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

[don_johnson]

hi, replacing dorvann. starting to read, will post asap.

[don_johnson]

vote: no lynch

i have finished my reread. it seems to me that many of you are fighting the "no-lynch" scenario, but i feel it is an extremely viable town play in this game. first, we seem to have very little info on the mechanics of this game. second, the game is "no reveal", the major reason to avoid a no lynch is so that town gains information for day 2, but in this scenario, a lynch will reveal nothing. if you go by probability, we will most likely lynch a townie. i'd rather send this game to night phase and try to strategize with our mod-given communicating abilities to rout scum out day 2. without a deadline i think we can have plenty of time to discuss possible strategies for night talk. personally, i have suspicions of several players right now and i would be happy to lynch one of a few people

if it would give us information

. unfortunately it will not. so i say, let scum make the first move. use our communique's wisely and lynch with more certainty on day 2. the normal benefits of avoiding a no lynch do not apply to this game.

thoughst?

[don_johnson]

agreed on wanting more discussion. please do not misconstrue what i am asking as trying to avoid exploring the current avenues. i just think the whole "we must lynch someone!" argument should not apply due to the nature of this particular game. unless we are damn sure we have scum(or uncover a definite 1 for 1 exchange) i see the no lynch as a viable option to be considered over lynching without a measurable degree of certainty. also, if i am horribly wrong on this, feel free to enlighten me.

[don_johnson]

agreed on wanting more discussion. please do not misconstrue what i am asking as trying to avoid exploring the current avenues. i just think the whole "we must lynch someone!" argument should not apply due to the nature of this particular game. unless we are damn sure we have scum(or uncover a definite 1 for 1 exchange) i see the no lynch as a viable option to be considered over lynching without a measurable degree of certainty. also, if i am horribly wrong on this, feel free to enlighten me.

I'd say no lynch is a viable option if we completely stall out after a reasonable time. (a few weeks?)

Until then, now that we have time, 1-for-1 exchanges sound like the best scenarios.

why the change of heart? two posts earlier you sadi this:

And if the other third of the players were posting, I might be able to do more than cross my fingers. I have little to nothing to read on for Reecer, Ross, Dorvaan (now don johnson), MagicRabbit, and Braeden. We have a deadling approaching. Your lynch is what I see as the best option from the possibilities. I oppose a no lynch.

hohum explained the odds. though i still believe we should keep the option on the table(8 town, 4 scum = day 2 lylo), it doesn't seem like i made a very strong argument here.

one note on casey: in 16 +pages of reading this thread, casey is the one and only player to mention the words: "serial killer"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

[don_johnson]

Interesting, could you point out the exact place.

sure :

EBWODP:

The theories:
-Some players could be able to do multiple communiques.
Seems very unlikely. First of all, this wasn't the case during the previous game. It would also give scum a huge advantage if the scum have multiple communiques as they could easily confuse town. It also wouldn't make sense to have a 1-shot cop with multiple communiques. He could give his result to multiple players during the day.

I started to think about this, but I didn't want to game the mod. Things go wrong when you game the mod. There could be communique blockers, some

bizarre communique-mining SK

, and so on. Nobody knows. And I hate losing games by gaming the mod.

^^ in response to another player, but still kind of "out-of-the-blue", don't ya think? just something which stuck out to me, i guess.

-Our order involved 2 scum players back to back in the chain.
More likely. The only thing is that it will be hard to find out who they are. I'll try to look at this one if there's perhaps a possibility to find this out.

Ooh. If this is the right answer, then we have some info to go on. There were two or three proposed chain orders, so it might be good to see who was fine with what order.

I'll take a look at this, probably tomorrow

, unless someone beats me to it.

while i'm at it... how'd ^^ work out for you? figure out anything useful?

[don_johnson]

If your 9 scenario proves to be right, we can safely assume Roffman is scum.

QFT

[don_johnson]

To sum up, it looks like good reasoning except for the 2 I mentioned above. I think leaving Dorvaan and Houseofcards is reasonable.

que? what? are you saying leave dorvan/dj and houseofcards on the list of suspects who sent the "phantom" communique?

are you saying you agree with the no lynch idea?

[don_johnson]

thanks. i love points.

[don_johnson]

casey's explanation is reasonable. it was just something that stood out on my read through.

i agree with budja here. though lynching may better the static probability of us catching scum day 2, i think we are overlooking the mechanics of this game and the definite advantage to which we can use them. i think lynching with certainty is better than lynching and simply playing the odds.

ecto: i think budja's idea here can determine whether or not the message was faked. juls would be the wild card here. please don't call me names. it hurts my feelings.

[don_johnson]

I can't believe anyone is seriously considering a no lynch.

why do you seem to ignore the dynamic nature of this game? you are asking us to rely only on static probability. lynches reveal nothing in this game, so there is nothing to be gained from a mislynch other than a raise in the static probability that we might lynch scum.

remember, static probabilities in this game are based on a random lynch. i.e. 2 player scum team in a nine player game results in the average townie being able to pick someone at random and have a 25% chance of choosing scum.

25% represents the static probability of finding scum at random. raising that number doesn't inherently increase the odds of town winning the game because town does not lynch at random.

it is the most sound conclusion i have drawn from this game yet.

[don_johnson]

Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far,

not counting password.

I got none.

i think he's saying he got just the one.

also, note that hohum seems eager to lynch just about anyone. being staunchly opposed to a no lynch is just not thinking outside the box. if we follow his reasoning or agree to some sort of policy lynch then we may all as well stop playing and let some random mechanic choose our lynches for us.

I AM PUSHING FOR A NO LYNCH UNLESS WE CAN BE REASONABLY CERTAIN WE ARE GOING TO HIT SCUM.

[don_johnson]

interesting. do you find reecer6 "scummy" based solely on his limited activity? have you looked at his voting pattern? where does he "assume" we won'tlynch him? are you considering a "policy lynch" as well(hohum indicated this would be better than a no-lynch)?

also, its johnson, not johnston. you know, white suit, pink shirt, relentless in his fight against the drug cartels of central america.

