Mini 751: Suzumiya Haruhi Mafia (OVER)

[ortolan]

FoS: Tarhalindur

[ortolan]

Doesn't FoSing to lynch mean that voting will have some entirely different effect???

Shall we test it out?

[ortolan]

meh, why should I not be a guinea pig

Vote: ortolan

[ortolan]

I don't know why everyone is so quick to assume Seraphim isn't a jester

I mean sure, judging from what I've seen of Tar's games it's unlikely because if he gave a straight jester role to anyone they could just make a claim like Seraphim's (I believe there were other Tar games in which killing a townie yielded information) and win instantly. That said the speed of the wagon, especially in light of the likely unconventional setup was just stupid.

I agree, following the crowd still isn't that great. Assuming that Seraphim was telling the truth, the mafia would probably still want a quick-lynch to reduce the information given to the town.

If malthusis was scum, I think he would have just hammered.

This argument is pretty rubbish. Quickhammering is very rarely a good idea for scum outside of LYOL. Plus they likely have no idea what information Seraphim's death will yield- it might have terrible consequences for them for all they know. Either way attemping to draw conclusions about malthusis' alignment based on his failure to hammer is just stupid.

The problem I see in the "let's scum-hunt, but ultimately lynch Seraphim argument" is in thinking it's actually possible to scumhunt properly when Seraphim's lynch is a foregone conclusion. If we already know who we we're going to lynch the main device for placing pressure on potential scum- voting, loses pretty much all meaning and pretty much means we're just wasting time up until the point we actually do lynch Seraphim.

Looking at Budja's above post:

You didn't seem to mind settling for a Seraphim lynch earlier. I don't like your sudden change in view.

UnFoS, FoS afatchic

The problem I see with what you said (as I have said before), is that if we keep Seraphim as our backup, our incentive to scumhunt decreases and votes lose pressure.
I am now leaning towards lynching Seraphim simply because of this.

I am pretty perplexed here. In the first part you suggest afatchic is worthy of a vote for changing his mind on lynching Seraphim- saying now that we should go through the normal scum-hunting process.

But in the second paragraph, you pretty much agree with what I have said and what he has just come around to. So how does him changing his opinion to match yours make him scummy exactly?

[ortolan]

I find this a perplexing claim because even if you lynch correctly during LYOL, barring weird dynamics you're usually still in LYOL the next day.

And assuming the generic 9-3 mini distribution, if we kill you then lynch one scum then mislynch in any either order days 2 or 3 I believe we will still be in LYOL on day 4.

[ortolan]

Fine. It's inevitable anyway.

FoS: Seraphim

[ortolan]

Hi I'll be postin' soon

[ortolan]

Hey, sorry for belated post.

I think I have actually seen the Dreaming God role in another of Tar's games I read, are they a standard role for his games? If so does anyone know how they usually work?

I'll treat this as a question open to moderator answer... especially since I have a nice MafiaWiki page with a summary of what the role is (not because of this game - I made it because I won the Best Role Scummy for the original) - Tar

Percy, in light of posts 129 etc. expressing you dislike Seraphim being lynched so fast: Do you disagree with the argument that if Seraphim's lynch is a foregone conclusion, then one can't really engage in any meaningful scum-hunting for that day anyway, so we may as well stop wasting time? If so, why?

What are the chances that Seraphim was scum? I'm starting to think it's quite possible. He must've known what would happen with his lynch and that it would leave the town in disarray.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but I have some theories about what can't have happened:

forbiddanlight dying can't have been related to Seraphim being voted/lynched.

In Post 96 he was on L-1. I tried to hammer him in 97 but failed because I didn't unFoS. This suggests though that had I FoSed correctly Seraphim would have died, presumably before forbiddanlight.

I don't know enough about Tar to know whether he uses "scripted" events and such, but I don't see how forbiddanlight's death can have been "scripted" to take place at a certain point in day 1 unless it was real-time time based or something, for the same reasons as above- if I'd FoSed correctly then Seraphim presumably would have died then and there, instead of dying after forbiddanlight.

