making part of your defence the length of the game just seems like a way to divert further attention. When should we start paying attention to scummy things? Page 8, or 10?

As for clarification, what I want to know is why you felt the need to post:

nobody is quick-lynching. With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch. Last I checked he was at L-4.

it was quite obvious that the quick-lynch wasn't happening, and that it would lose it's prime supporter (me) when it went past page 1.
However, to reiterate a precious point, you felt the need to include it in a vote post, hence giving rise to the impression it was somehow tied to your vote.

Now to give you a direct question: If your vote was random, why did you focus on Casey rather than someone else, either a bandwagon or someone who was promoting an anti-town action, to further develop the game. The whole point of the random voting process is to generate a blameless target for the town to start against. Therefore, why did you intentionally choose at best a neutral target to help start the game?

(N.B. Random vote is random is not a satisfactory answer to this)

[roffman]

@ecto: The problem with your plan is it relies on certain assumptions, that being that everyone, including scum, has only one day message and that they haven't used it already. For all we know, scum may have multiple messages, and this course of action would just get an innocent townie lynched for trying to establish information.

[roffman]

I'm just going to lodge an objection again, this time with actually a valid reason. I had already received two communiques before this plan was proposed, one from someone who I think is town and i'm not going to reveal that information.

The second one I think is from scum. It said:

Got a one-shot pre-game cop investigation on hohum. Said scum. Keep pushing for lynch.

This message was unsigned and I think it was scum trying to take advantage of my apparent aggression on hohum, though it may in fact be legitimate.

Your plan to disrupt scum communication may still be valid, however, be warned that at least 2 people are no non-confirmable. Just thought to throw this out there before we waste more time on discussing a plan that may turn out to be non-feasible

[roffman]

This is the reason why i think it's scum. Why not come forward at the beginning anyway? Your probably both going down but 1 for 1 in no reveal is good. There could be the possibility of a post restriction, but I really just think this is scum trying to throw a package of misdirection at us

[roffman]

@ectomancer: You make good points. I hereby endorse this plan

[roffman]

I'm happy with the loop concept, it also stops scum from just claiming they didn't receive a message. As for a response to Juls, your message was very vague on what you wanted. I'm going to go with town, though I'm not exactly sure what you were asking or how you wanted me to respond.

[roffman]

1)

Braeden --sends-to--> Budja --sends-to--> Casey --sends-to--> Dorvaan --sends-to--> Hohum --sends-to--> Houseofcards --sends-to--> Magicrabbit --sends-to--> Reecer --sends-to--> RossWillam --sends-to--> Braeden

.

2)

Roffman --sends-to--> Ectomancer --sends-to--> Juls

.

I hereby endorse this product or service

[roffman]

message sent to BSG. I think that means our loop is done

[roffman]

yeah, bsg got my message. waiting on the rest

[roffman]

I agree with ecto that if hohum is not town, it is an extremely intelligent tactic for scum to employ, and probably means the town is going to lose very quickly. As such, i'm inclined to say hohum is town unless overriding evidence presents itself to the contrary.

BTW, if anyone accuses me of fabricating the message, if i was scum i would've not mentioned juls message, and then hung them both out to dry. This being no-reveal would have most likely gotten 2 free lynches, leading to a near certain scum victory.

[roffman]

This post strikes me as a little odd. Why the plea for townie points? Why are you trying so hard to paint yourself in a positive light?

It's not a plea for townie points. It's an explanation of my future actions, as well as a pre-emptive defense against any attacks on me that may waste time.

[roffman]

I got the cop comminuque at 11:13 am, on friday the 6th.

[roffman]

I'd like to mention that different timezones produce different timestamps. My first objection to the loop occured because i had already received juls's message. The second objection occurs after i received the second message.

[roffman]

Yeah, what magicrabbit said. I misunderstood what juls was asking before. I received one message before the plan was proposed, one after. When I said I received 2 before the plan was proposed, I think I was utilising a mental shortcut to write down a mistake. I can't accurately say why I said it that way.

[roffman]

Sorry for not posting for a few days, been busy enrolling for uni.

So far the case against me revolves around one mistake I made. Saying I received them both before the plan was resolved. That and the fact that people are assuming I lied are the entire foundation of the wagon against me. I'd just like to ask people to elaborate on what I stood to gain by making the message up. Their is no motivation for me to do so.

[roffman]

Quick question for ecto:

When you proposed your plan you were obviously aware of the previous game in which each person only got one communique. How come you were then not aware of the additional extra role of one person per day getting an extra message?

Juls, its not an entirely unplausible idea. I don't see a glaring hole in it myself, though I'll give it a beating here shortly. Believing that we only have 1 communique in this game because there was only 1 in the last game is a bad assumption to make. However, I do think that some of your theories are a result of being caught out sending a communique giving out your name and your role to someone you don't know. I'm still not content with your answer there.