[don_johnson]

how am i covering up for reecer? i thought his post was easily understood. he was asking if anyone got "other" communiques besides the password ones. personally, i think questioning that post at all is a bit of a reach in itself.

casey, the majority of your post and suspicions rests in your interpretation of the exchange between magicrabbiit and reecer6. though it is plausible, it is hardly evidence. it is about as strong a case as me saying, "well, casey mentioned the words 'serial killer', so she must be one." you need to add this interpretation to some sort of evidence.

password and codeword seem pretty interchangeable.

i understand your suspicions of reecer6, however, it seems as though you are pressing the issue after hearing talk of a "policy" lynch.

Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. I got none.

Post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. how do you explain R6 producing a password if he got zero communiques? i just think you are misunderstanding this post. if you are implying that he is lying about his password, then magicrabbit/R6 are scum buddies. why am i fos'd and not magicrabbit?

so I should send to reecer now?

looks like a question from someone trying to clarify exactly what it is they are supposed to be doing. interpreting it any other way is pretty fallacious.

whatever, if you think i'm defending someone that's fine. your case is crap and your conclusion makes no sense from the opinions you present anyhow.

post 457 is pretty horrible.

@ hohum: i am referring to your belief that any lynch > no lynch. that is what i mean when i say that you are willing to lynch anyone. how do we know that town doesn't have a vig? by your statistics, one wrong lynch runs the possibility of putting town in a day 2 lylo situation. are you willing to run that risk for a "policy" lynch?

[don_johnson]

ebwop: got ninja'd there. casey, that makes a tad more sense, but i still feel you are reaching with your interpretations of of the magicrabbit/reecer6 exchange. however, i will let them answer for it. majority of my post still stands.

[don_johnson]

The point was I'm trying to avoid an argument with ectomancer until OTHERS have a chance to comment.

I never objected to posting the PBPA, which I already have prepared.

if you already have it prepared then you shouldn't mind posting it now. yes, now.

i understand your rough math on the probabilities of lynching scum, but by lynching "randomly", even though our odds increase of hitting scum the next day we are possibly down an additional townie. by letting scum make the first move we are almost guaranteed to be able to confirm whoever dies. then go back and see how everyone treated that person day 1. our odds do get better either way you decide to go, but with a no lynch we are slowing down the game and giving us a confirmed dead townie at the start of day 2, instead of one confirmed and one unconfirmed.

hohum: i am not saying you are advocating a "random" lynch, i am using the term and putting quotes around it because that is what your data is based off of. even if we lynch someone we think is scummy, the no reveal mechanic doesn't let us know if we're headed in the right direction or not. letting scum start the killing makes a lot of sense. there is no "time limit" to this game, i.e. we don't lose if the game lasts six days, so why not stretch it out? we will still have a better chance to hit scum day 2, + we will have a comfirmed townie to analyze.

[don_johnson]

don_johnson: in your 13 or so posts of any substance, you've barely discussed anything more than how good of an idea it is to not lynch. Could you try weighing in on other subjects?

Hohum v. Ectomancer?

tough call. hohum appears much scummier, however a couple of his points about ecto's play are valid(i.e. hohum explained his pov on the "no lynch" matter quite extensively even though i disagree with his reasoning). the ad hom's have not helped him either. ecto reads town, but anyone making a power grab should be considered dangerous

roffman's message?

i think he lied. i think he and hohum may be scum partners and the lie was designed to hopefully clear them both, but set up so that in case it backfired at least roffman would come out smelling town. this, however, is speculation and has no base in fact. someone else could just as easily have sent the message which is partly why i think it a good idea to no lynch and possibly find a way to use our night communiques to town's advantage. there has to be a way to confirm people in this game, i just haven't figured it out.

Juls' claim?

believable, however, her missing communique blows a giant hole in the story. randomly asking for advice about your role seems like a really poor town move. it also makes her a nice scapegoat for the "scummy" investigation communique.

Reecer's status?

he just seems like an asshole, but i find his posting a little humorous. this is a game after all. unfortunately, i cannot support a "policy" lynch any more than i'd support a random lynch in this game and i don't find his behavior necessarily "scummy".

i believe if we put our heads together we can figure this out. i wish i was better at math. i honestly think the key is in the difference between the static probabilities that hohum is speaking of and the dynamic ones which exist in this game.

[don_johnson]

thinking further:

if we all agree to a no lynch followed by policy lynching, i think everyone would start chiming in. i.e. if we agree to "policy lynch" lurkers, all townies would understand that they need to participate. scum would most likely participate as well. then let mafia make the first kill and analyze the day 1 interactions. if someone continues to lurk, lynch them on policy day 2 because you know they are scum. not sure if that would work, but i'm thinking out loud here.

hypothetical: player A has been lurking. we agree to the above plan. if player A continues to lurk knowing they will be policy lynched then they would not be playing to their win condition. if player A contributes then we analyze what and how they contribute. either way, player A will at least then give us a read.

[don_johnson]

futhur still:

is that any different than policy lynching today? i think it would cause we'd be giving everyone the rest of today to speak up, finding a dead and confirmed townie at the start of tomorrow and have all of day two for people to contribute...

this can't be right. someone please comment. anyone...

[don_johnson]

futhur still:

is that any different than policy lynching today? i think it would cause we'd be giving everyone the rest of today to speak up, finding a dead and confirmed townie at the start of tomorrow and have all of day two for people to contribute...

this can't be right. someone please comment. anyone...

I'm missing the linkage here that results in a confirmed townie. If they are dead, they can't be investigated and we get no results.

do you think scum would nk themselves? i guess the townie wouldn't be confirmed, but if scum wants to sac a member that puts us ahead in the game, don't it? the static probabilities would go down, but we would also have any power role results, night communiques and what not to look at as well. follow the no lynch with the threat of a policy lynch. sounds wierd and i am surprised that this is where my thoughts are going, but it makes the most sense to me in light of the fact that lynches will reveal nothing.