Anyhow, this all might be a moot point if Townie Dreaming God's always work in a similar way in Tar's games- does anyone know?

[ortolan]

I typed out a post but I'll wait for Percy to answer my question in 139 before posting I will add you (veerus) to it now though.

I will say I'm very unimpressed by your conviction that "there must be scum in afatchic, malta, budja (and now ortolan)". Reaaaaaaalllllllllly? We are in a 12 player game which usually have 3-4 scum. 3 apparent townies and one unknown are "dead" or "removed". If you select any four random players I'm pretty sure the chance that there's scum among them is about 95%+ anyway. By your logic I could say I'm equally sure that there is at least 1 scum among the 4 players who were

not

on his wagon.

[ortolan]

Here is what I was going to post before along with responses to latest accusations. It applies less now because your more recent post does have far more content.

Veerus, ortolan attempted a hammer. Why are you not suspicious of him? Afatchic seems to have gone partially crazy yesterday, and I'm not really sure why he was talking about vig discussion...

I'm going to treat this as an attack on me as it obviously is although it's addressed to someone else.

As I said, no-one has established any problems with the argument "if Seraphim's lynch is a foregone conclusion, any attempts to 'scumhunt' are really just biding time until Seraphim's inevitable lynch because scum know they're not going to get lynched that day and thus aren't going to respond to pressure etc.". Thus, as others have pointed out, there was no use in waiting to lynch Seraphim, as he was always going to die anyway. I really don't like Percy's blatant attempt to score brownie points by suggesting otherwise, he is using what looks and feels like pro-town rhetoric but doesn't apply in this situation:

Awesome.

We don't even get to confirm his alignment. Perhaps a Jester role, perhaps townie, perhaps even scum with a special ability.... we have no information on Seraphim.

This makes analysing his lynch even more difficult. It built (initially) with terrifying speed, which should have made everyone suspicious, but it really didn't. No-one was really interested in following up on these leads. The general vibe then changed to "everyone else has already decided (without thinking it through) to lynch Seraphim, so I don't think I can change that! I'll just not think it through and go along with the crowd". Now we're left with

two thirds

of the players, and virtually no more info.

In the absence of anything to work with, I'm going to construct cases against other players. Re-read Day 1, and post your thoughts on your scum suspects. Maybe we can actually play mafia and even kill scum today.

The assumption that it was ever possible to analyse Seraphim's lynch is silly- this is clearly not at all the same as a typical day-one lynch. Then he makes the “sheep” call, and then decries the fact we've already lost a third of our players (you're forgetting this is a Tarhalindur game)

@ortolan: You were the hammerer.

Actually, I wasn't, although I tried to hammer. Read posts 98 through 107.

Was there any other reason, other than 'meh, it's inevitable' that led you to hammer Seraphim? If so, why didn't you state it in your post? If not, then why didn't you address the points that I and others had outlined about its evitability?

I was already very clear in 77 that

if

we are going to lynch Seraphim, there is no point delaying doing so. What I was not convinced of at that stage was whether Seraphim's lynch was a good idea at all e.g. if he was a jester or somesuch. I also found roffman and DGB's "arguments" pretty compelling.

Firstly, you're not unimpressed with his conviction. In fact, you point out that his conviction is well founded - he's 95% likely to be right!

My point was that he is 95% likely to be right but trivially so, because you are very highly likely to get scum in any group of 4 players, so in saying he thinks there is probably scum among the four players on the wagon he is basically telling us nothing, and I wonder what his reasons for trying to isolate these players to begin with are.

veerus is just not confident for the right reasons. But your rebuttal doesn't address the faulty reasons he gave. This is a knee-jerk defence that hasn't been thought out at all.

I do not understand what this comment is based on. Please explain.

Also, he doesn't even mention you as a suspect, even though you were the hammer. That's pretty weird.

Again, I wasn't.