Here you say that assuming only message is a bad assumption, however, in the previous game, multiple messages did exist. Now I ask you, seeing as you decided to vote me based on an analysis of probabilities: Which is more likely, me creating a message with no benefit to gain or that the mod followed the trend of the previous game by allowing certain roles more than one message per day?

[roffman]

Just a warning, the mod has answered your question. I asked some questions about my role pre-game as well, receiving the same response.

[roffman]

While I agree with casey on their being only 3 possibilities, this is a human game with human interaction, which you are completely ignoring. Your choosing to ignore possibilities because their unlikely in a normal game, while focusing on probabilities that have no motivation behind them. Also, by ignoring the potential of gaming the setup, you are crippling your own scum hunting abilities. Let me ask you, do you automatically assume there is only 2/3 scum in a given setup? That's gaming the mod. Do you assume that roles are completely randomly handed out? That's gaming the mod. Without gaming the mod and utilising the human element, the game becomes random lynches and night actions, and we might as well just toss dice to see who wins.

[roffman]

So basically you come into a game where the rules are significantly more complex and the game structure is completely different from what your used to and you decide, with no actual logical reasoning, to ignore valid points about scum hunting and how to go around determining information. No offense, but get off your high horse and learn to at least accept other people know what their doing. Your refusal to embrace new concepts and develop alternate scum hunting tactics reeks of scum trying to lock the town onto a course that creates a series of lynches based on misinformation and mathematical probabilities. If it's not a scum tactic, it's self destructive town tactic.

unvote, vote casey

[roffman]

It's not an OMGUS. That is the first time I've actually made an informed vote. As for bullying her, it might make her accept that other points of view are equally valid, and actual scum hunting might ensure besides "crossing fingers".

[roffman]

@Casey: I understand that your new to the game, however, going on gut feeling will not make you a better player. Reading up on things such as game balance and random assigning of power roles will. The need to make your feelings and opinions heard is something common to all of us, just the next time you accuse someone have something beyond character and feeling to go on.

N.B. This is not in anyway an attack on you personally, just a personal preference that people with minimal experience do further research before potentially skewing a game.

@hohum: My vote on Casey revolves around her reasons for voting me, not the vote itself. She says quite openly that she has no experience, is voting based on minimal evidence, and is just crossing her fingers and hoping. I would vote for anyone who voted with those reasons. The fact that the vote is retaliatory is purely co-incidental.

[roffman]

I think PBPAs are mostly useless as opinions usually suffice.

The problem with relying on opinion, is everyone has one. A PBPA shows clear and concrete examples of tactics used by a person with which to support your attack against them. I'm not saying you should analyze every post, but some quotes from key posts with which to reinforce your arguments would go a long way to supporting your case on ectomancer, and stop you sounding as if your complaining because the most pro-active player is targeting you.

[roffman]

I'd just like to mention that dahill may not have received the message in your proposed 3 hour window. He could of received at anytime in the preceding 20 hours or so, he may have just doing other things on the site before deciding to forward communiques. I'm happy to exclude BSG, don_johnosn and cybele from the suspicion list, but the rest are all still in there. One more thing, how do you measure activity? Is it just by posts made, because if it is, I am active about 10 times more often then my posts indicate. A lot of people browse the forums without posting anything which would skew your analysis of when people are active.

[roffman]

I've quoted when I've received them, and I periodically delete all my mail information, while transferring important information to the notes section. It's a habit I have, I like things neat.

[roffman]

@Casey: Why would it be mentioned before? I haven't played a game that resolved around PM's before so it would never be relevant.

As for the voteing, I'm happy with a

unvote vote no Lynch

[roffman]

I'm still happy with no lynch due to the mechanics of the game, but i'm going to wait for flameaxe to post before i make a final decision

[roffman]

I think it's getting to claim time. I'm a shielder. I target someone and all actions that target them target me instead.

@hohum: please post your ecto pbpa. It has been requested multiple times, by multiple people. It is being requested not as an attack on ecto, but as an analysis of your play style and what you deem important and sucmmy.

[roffman]

I think it's getting to claim time. I'm a shielder. I target someone and all actions that target them target me instead.

@hohum: please post your ecto pbpa. It has been requested multiple times, by multiple people. It is being requested not as an attack on ecto, but as an analysis of your play style and what you deem important and sucmmy.

I don't think anyone saw this

[roffman]

any reasons?

[roffman]

The flavor is that i send them a message to activate it, then all their messages are sent to me.

[roffman]

I don't have a night communique. I have a specific message i may send to activate my ability. Otherwise, i do nothing at night.

[roffman]

Very well played Casey. The game looked very frustrating but it was interesting to read. With my fake communique day 1 I was hoping scum would run with it to lynch two targets day 1, also allowing me to kill one scum during the night. Obviously, it backfired .