[don_johnson]

pretty much, yes. but only if we set a standard to which town will play. perhaps devise a night communique chain similar to the one we did today. we don't need to have control over what anyone writes in their communique, but a pattern we can follow to send and recieve messages will (hopefully)greatly reduce scum's ability to engage in deciet and trickery(referring to the "phantom post"). i am probably not the guy to figure this out, but i think there has to be some sort of math based solution to start confirming people, or at least greatly affect the probabilities of us finding scum. i think you have been on the right track today, but we need more input on this. i am definitely not comfortable lynching anyone right now.

how many active lurkers do we have right now? i think we have a couple replacements coming soon.

[don_johnson]

What I'm getting at is that we said we wanted to get to a 1-for-1 lynch position. Does Hohum v. Ectomancer sound like a reasonable choice?

is this question for everyone?

[don_johnson]

casey, roffman, hohum

nothing new, but mostly gut feeling. not comfortable lynching anyone yet.

[don_johnson]

Indeed, names by themselves aren't much. Even if your suspicions have already being stated in the thread, I'd like a little explanation.

brief, yes. i was short on time. still am a bit. my suspicions have already been stated in the thread.

roffman- i think he lied. gut feeling.

hohum- conditional, if roffman lied, then i believe it was to clear both of them. his adhom's have not helped him.

casey- will deserve mor explanation than i have time, but mostly based on gut feeling. if you remember, juls, i was at the center of the "do we have an sk" controversy in 730. i don't know why, but i am always suspicious of extra anti town roles in larger games. i will reread some and post more analysis.

however, as i have said, this is all mainly based on "gut" and therefore not valid for me to vote or lynch at this point. i still feel that the odd mechanics of this game make a "no lynch" a better decision for day one.

[don_johnson]

Hi!
I'm sorry i needed to be proded.

you need more than that. you need to post content and analysis. i just lost a game because scum lurked their way through. if you choose to continue this antyi-town behavior i will reconsider a policy lynch over a no lynch.

[don_johnson]

I am 100% on board for a Reecer policy lynch. To me it is no different than a no lynch. If he is scum then yay us. If he is town then why would mafia kill such a wonderfully awesome gift?

QFT

no quick lynch, but at this point, without some type of beneficial response, this makes sense.

Reecer: if you are town, you must not let this happen.

[don_johnson]

8 hours til Reecer6vote. i just lost a game due to lurkers.

[don_johnson]

vote: reecer6

happy to see a replacement, but i'd like reecer to post.

[don_johnson]

vote: reecer6

happy to see a replacement, but i'd like reecer to post.

unvote

i don't want this getting away from us. if we get a replacement for Reecer that's good. if not and his behavior continues i will revote.

[don_johnson]

good. i am willing to break from this game until we find adequate replacements. unless something changes dramatically, i will be back on the no-lynch wagon.

[don_johnson]

Anyway hohum, any chance of seeing that post-by-post against Ectomancer.

Also I am not going to vote no lynch at this stage. Even if we don't hit scum, we at least remove a distraction.

I mean, our vote tomorrow will probably be more informed but the result of our lynch will probably still be uncertain. We really can't rely on power roles to save us.

the idea is not for power roles to save us. the idea behind a no lynch is to get mafia to reveal a townie by nk. i.e. whoever shows up dead is most likely not mafia. the only way they could be is with a 2 nk scenario, right?

[don_johnson]

Yeah, and that really helps how?

That happens anyway whether we lynch or not.

we avoid a possible mislynch.

[don_johnson]

...

Oh, come on, that's a lame reason and you should know it. If it were true, no-lynch would be a viable strategy for normal games.

The only relevant difference that this game here is no-reveal so we don't get the result of our lynch. I was unsure at first, but now I believe that this is insufficient reason not to lynch today.

We have the chance to lynch

our

choice today. Whether that turns out to be scum or town, we have at least removed a distraction and we should think of it as such.

sorry, but i disagree. i have already agreed to removing a distraction(i.e. lynching reecer), however, if we lynch someone because we think they are scum and then don't find out whether or not they are, the day 2 bandwagon analysis will be convoluted(not sure if that is thr right word.) tainted? my point being is that mislynches favor scum in every game except for the fact that they can be called out for their reasoning as to why or why they weren't on a wagon once the lynch's alignment is revealed. why lynch if we are not certain? the information gained will be much less advantageous than it is in a normal game.

[don_johnson]

i understand what you think, but i do not plan to push a "no lynch" agenda past day 1 without due cause. i just don't think it would be a bad way to start this game of "no reveal". but, whatever. i am interested to get some commentary from the replacements.

[don_johnson]

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

i hope you wait for more than just flameaxe.

[don_johnson]

i am not pushing this idea on the rest of you. also, i don't know how to "prove" it a viable strategy. it just makes sense to me. scum kills a townie night 1. we start the game on day 2 with a "confirmed townie". we can then analyze the interactions of said townie with other players from day1 much like we would analyze a "townie bandwagon" in a regular reveal game. its not much, but it is a slight advantage.

if we lynch someone and they are not revealed, we really don't have as much to analyze. also, it may be a viable late game strategy as well if we don't figure this out. sorry, but i've never been in a "no-reveal" game before.

your vote is interesting, though. what is scummy about suggesting an idea and sticking to it? also, can you cite examples of what you are describing as me "pushing" this idea? so out of all day 1 you think i am scummiest for suggesting a no-lynch? scummier than the others who are agreeing with me? what exactly sets me apart to garner your vote?

[don_johnson]

that was quick. anyone got a vote count?

hohum: how did i get to third on your list? please answer the questions i have already asked i.e. what sets me apart from all of the other players who have either voted for or considered a "no lynch"?

you are deflecting.