So based on that line of reasoning, I'm inclined to think that there were at least one scum on the Seraphim bandwagon. With 3 of the bandwagoners out of the game, our search is down to 3 - afatchic, malt and budja. My money is on at least 1 of those 3 being scum. I'd like to see those 3 people give us an extensive post of what they think about who could be scum.

I think players that are disputing the Seraphim lynch are afraid to give the town what might be a highly valuable advantage. All these players get 3 scum points from me. Not lynching Seraphim is clearly anti-town.

Agreed with the confirmed townie here. After Seraphim claimed, what would scum want us not to do? Lynch Seraphim. What would want to do after he was lynched? Try to get the people on his wagon lynched, using justification like veerus'.

I am finding this somewhat confusing because I am actually unsure of what attitudes some people held towards Seraphim. I was suspicious of Percy and veerus for seemingly trying to attack those voting for Seraphim, but I realise in fact the gist of Percy's 157 is entirely different. In fact it's pretty much entirely at odds with Post 129 where he suggests the manner of the Seraphim wagon was scummy as all hell.

Voting for the wagon was not inherently all that scummy - two of those who voted for him are now confirmed town. Rather than broad generalisations and modguessing, you should look at each player's motivations, their reasons (or lack thereof) for contributing to the wagon, and so forth. If you want to make an argument against each of those players, then actually do it.

Yes, I agree with this, and I wonder if we are talking at cross purposes. While you've contradicted post 129, I do pretty much agree with the content of 157. Your "attack" on me in 157 seems mostly based on thinking I may be scum with veerus, hence him not drawing attention to me- although you were wrong about me being the hammerer. Also, in my opinion his explanation for obviously omitting me- that he was only looking at the vote counts, was quite plausible).

[ortolan]

I was clarifying because what he said was factually incorrect

I believe veerus also said that he had been going off vote-counts, which to me seems plausible. I was not trying to "excuse" my behaviour ever anyhow, as it was veerus' in question.

[ortolan]

This assumes that the Seraphim lynch was pro-town, and those who opposed it were scummy. We don't even know if Seraphim was telling the truth, let alone whether it will be good for the town in the end. If Seraphim was revealed to be town, then you would be right - though statements that start with "If I were scum, this would (or would not) be my play" are fairly WIFOM.

You don't know but you have no evidence that it was a scum-motivated lynch. In fact, the only evidence you have- the flips of two people on the wagon, both town, is that it was a town-motivated wagon. The argument that "oh the people on the wagon who died were town, therefore the remainder on the wagon must be scum" is very bad, and also very scummy

The first problem is that is

presupposes

the wagon was a bad one, which you've given no evidence for.

The second problem is that having said it was a bad wagon, you then assume there must have been scum on it and these are highly likely to be within the remainder of living players who were on the wagon, when in fact all one could potentially say from the evidence that there were two townies on the wagon is that it makes the others on the wagon

more

likely to be town, because it shows townies were motivated to join the wagon in the first place.

The final problem is that to suggest we should tunnel our search for scum onto people who were on the wagon is inherently scummy- it suggests a scum player who knows few if not none of their buddies are on the wagon and thus wants town to tunnel on the players that were to minimise the risk of a scum-lynch. The reason I think this is a possible motivation of those trying to direct the town towards Seraphim voters (veerus et al) is that, as I said, the argument that we should focus on four players in particular because "there is likely scum among them" is inherently flawed because at this point if one randomly takes any four players in the game then the statement "there is likely scum among them" is valid anyhow. This is what leads me to think the intent behind this move is disingenuous.

[ortolan]

Do I detect back-tracking?

I have said that the death of Seraphim was not inherently scummy, but investigating people's motivations for participating (and, I should add, for

NOT

participating) could reveal a willingness to let this happen. That is, I think we should analyse the wagon, as the manner in which it proceeded was (in my opinion) scummy.

So, you think the wagon was scummy, but you equally want to investigate the people

not

on the wagon? Even if you hadn't contradicted yourself here you need to be far more specific- why was the manner in which the wagon proceeded scummy?

