/in-vitational 2 - Chosen, Karaoke - Game over! before 830

[qwints]

Sorry, I was out of town all weekend and hadn't checked the thread yet.

I'm really not sure how to evaluate Sajin's stupidity. I thought the town pm was quite clear. The power of that tell is, of course, lessened because it is an open game. But I think there's still information to be gained from it. Sajin has claimed that he believed chosen got a role pm - that means we can rule out the possibility he was town laying a trap.

So, which is more likely?
Town false-claiming chosen believing chosen got a p.m.
or
Scum false-claiming chosen.

The former just doesn't make sense. As I'm sure someone pointed out, if chosen claim and townies don't - town wins regardless of what scum do (under Sajin's mistaken reading of the rules). Any townie claiming chosen ruins town's chances of a win.

vote: Sajin

Remember,

Incognito just told me that chosen do not know they are chosen but scum do. I thought the chosen knew. There goes my mass claim idea.

Thanks for the rules update. Appreciated.

I am willing to be the lynch but now instead of knowing I am not the chosen, I could be one. That sucks.

No townie should have false claimed given Incognito's stated beliefs about the game. Lynch the obv-scum.

[qwints]

I read this to be a claim.

I got the role PM before I possibly got another PM saying I was chosen.

The fact that you did not get such a PM says to me your not chosen and a safe lynch.

vote hohum

[qwints]

OK, I got mixed up in the counter-factuals.

I took it as a given that no townies knew about the 2nd round of pm's designating the chosen (since they didn't actually exist.) I suppose townie-Sajin could mistakenly have believed those pm's were actually sent and believed he was not revealing anything by mentioning their existence.

Re-reading, I realized that Sajin's original mass claim proposal suggested that all townies tell the truth. This suggests that townie-Sajin would never false-claim. It does make me wonder why he did not explicitly claim VT instead of leaving it hanging if what he believed were true.

Sajin - why didn't you claim in your initial post if you believed you had a forced town-win?

[qwints]

What do you plan to do if we get a week into the game and one player no has done anything helpful so far as participation goes? What if there be more than one player in that category?

Pressuring lurkers is generally useful for the game. I think, however, that the set-up would discourage scum from lurking.

Based on your role what do you think your chances of being the chosen are and why? For Troll the answer be about 1/6. Troll will give reasons after all have answered.

Chance of not being veto'd (6/7?) * Chance of being randomly chosen (1/3) = 6/21 = 2/7.
I'm really curious to hear how you got 1/6.

What thoughts do any have about how we can use the setup to our advantage?

No-lynching and/or random-lynching [if there is a good way to do so] are powerful tools in the town's arsenal.

[qwints]

Because random-lynching is more likely to hit non-chosen or scum instead of chosen, it might make sense to incorporate a random element into choosing who to lynch. Fully random lynching is not a good option because lynching one chosen hurts us much more than lynching one scum helps us. But in limited situations, such as a D3 w/ both chosen still alive and 1 scum dead, it could prove useful.

[qwints]

@Scien, because there are more players who aren't chosen than players who are. Killing randomly is thus more likely to hit one of the former than the latter.

[qwints]

Sajin seems to be engaged in rapid fire misrep. I'll deal with it point by point tomorrow.sajin's early posts need more analysis too -- specifically the confidence he expressed in his mistaken understanding of the set-up.proposing a game-breaking mass claim isn't scummy, but his play may be more consistent with scum attempting to pre-empt town actions. On the other hand, I no longer think Sajin falsely claimed he received a chosen pm.

Hohum, you should re-think the significance of defending in this game given the chosen mechanic. Being defended may actually be a town tell.

To others, my experience shows hohum to be somewhat of an idiot savant. You have to deal with the idiot to get the good scum hunting.

[qwints]

Cojin has yet to actually comment on another player's scumminess. His iso is pretty much blank right now.He also has partially contradicted himself by noting the importance of voting patterns then questioning why people not voting is a bad idea.

unvote, vote: Cojin

[qwints]

[A]So qwints wants to vote me based on a read then proposes a "random" lynch. Contradictory much?

[qwints: Sajin should have claimed if he thought town had forced win]

Why would I claim something in my initial post that would hurt us unless we all went through with the plan? Also,

this is a strawman argument at best and misrepresentation at worst. Your setting up the statement of forced-town win to explain why I did not act a certain way.

[A] - I clearly stated that random lynching might be useful in some circumstances. I never proposed always random lynching (and explained why it wouldn't work.)