Vote for your biggest suspect.

i can dig it.

Unvote, Vote Hohum

[don_johnson]

@don, didn't you say that hohum was only suspect if roffman was scum.

yeah, like way back. thats not relevant now. hohum voted me on terrible logic, then jumped to roffman. voting for pressure is one thing, but hohum voted me because he was mad about my idea. i still don't see the downside to a "no-lynch". sorry, but i don't. hohum is basically in favor of lynching anyone.

if that's the case then why not lynch him?
^^^^^^^ see the problem with his logic?

[don_johnson]

how am i being "ambiguous"? i asked you a pretty direct question several times in the same post. how is that "ambiguous"?

[don_johnson]

ambiguous: lacking clearness or definiteness

what is scummy about suggesting an idea and sticking to it? also, can you cite examples of what you are describing as me "pushing" this idea? so out of all day 1 you think i am scummiest for suggesting a no-lynch? scummier than the others who are agreeing with me? what exactly sets me apart to garner your vote?

so... are you saying this confused you?

[don_johnson]

btw: you just suggested lynching a player who is in the process of being replaced. are you afraid of some new commentary?

[don_johnson]

you are not even considering a "no lynch" which means you will lynch anyone. and yes, you suggested lynching ecto:

it's either ecto or don_johnson which need to go at this point.

go where? to the store?

again: HOW AM I BEING AMBIGUOUS?

[don_johnson]

sorry, it wasn't "conveniently" left out. i snipped the quote because i was simply pointing out that you did in fact suggest an ecto lynch.

if you don't want to lynch before the replacements get here then perhaps you should unvote roffman. casey just put him at L-1.

we have been waiting for you to produce this pbpa forquite some time. you said it was already prepared. please post it now. if you feel it gets lost in the thread then you should be able to just paste it in again.

has roffman claimed?

[don_johnson]

Why would I unvote roffman?

a role claim at L-1 is inherently unsafe. i should not have to explain that to you. people hammer for all sorts of reasons and once someone claims, it is general practice to discuss the claim.

Roffman is HERE and in no danger of being replaced. I already said I'll produce the PBPA when Ecto's replacement joins the game.

i demand the pbpa NOW. you have already said that its prepared and that your fear is that it will get lost in the shuffle. this is an unrealistic fear as you can produce it later just as easily as you can produce it now unless... you are lieing about the fact that you have it prepared at all. why do you bolster my mistrust of you, by refusing to post this information?

Why are you trying SO HARD to derail the pending roffman lynch?

sorry, not trying to "derail" anything. just trying to exhibit some common sense. replacements can often give insghtful contributions to a game like this and Roff is at L-1 and being asked to claim without so much as a "good faith" unvote.

Roffman: fuck 'em. do not role claim until someone unvotes.

[don_johnson]

roff may very well be scum. never said he wasn't. also, your ridiculous and unrealistic fears have been noted. i am not jumping in for the pack mentality. if you were town, i don't see any reason for you to not post this "alleged" pbpa.

therefore: you are scum. scummier than anyone thus far. i am voting you and would rather lynch you than anyone here.

also, townies hammer for any number of reasons, it is not always a scumtell for someone to hammer.

[don_johnson]

why are you such a dick?

[don_johnson]

i don't know everything. i didn't realize that i implied that i did.

i do know that there is no protown reason for you to continue witholding your pbpa. post it and i'll shut up.

[don_johnson]

i promise not to argue. i want to know if you are lieing. by witholding this information you leave me no choice but to assume you are not telling the truth.

what makes you think that ecto's replacement won't get a chance to participate when they get here? you can always repost this "supposed" pbpa you have ready to go.

[don_johnson]

how is higlighting, rightclicking, and cutting and pasting going to be "distracting"?

i won't ask you a single question about the post until ecto's replacement responds. we can even totally ignore it until they arrive and then you can repaste it in the thread.

did mama leave you home alone without your nook?

at this point i would ask that we actively dismantle the Roffman wagon and lynch hohum. his behavior is fucking ridiculous. and i am pretty sure that ridiculous isn't happy about it.

[don_johnson]

How do you resolve hohum being scum and the fake communique?

hohum is partnered with roffman. scumhohum sent the communique to town roffman. our "telephone" game isn't too foolproof. don't you think it is reasonable to ask hohum to produce this "alleged" prepared pbpa?

[don_johnson]

not really defending roffman, but i am willing to entertain other possibiities. we have no clarification on whether or not someone had two commuiques. scum could simply have lied.

to juls and budja: i am saying, nor did i say, that i think hohum/roffman to be scumbuddies. i stated that that could be one of the possibilities to explain the "rogue communique". i am not voting roffman because hohum is being an ass, and because if i were to have been voting roffman that would have ended the day and i was unsatisfied with today's proceedings. roffmans claim sounds like bullshit.

budja: if you are town and you had information you could paste into the thread, and your honesty as to whether or not this information existed came into question, and there was no danger to you for posting said information, would you not post it?

seriously, hohum posts pbpa, don is satisfied.

also, hohum is extremely far from being a "confirmed" townie.

[don_johnson]

Confusing question , I am guessing you are referring to hohum's analysis. I don't care if hohum has written it or not yet, that is irrelevent IMO. I would say there is no harm in posting it now.

so you have no interest to find out whether or not hohum was lieing?

you seem to be mischaracterizing my argument here. hohum has a clear and easy path to give himself some credibility. yet he chooses not to comply. you are okay with this behavior? i.e. you don't mind if hohum is lieing? you condone untruths? you condone deceit? you will allow unsubstantiated claims? etc.

how(at the time) was roffman any scummier than someone refusing to produce evidence they say they have in their possession which would absolve them from the charge of lieing?

currently, i agree with casey on roffman's roleclaim. sounds scummy. let it be noted that i think the rest of you are foolish for allowing hohum to skate on this one. at this point in time the charge is moot as hohum has had plenty of time to produce his pbpa and even if he produces it we have no way of proving that he lied. way to go town.