I admit that the probability of all the scum being on the wagon is the same as all the scum being off it, all things considered.

This, again, contradicts your assertion that the wagon was somehow inherently scummy.

I am not tunnelling my search. It's just that the wagon is all I've got to work with right now.

This again, is a pure contradiction of your assertion that those voting Seraphim were scummy.

I am not tunnelling my search. It's just that the wagon is all I've got to work with right now.

A poor workman blames his tools. Here's something else for you to focus on.

FoS: Percy

[ortolan]

Percy: which questions have I failed to answer?

@Otrolan, people were coming off of Seraphim meaning there was obviously some people who didn't want it to happen. So it could of easily been avoided. Why did you want it to happen? And why would you want to get it out of the way before day was even really started and we could get any info.

Also, saying that he is 95% right pretty much is saying his suspicions are founded. The only players who would have wanted his lynch so quickly are ones that are anti-town I'm more then willing to but 2 of the scum are in that group.

This suggestion is unsupported.

And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?

I have. It is scummy to encourage town to tunnel on those on those on Seraphim's wagon. Thus I am currently critiquing you.

vote - ortolan

Your case is crap. Look elsewhere, and help me find scum.

This is a very bad incentive for me to remove my vote. You give me the equivalent of an FoS in the normal game and as a purely OMGUS gesture, because apparently you don't like having one vote on you.

Percy is not playing consistently with what I've seen from him previously. He seems very keen to justify his case against zwet but it doesn't change the fact that zwet is an easy target and he's acted no differently to his usual games- afatchic being flip floppy isn't exactly a scum-tell either. I've played with him before and he is, you know, kind of like that.

I also see potential pairings between Percy and veerus and/or Panzerjager

[ortolan]

lol the way zwet is acting is entirely consistent with other games I've seen him in- I know Percy knows this also.

Percy is scum.

The zwet bandwagon is rotten to the core.

[ortolan]

So what is it, zwet? Are you an idiot, or are you scum?

Are you seriously asking zwet this?

zwet, why do I have to keep repeating myself? Oh, right, because you have yet to offer

any

rebuttal of

any

of the points I have made beyond "nuh-uh!".

You haven't contributed anything to finding scum, beyond an OMGUS 'Percy must be scum because I don't like his case against me'.

You make both factual and analytical errors(?) that do nothing but distract from the case against you. You've misrepresented other people's points and put words in their mouth (specifically ToD and panzerjager).

You have misrepresented my case a number of times (three, actually) as "afatchic was inconsistent, and you're in a lot of games" instead of addressing my points.

You are playing defensively and adding no content, and therefore are actively lurking. You have said you are not actively lurking, but have made no attempt to add to the information that the town has about other players.

FoS: zwetschenwasser

Do you honestly think any of these points are legitimately deviant from zwet's meta? Genuine question (although you're scum )

Pretty sure Percy is trying to pick of all the townies via lynch/his mafia's night-kill before day 4 even comes around- ironically using the fact we lynched Seraphim as fuel for town-on-town action. If zwet gets lynched and I die "tonight" ensure Percy and/or (preferably and) veerus are lynched consecutively.

[ortolan]

pick off* ^^

[ortolan]

Just because he always plays scummy in EVERY game, does not mean that he's scum in EVERY game. However considering his predecessor was pretty scummy, I'm not willing to take that chance in this particular game

This is extremely poor justification for hammering prior to the opportunity for a claim. Ironically one of the most risky things you could do, if you were town, although I highly doubt you are.

@ortolan: I think the reason you find me scummy is that I'm investigating zwet and finding his play scummy, when you think I should be looking for inconsistencies in his playstyle as he seems scummy in most games. If I may, I assume you have no read of zwet - I have no idea why you would think he was town, and if so, I'd like you to point the evidence out to me. Now I've been at him for quite a while and he has been incredibly evasive, and conducting himself in a manner that is even scummier than he's been in the other game I've seen him in. When someone looks 90% scummy automatically, and looks 99% scummy in a particular game (due to his unwillingness to change his evasive and defensive style and actually help the town somehow), then your argument boils down to "that's only a 9% increase". This is retarded craplogic.