- Sajin had a strategy resulting in a forced win. [See his iso 1] That strategy required all town to truthfully claim. [Remember he assumed chosen knew they were chosen.] I asked why he delayed claiming if he believed he had a forced win. Not a strawmen. His response that he was being cautious is a defense to a legitimate question.

Fully random lynching is not a good option

because lynching one chosen hurts us much more than lynching one scum helps us

. But in limited situations, such as a D3 w/ both chosen still alive and 1 scum dead, it could prove useful.

No. [C]Nailing one scum is worth more than not nailing chosen (vanilla town lynch).

[C] You're implying I disagreed with this statement. I don't, and it's obviously true. That doesn't change the fact that lynching chosen hurts more than lynching scum helps. (Both of which have equal probability at the moment)

Then why are you and the person you requested prodding on coming off the most scummy?

Implying an association between two players because one asked that the other be prodded is simply deranged, and discourages pro-town play (encouraging activity.)


Cojin's active lurking remains my main target, but Sajin remains suspicious.

[qwints]

I would mind explaining why being defended is a town tell.

Yes, hitting chosen is worse than lynching scum. (NK-immune, endgame-winning townies are surprisingly useful.

[qwints]

I believe your suggestion is illogical at best and that your unwillingness to explain your 'beliefs' unhelpful at best. You think I am wrong?

Yes.

[qwints]

qwints, please explain why you believe being defended is a town tell. As it stands now, I think you're making things up with no real reasoning behind what you say. Please, show some effort and prove me wrong.

I decline to engage in a theory discussion. Discussing town (or scum) tells this early in unlikely to prove helpful, especially given scum's ability to day talk.

Since I'm now posting from a computer instead of my phone, here are the relevant Cojin quotes.
(73/1)

3. We need to watch voting pattrens with way more scrutiny then usual, this game seems like it would be 75% voting pattrens and 25% posts concidering scum can daytalk

(98/4)

Sure is quiet around here.

Incognito wrote:
Not voting (4) <-~ Cojin, qwints, Scien, Zorblag

This is bad.

How so? it would seem to me only scum would want everyone voting, and to have everyone voting quickly.

This first post clearly implies that town will need to rely on voting patterns to find scum. Voting patterns require people to vote. Thus, cojin is saying that town will benefit from the information gained by people voting. This is inconsistent with the second post questioning why anyone would be concerned with people not voting.

Inconsistencies like this are scummy because they indicate that cojin is discussing strategy with an eye to immediate personal benefit rather than helping town.

Nikanor, what do you think of Cojin?

[qwints]

Scien, you haven't said that you think my play is scummy - only illogical and unhelpful. I don't think that the former necessarily follows from the latter.

You seem to be voting for the sole reason that I won't explain one claim I made (being defended is a town tell). [See above post for why I will not] I did explain other claims I made (killing chosen hurting more than killing scum helps,e.g.). While you might not have agreed with my reasoning, I disagree strongly with your implied claim that I am not helping, and I think it's scummy as hell that you're voting me for being unhelpful rather than scummy.

As as aside, if hohum and I are chosen, town is screwed.

[qwints]

If you want to know WHY I'm pushing this point, it's because you're pushing a point that could very easily be used by scum to produce 'town-tells' on one another, citing that as an explaination.

Since the attention paid to my statement has largely detracted from its value as well as distracted from scum hunting, here is my reasoning:

Lynching a Chosen is worth a lot more than lynching a non-chosen. Scum thus have stronger than usual incentives to shape the town's lynch. They cannot simply sit back and let town tear itself apart. One of the most obvious ways to do so is to discourage a vanilla lynch. It gives them some town cred if the lynch goes through, and it increases the chance of hitting chosen.

For the sake of argument:
Assume that scum never defend chosen.
Assume that scum always defend non-chosen.
Assume scum always defend scum.

Because (1) the prior probability of non-chosen > scum and (2) Two scum defend non-chosen while only one scum can defend the other scum, someone who is defended is somewhat more likely to be a vanilla townie than scum and much more likely to be a VT or scum than chosen.
[To make this more obvious, assume townies never defend.]

The reason I have not pushed this town tell heavily (only saying that it

may

be a town tell when I first introduced it), is the unknown chance of scum never defending scum.

The most useful thing about making the statement in the first place was that it did not change the fact that

defending

remains a scum tell. I was thus encouraging scum to engage in a classic scum tell that they might otherwise have avoided.