[don_johnson]

whatever.

[don_johnson]

@don, hohum has already posted an attack on Ecto, its not like he hasn't been scumhunting. To withhold his pbpa until the replacement arrives is no big deal. I don't see the great importance around it anyway.

sure. whether or not players are honest is no big deal in the game of mafia.

vote: roffman

is that better?

[don_johnson]

hey Juls, this game is about finding the scum. how was your night?



for those of you paying attention, i apologize for the timing of the hammer. i didn't realize we were at L-1. any ideas? personally i think Hohum should be next.

[don_johnson]

Vote: don_johnson

For his incredibly jackassy behavior yesterday

. I don't have time to get into more details at the moment. I will though, TODAY (as in calendar day), along with everything else I've been promising.

well, seeing as you've had plenty of time to work on that pbpa i don't doubt you trying to look town today.

as for the bolded: have seen the pot, kettle?

[don_johnson]

^^
obvscum.

interesting. very compelling case you have there.

[don_johnson]

lynching hohum would balance out the roffman lynch, no? also, i still don't understand why hohum was allowed to ignore a simple request to provide information relating to his in thread honesty. if you don't agree with that, then fine, consider it a pressure vote until someone makes sense of this. we have yet to see this alleged pbpa which by all intents should have taken hohum all of 12 seconds to post for us to avoid this accusation.

[don_johnson]

You hammered Roffman but you think Hohum is scum? How do you explain this? Do you believe the Roffman communique was a gambit to protect Hohum?

yes. hammer was accidental. i didn't realize he was at L-1 and everyone seemed to be fed up with my displeasure regarding hohum's inability to post an alleged already prepared post that should have taken all of twelve seconds for him to deposit into this thread upon request to verify the level of honesty which he has brought to this game. no, the gambit(if it was one) was most likely not designed to "protect" hohum. i find it interesting that you are so narrow minded in the intepretation of said gambit.

As I said before, this would be a very amazing gambit if true. There's just not enough evidence to prove or disprove it yet. The issue is a WIFOM / gaming the mod debate.

what is so amazing about one scum faking a "guilty investigation result" communique about another scum? what is so amazing about the possibility that roffman was town and scum sent him the communique? as you seem to acknowledge, the wifomic circumstances of the situation are confusing, but i don't see why you find it "amazing" that someone attempted such a ploy(if it even was a ploy). why do you see only one explanation for the communique and seem to ignore all other possibilities?

Hohum has been very dodgy, and has withheld his pbpa. However, he said he would post it after Rhinox posts. I don't think anyone has the right to decide on Hohum until this happens.

*shudders at defending Hohum*

note to all: it still hasn't happened. the pbpa was an admittedly already prepared post. it should have been here yesterday.

budja: "balance out" may not be the right term, but i find it highly probable that either one or both of them is scum. you know how i feel about hohum. i voted roffman more out of frustration, however, i cannot deny the evidence against him in any way. i think he may very well have been town.

[don_johnson]

I don't really buy the 'accident' excuse.

that's fine, you don't have to "buy" anything. there hadn't been a vote count in a couple of pages, and though there was discussion surrounding the claim at L-1 on the top of the previous page, Juls had unvoted and then revoted. i was frustrated with the fact that NOONE seemed to put any stock into finding out whether or not hohum completely and totally LIED to ALL OF US. but, whatever. roffman was obviously getting lynched and all involved in the discussion were basically asking me to vote him, so i don't see how the hammer was in any way detrimental.

On Budja's 683, I think option 2 is most likely.

why? because of your disbelief of roffman's claim? if it is the case, how do you explain hohum's behavior. i.e. not willing to post an alleged already prepared pbpa for the sole purpose of confirming its existence to the rest of the players here as a show of good faith and honesty. come on people, i'm not making this up.

[don_johnson]

ebwop:

I will though, TODAY (as in calendar day), along with everything else I've been promising.

not going to fault you for real life. but i find it hard to believe you can't find the 12 seconds it takes to cut and paste an already prepared post into this thread.

[don_johnson]

As I said before, this would be a very amazing gambit if true. There's just not enough evidence to prove or disprove it yet. The issue is a WIFOM / gaming the mod debate.

what is so amazing about one scum faking a "guilty investigation result" communique about another scum? what is so amazing about the possibility that roffman was town and scum sent him the communique?

as you seem to acknowledge, the wifomic circumstances of the situation are confusing, but i don't see why you find it "amazing" that someone attempted such a ploy(if it even was a ploy).

why do you see only one explanation for the communique and seem to ignore all other possibilities?

I guess I don't see all these "other possibilities." Care to tell me? These are the only three that I can imagine:

1) Roffman faked the communique
2) Scum had a double-communique
3) The message was legitimate and the one-shot cop hasn't come forward for whatever reason

You've said what you don't believe, but you still haven't said what you DO believe. So enlighten me, please.

your previous explanation included one and only one possibility. now you say there are three. you have still not answered the bolded questions. i don't know what to believe just yet. i think it illogical to pigeonhole ones beliefs regarding a no reveal lynch.

BSG was most likely town, so perhaps a reread with that in mind may help.

Casey: please answer the questions.

[don_johnson]

sorry phyl, but the onus is on you to show us why either hohum or i

must

be scum. just because we each think the other is does not logically lead to one of us

must

be. the theory behind one of roffman/hohum being scum was based on facts. you are pushing an baseless theory as though it is fact.

[don_johnson]

also, we have no guarantee that we even have one scum, so how do you figure one of us to be the

next

?

[don_johnson]

Give us some reasons ASAP.