You are entirely straw-manning me here because these are your figures, not mine. It was also you that said he was more townie in prisoner's dilemma than he is here, not me. Not that we should be discussing ongoing games, but I actually disagreed somewhat with your characterisation of his play in that game anyhow. I also have more experience with him beyond just these two games, and don't really think you're justified in calling him particularly scummy this game based on what I've seen of him previously.

I think you also find me scummy for investigating the Seraphim wagon earlier in the day. I'm sure you'd love to crucify me tomorrow if zwet flips town based on my leading the wagon (you have said as much).

I would have much rather lynched you today. Laying suspicion on those who were on the Seraphim wagon for that fact alone is patently scummy. All we know is two people on it were town, we know what Tar's games are like (I've seen a reveal-investigations on death detective in one before), and we know that scum wouldn't know what his death was going to ultimately reveal so would have no good reason for wanting to lynch him automatically.

How can you justify reproaching me for investigating the Seraphim wagon, but attack me for the zwet wagon?

Why is there any problem with this? You are laying posthumous blame at people's feet for being on the zwet wagon, I said the active zwet wagon was scummy (for a variety of reasons, including people taking advantage of his scummy meta, people on his wagon trying to tunnel on those on Seraphim's wagon with poor logic/justification and me sensing a pairing between two people on his wagon- yourself and veerus).

I guess my point is that I investigated a wagon that I thought was scummy that you were a part of, and you concluded that it was scummy behaviour on my part. I called that position both defensive and ridiculous. If (and that's a huge if) the situation is reversed tomorrow, I would be happy to be investigated. If the first half of the day is investigating my motives for my involvement, then that is appropriate, and I will stand by my reasoning. But how do you reconcile your current position with your assessment of the Seraphim wagon?

How are they comparable? Just because you "objected" (mainly after the fact) to Seraphim's wagon and I strongly object to zwet's wagon does not mean they are the same beast. I have already said why the manner of your attack on Seraphim's wagon is scummy, and also why the manner of your wagon on zwet (which partly results from the person he replaced, a fatchic's position on the Seraphim wagon) is scummy.

I re-iterate what I said in 246, if I don't survive the night Percy and veerus need to be lynched.

[ortolan]

Meta is a risky thing to rely on, ortolan.

Percy is attacking him with it also.

[ortolan]

how about you full claim zwet

there may be roles that can save you from the lynch (not claiming anything)

[ortolan]

and who did you use it on? can you use it this twilight?

[ortolan]

You serious? Is it one shot or what? Why aren't you using it this twilight?

[ortolan]

Don't tell us who you're going to target tonight yet, it will give scum desired info.

[ortolan]

good game

I might have had a chance had I not targeted Percy day 2 and thus lost a life (I wouldn't have made that "if I die Percy and veerus are scum" gambit otherwise anyway)- I genuinely thought Percy and veerus were scum together (for the whole game, lol) and wasn't considering there being two mafias at that point. I said that ("if I die Percy and veerus are scum) because I thought it would discourage their night-kill, but obviously it didn't maybe partly because I was wrong about one of them.

I really need to revise my reads on veerus, I have actually thought he was scum in 3 games in a row where has turned out to be town (RealTime mafia, Rebels in the Palace and this).

I also think perhaps letting Seraphim talk to dead players was a bit unfair because for example scum players who no longer had any capacity to win could coach him and out any other scum-teams they might know about if they wanted (although again, ironically, I was wrong and thought veerus was the last scum rather than Malthusius).

[ortolan]

oh and also the "FoSes are lynches" ability didn't mean anything because you announced to town that it existed, perhaps it would have been better not to tell people it was in place, otherwise it is kind of redundant.

well done on the modding though, a very enjoyable/interesting setup.

[ortolan]

cause I felt like it

[ortolan]

na you were just someone who I didn't think I could necessarily get a good read/meta on