I dont like how that seems like an order, I'm doing this to explain why I think its between DJ and hohum. After reading all of hohum's posts in isolation I really think hes go a pro-town role. He's been scumhunting actively, not tunneling too much since hes found about 4-5 people scummy and has pointed out a fair amount of tactics scum could use (e.g. grandstanding aggresive to take advantage of unrevealed roles of those dead)

I'll be checking out DJ later but not in much of a rush as hohum seems clear to me already.

not sure what you mean here. you are not explaining why you think it is between me and hohum.

vote: phil

until you start making yourself more clear.

[don_johnson]

I've not even voted for you so what makes you think I'm finding you to be the scum?

odd question. who said i think you're finding me to be the scum? how is voting for someone spewing crap an overreaction? you clearly avoided the issue which is why you have your scumdar set at either/or between me and hohum.

[don_johnson]

So, clarify for me: Given your vote for Hohum, which possibility do you think is correct?

what vote for hohum?

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: casey

you are playing with no conviction. your questions to me should have been just as important even though my vote was not on hohum as i have consistently voiced my suspicions of him. and yet you drop your entire train of thought because i pointed out one minor flaw in your thinking?

the little quip about being roleblocked is nonsensical because juls has plainly stated that she "sent" her package. i think you are just trying to fit in.

[don_johnson]

casey: i am not fooled by your innocent front or your cutesy avatar.

[don_johnson]

i feel like i'm swinging at a pinata.

i want to do some rereading when i get the chance. are we sure that juls didn't send the communique to roffman yesterday. her role does sound rather contrived...

flameaxe, you have replaced but don't seem to be contributing much. your character had little to say on day 1. who do you tnik is scum?

[don_johnson]

oh yeah,

v/la until 3/31(tuesday)

[don_johnson]

i can get behind a no lynch.

no, seriously. i will have more time later this week. just got back from milwaukee. i havent' seen hohum anywhere on the site lately.

[don_johnson]

juls/ecto would be a fantastic scum team. i am convinced you are both town.

[don_johnson]

^^^^ too much information going to one place.

casey: share the info with who you choose.

[don_johnson]

why are you voting skitzer?

casey: would it be more fun if we lynched you?

Role Claim: Mason

[don_johnson]

no. i have to look back to see who skitzer even is.

i don't see the harm in claiming in a no reveal scenario. i sent my role via communique to someone still alive. first communique was sent last night, and a confirmation message was sent today.

also, claims sometimes help breathe life into dying games.

[don_johnson]

rhinox's statement seems odd to me as well. if people do want to role claim via communique then they should pick their own targets. then we can all share.

[don_johnson]

i don't believe i ever fully agreed with you guys on this. don't get me wrong, i trust juls at this point, but i still don't see how she is confirmed. i would rather players make up their own minds.

[don_johnson]

coug: please explain. i don't remember you voting for me. also, did you see my role claim? can someone refresh my memory: whom did juls send her comm to yestereday?

[don_johnson]

OK, don_johnson: I used my communiqué on Juls to ask her opinion of your claim, and she said she's undecided (at least at that point). She has the right to think what she wants of you, but I think masons would balance this game too much to the town. I only count one completed game on my modding record, but my logic regarding roles isn't entirely shot.

how would you have any idea about the balance of this game unless you had concrete knowledge beyond your own role?

Oh and full disclosure, he has told me who his partner is. The problem I have with it is that I don't particularly find DJ scummy at this point but I know a lot of people do. And since there is no way to verify it I can't really say I believe it 100%.

what could you possibly gain by revealing this information now? there is a way to verify it, and that would be my partner coming forward. there is no need for that at this time. just out of curiosity, who among us finds me scummy? it seemed to me like it was only coug/hohum?

juls, do you realize that you have breached my trust? please explain yourself.

[don_johnson]

you are misinterpreting the issue. claiming in thread is my business. i have my reasons. if you reread what i sent you you will realize a

valuable

piece of info. i am okay with people sending to who they trust.

vote juls

with the info i sent you, you should never have offered up what you just did. who sent the "scummy" comm to roffman? easy answer: Juls.

start talking.

strangercoug: answer my question.

how would you have any idea about the balance of this game unless you had concrete knowledge beyond your own role?

i get the feeling town is being sandbagged.

[don_johnson]

OK, don_johnson: I used my communiqué on Juls to ask her opinion of your claim, and she said she's undecided (at least at that point). She has the right to think what she wants of you, but I think masons would balance this game too much to the town. I only count one completed game on my modding record, but my logic regarding roles isn't entirely shot.

how would you have any idea about the balance of this game unless you had concrete knowledge beyond your own role?

Don't yell at me for not answering this because that's the first time I've gotten around to reading it.

The answer is simple. Experience playing Mafia. I have not seen a mini game that has had three Mafia goons, an SK, and a compulsive vigilante, for example—that's unbalanced against the town if not swingy. (I've run a game with three Mafia, an SK, and a

one-shot

vig, and I didn't like the end result.) As another example, there's a game I've played as scum with a lot of investigative roles that I was lynched in because my fakeclaim did not fit, and that was a normal.

I am not psychic, but if you play long enough you get better at figuring out what pieces fit in the puzzle and what don't. That's because, in an ideal game of Mafia, the scum has an equal chance of winning to the town, though it might vary slightly. I have been on this site seven months longer than you, so unless you have a legitimate reason for pursuing this issue any further, I suggest you find a better use for your time.

a) who's yelling?

b) this is a no reveal set up. how does a mason unbalance this set up? i would like you to specifically address this question.

c) my legitimate reason is this: the only way you could know anything about the balance is if you have knowledge outside of your own role.

juls: second comm. fifth through tenth words. i would like to tread lightly to get a feel for this information. make any sense?

[don_johnson]

ebwop: i don't understand the "codex" stuff.

[don_johnson]

my attack isn't scummy, rhinox. emotional, yes, but what is scummy about feeling betrayed by someone?

juls hasa information with whicvh i am hoping to use to help catch scum. she has put it at risk(imo). hopefully she will understand what i am referring to. if not, oh well.

unvote

i would like to hear from her.

[don_johnson]

Only two possible pro-town explanations are either A) he's a PR gambiting, or B) he's protecting his mason partner who might have been one of the players under pressure.

^^ this is a very narrow view. to clarify: i did not claim to protect myself or my partner. i had already claimed to juls via communique and don't see the harm in sparking some conversation.

I still think it was a bad claim though because its basically a vanilla role that scum aren't going to nk.

actually, i replaced in to a game not long ago as scum and we ended up having a mason pair claim day 1 to avoid a mislynch. we lynched doc day 1(at the cost of my partner day 2), however, the first two nk's were the masons as they were confirmed townies. my partner and i can't confirm each other, but i don't believe we are fully aware of all the mechanics and possibilities of this set up, so i wouldn't go counting things out. scum knows i'm telling the truth. if they don't nk me, they will be trying to lynch me. to do so i believe they will have to put together a case of "crap logic" which will be discernible. my play hasn't been stellar, but if you look hard enough it will be difficult to find anything scummy. so my claim helps me at this point, maybe not the most pro-town thing, but it is certainly not anti-town.

juls: i am working on a message for you via codex. it may take some time, but i would like to fully explain to you what i mean. also, i just realized that if my partner has anything to say to me they should be able to use codex from our night thread. hmmm, scum can do that too. this game is fun.

to my partner: do not claim unless you want to or feel a need to.

One thing I haven't noticed is any discussion about how this could potentially have affected the whole Comm-Burn scheme of Day One - I didn't notice anything in the rules stating that roles capable of night-talking were not allowed to talk during the confirmation phase, which is a grey area since I've seen it allowed or not allowed in different games with different. I mean... could pre-game talk affect the way that's interpreted?

this is partly why i am hesitant to trust our entire day 1 strategy. juls/roffman/ecto could have had a plan backfire there, but that is just raw speculation as i could not produce evidence to that effect.

It was unforced and just doesn't seem like a good claim at that point in time for that role.

the game seemed rather dead for a bit. what would be a good time to claim that role? rhinox equated it to a vanilla claim. also, you both discount the fact that there may be more to my role.

[don_johnson]

i will try to have it up late tonight after school.

[don_johnson]

nk's should most certainly be read as townies. so your math is incorrect. no-lynch = nightkill = dead townie =information.

[don_johnson]

Oh...maybe I haven't read back far enough, but then shouldn't we have examined anything about BSG?

excellent point. has anyone done this?

juls: what makes you think you are going to survive the night?

[don_johnson]

So see? With just that I can assume that BSG and hohum are likely not the same alignment as roffman.

why?

[don_johnson]

Most of what BSG said was a long time ago and was focused on the whole roff/hohum debate. I think she was the first to mention roff could have lied but she did oppose the roff wagon.

This. roff and hohum were against each other, while BSG was against roff.

okay. that certainly would jive with my suspicions of hohum. nightkilling those who agree with you can be an effective scum strategy.

[don_johnson]

just typed in my codex and lost it. too late to do it again. i'll try tomorrow. juls, do you really need clarification on this? reread the second communique. take it literally.

[don_johnson]

just to be clear: i take the message you are referring to and place a number above each letter in that message. i.e. if you wrote "hello", the codex would be 1=h 2=e 3=l 4=l 5=o. correct? we are not numbering punctuation or anything else but numbers, correct?

[don_johnson]

There's only one explanation for that.

no. there are more than just one.

unvote, vote casey

you should all know how i feel about casey at this point.

flame is playing like shit, but this is the scummiest page in this thread. flameaxe is my mason partner. i cannot confirm his alignment. the role seems alot more like a "lovers" role if any of you are familiar with it. due to the fact that neither reecer6 nor flameaxe seemed to have much to say in our night thread i am still very much in the dark as to my couterparts alignment. juls i was upset with you because i wanted to see how flameaxe would deal with my claim so i might gain some insight into his alignment. he didn't know i sent you a communique. get it now?

flameaxe, i am not going to vote for you but i am not going to fight your lynch. contribute. tell me why we shouldn't be trusting juls, i am skeptical of this trust myself but i can't seem to figure out why. if you are just going to get ornery and self vote then there is nothing i can do for you.

due to the nature of this game, and the fact that my last "lovers" type role involved two townies, and due to the fact that so many votes piled onto flameaxe so quickly, i am inclined to think flame is town. but whatever.

[don_johnson]

I don't like don's idea that hohum and BSG teamed up to get Roffman lynched.

^^^^ Grade A BULLSHIT. what? who said BSG teamed up with anyone to get anyone lynched? does anyone here think casey is actually town?

[don_johnson]

^^^^^ WTF?

bsg was town. what the fuck are you talking about? you are quoting responses i made to skitzer. a) how are they "my" theories? the suggestion is that roff and bsg were not the same alignment. bsg was against the roffman lynch, so how could they have "teamed up" with hohum to lynch roffman?

[don_johnson]

^^^^^^^ as they say in germany: UBER SCUMMY

[don_johnson]

to say that both Hohum and BSG were against roffman.

3)

You say that because they teamed up against roffman

, it might have been a good idea for hohum to kill BSG because BSG agreed with hohum.

the bolded is the part i have a rpoblem with. it is a misrep of what was said. they didn't "team up". bsg was against the roffman lynch. just because they agreed you seem to make this giant leap to "teamed up".

[don_johnson]

DJ: Did you honestly think I was going to react to your claim in any way? If you did, you're quite thick.

i thought you might, but it was not my sole reaosn to claim. why am i thick? you and i have a night talk thread which neither you nor your predescessor have used much at all. why is that? in your role pm did the mod confirm my alignment to you or no?

[don_johnson]

you find it suspect that i would vote for a partner whose alignment i cannot confirm and who was actively lurking? really? this is a policy lynch of flameaxe. it is entirely scummy. it is not day 1.

[don_johnson]

If it was entirely policy, I would be against it.

I find it scummy that your action now is so different is a similar scenario to the reecer bandwagon.

Another thing, you say you have a "lovers" type role. This role generally means that is one partner dies, so does the other, correct?
If this is correct, it makes your reecer vote very suss indeed.

how are my actions different? how is this scenario at all similar?

in referring to "lovers" i mean that i cannot confirm my partners alignment. the role i have is pro-town mason. not being able to confirm my partners alignment is odd and seriously handicaps the role.

[don_johnson]

i am pretty convince at this point that my mason partner is town and that this bandwagon is entirely scum driven. budja: you are blatantly bandwagoning and trying to mischaracterize the conversation about this issue.

[don_johnson]

to say that both Hohum and BSG were against roffman.

3)

You say that because they teamed up against roffman

, it might have been a good idea for hohum to kill BSG because BSG agreed with hohum.

the bolded is the part i have a rpoblem with. it is a misrep of what was said. they didn't "team up". bsg was against the roffman lynch. just because they agreed you seem to make this giant leap to "teamed up".

Ugh. It means the same thing. If two people are on different teams, and they aim for a common goal, that's called teaming up. You think hohum's guilty, I think roffman was guilty. What's your problem, seriously?

there was no common goal. plus, i am pretty sure you possess an anti-town role and so everything you say just seems like bullshit. but that's just my opinion.

i have never heard of neighbors. i had a lover's role where i didn't know my partners alignment. we were both town.

Their goals were not similar at all.

ninja'd, but thank you.

difference: reecer recieved pressure votes. the bandwagon on flame seems much more intent to lynch. what is so odd about me laying a pressure vote on reecer6 considering i cannot confirm his alignment? believe what you want. is mason

ever

a scum role?

[don_johnson]

Reecer was never going to respond to any pressure, it was a wagon to lynch at least as strong as the wagon on flameaxe is now.

Unless it is specifically stated in your PM, an unconfirmed mason could be scum. Your general attitude and actions have shown that you are quite uncertain of Flameaxe's alignment.

bolded is entire speculation. people seem much more intent on voting to lynch flame.

my general attitude? i have clearly stated how i feel. why do you try to switch the focus from what i have said to what you think my attitude reveals. i.e. you are trying to make my lack of knowledge concerning flame's alignment suspicious, when in fact, my lack of knowledge of his alignment supports the claim of a mason who "doesn't know the alignment of his partner." you seem to be casting unfounded suspicions based on your own speculation and passing it off as truth.

[don_johnson]

prod recieved. sorry. i had family in town. i don't intend to abandon. i would like to lynch casey or budja.

[don_johnson]

I'm leaning toward a Budja lynch but that will quickly change to PhilyEc if he doesn't VERIFY THAT HE HAS RECEIVED MY CODEX...

4-8-12-19-21-26-20-21-26-29-24-32-28-4-26-25-36-12-25-26(+2)-41-40-25-4(+1)-12-12-30-39-34

Yes I've 'received' your codex, I dont understand the point is in telling you I saw it is though..

Anyways, if we're going to lynch someone I'm hung between DJ and Budja.

just out of curiosity, why? do you think i'm scum based on "gut" feeling, or can you point to something in thread thinking you can objectively determine my alignment.

[don_johnson]

So where did all the Budja hate come from then?

i don't hate ya. i want casey lynched. you are my second choice.

[don_johnson]

phyl: i have already stated my top two. please rtft.

the reasoning on the flameaxe lynch is extremely poor. it reads like a scummy day 1 bandwagon. though i can't confirm his alignment, he is my mason partner and i am not willing to condemn him for killa7 type play at this stage of the game.

unvote, vote: no lynch

i'd rather see casey or budja swing, and i am not too fond of phyl right now, but i'd rather put my vote where it will count.

[don_johnson]

uh, actually, his self vote spurred some discussion. i have seen townies self vote in situations like this before so i consider it a null tell. if after 43 pages all you have to go on is a self vote then you are not really trying.

[don_johnson]

uh, actually, his self vote spurred some discussion. i have seen townies self vote in situations like this before so i consider it a null tell. if after 43 pages all you have to go on is a self vote then you are not really trying.

Of the other people I've suspected of being scum, roffman has already been lynched; I know what I am (I thought hohum was scummy before I picked up his role);

something's wrong in my mind with simultaneously trusting and voting Juls;

my suspicions of Rhinox have all involved specific scumbuddy connections, which is void if none of them exist; and Rhinox blew up my only case on you, which was for the claim.

if you are referring to me then the word you are looking for is NOT simultaneous. i trusted her, i felt that she betrayed that trust and then i voted. simultaneous means "all at once".

[don_johnson]

this game is dragging. i don't think a no lynch will hurt us at this point.

[don_johnson]

^^^ i think strawberry shortcake has an anti-town role. i pointed out her odd choices when i replaced in and her posts seem to be more "following" than "leading". its not a strong case and i don't have the patience to dredge more evidence. quite frankly, i am surprised i am the only one suspicious of her at all.

dizzy: your last post reminds me of a caged monkey at the zoo flinging shit at the visitors. please explain how i have "avoided suspicion"?

[don_johnson]

welcome jahudo. it is nice to have someone interested in playing in the character slot. i think no lynch should not even be discussed today. we are going to start losing numbers.

i would like a report from juls as it seems she has the most significant night action we know of.

[don_johnson]

mass claim.

pro town mason

[don_johnson]

Yeah, I am not liking that either. I oppose a mass claim.

why? we have four roles claimed already.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: budja

juls, if you are scum you've done a fantastic job.

[don_johnson]

good game all. i kind of got lost after a while, but i really never had a talkative partner. i think had jahudo been in from the start we may have proven more useful.

dahill. i didn't mind the no reveal, but it would have certainly been nice to be able to get a few reveals somewhere along the way. also, id didn't like not being able to confirm my partner, i think that may have hindered discussion in the mason thread.

casey: well done.