***Preview edit***

Hohum's defense of me is quite strange. Cuddly hohum freaks me out.

Scien: anti-town may overlap scummy, but it does not equal scummy. Did you ask the troll to explain the reasoning behind his questions at the beginning of the game. If not, why not?

[qwints]

Papa, here's a start:

1) What did you think of the 'being defended may be a town tell' argument?
2) Was Cojin's contradiction significant or not?
3) Is MM active lurking?
4) Is hohum playing to his meta?
5) Is scien correct that anti-town = scummy?

[qwints]

I'm asking about the argument itself.

[qwints]

I've never played with Cojin, but the Zorblag's description of him seems to be correct. My vote will stay, however, until he comes up with an adequate explanation for teh contradiction.

I'm also interested in seeing the PBPA hohum has promised.

[qwints]

Let's not let Cojin get lost in the shuffle:

I havent been able to formulate an opinion nor find myself a time to interject myself into the conversation considering its 10% content 20% OMGUS and 70% ad hom.

Questions for Cojin:

1) Explain why you stated analyzing voting patterns was vital, then questioned why someone thought people not voting was bad.

2) What do you think of the hohum-Sajin argument? Who's misrepresenting whom?

3) Do you think MM's process of elimination style is a valid tactic?

[qwints]

unvote, vote: Papa Zito

Cojin posted, please keep up the activity.

PZ, please explain how my wagon stalling makes me more likely to be chosen or less likely to be scum. Otherwise your unvote seems extremely scummy to me.

Also, lol @ hohum saying he can't get a read on MM because her posts have been argumentative.

[qwints]

You voted me after my first posts without giving a reason. You unvoted me without giving a reason. If the wagon on me is stalling, then there's no danger of leaving your vote on me until you find a scummier target. "Parking" your vote on me has several obvious uses (takes some pressure off me, somewhat increases the pressure on hohum, etc.). Unvoting me thus

should

be for more than a default reason, and I cannot think of a reason that a townie would have. Unless you can give me one, my vote stays.

[qwints]

Sorry, I wrote that wrong.

Unvoting me decreases pressure on me and increases pressure on hohum (because he is now the only person with 2 votes). Leaving the vote on me maintains pressure on me. I cannot think of a townie reason to take pressure off of me without believing that I am more likely to be chosen or less likely to be scum. Pressuring hohum might have been a valid reason, but there were more direct ways to accomplish this.

Short version: This:

There's no use parking my vote on you while I decide.

is false. You should have an actual reason for unvoting.

[qwints]

I don't buy the "I did it to get a reaction" line. The unvote was at the bottom of a post which didn't even state who you were unvoting. I probably wouldn't have noticed if Zorblag hadn't called you out on it.

MM, questioning people about what they do with their vote is perhaps the most basic part of mafia. Are you saying that I shouldn't pressure Papa about what he does with his vote? I'm not upset, I just find his unvote strange - especially the reason he gave after Zorblag called him on it:

Why the unvote Papa Zito? Troll no sees any indication that there be a change in your opinion about qwints.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

The qwints wagon isn't going anywhere.

[qwints]

As I noted, being made aware of Cojin's meta changed my opinion of how to evaluate his active lurking. Combined with his willingness to answer questions, I do not currently think his activity level (though lamentable) is a scum tell. As for what I gained from the questions - Cojin took one clear stance (he think's MM looking for town tells is useless and one hedged stance (he thinks Sajin's lynch is probably scum but he also thinks hohum is acting like panicked scum.) Assuming he continues to participate, I don't believe that there is significant evidence that he is scum currently, although the inadequately explained contradiction remains a black mark.

PZ's explanation for his unvote, on the other hand, have screamed scum to me. Unvoting because a wagon 'isn't going anywhere' is not a town tactic if one's beliefs about relative scumminess have changed. I believe his responses upon being called out on it did nothing to redeem him. The "I did it to provoke a reaction and get information" is the oldest scum excuse in the book, and doesn't make sense given the context.

[qwints]

@ zorblag, just the voting behavior so far.

[qwints]

I need to check MM's meta, but this behavior (stalling and AtE) strikes me as quite unusual for a player of her experience. Cojin has also been scummy by failing to follow up on his earlier activity.
PZ has done nothing in the last pages to worsen my impression of him, so my vote is likely to move in the near future.

@cojin,
1)Do you think MM's comments about town win condition are a genuine scum slip?
2)Do you think MM was likely to have been vetoed by the scum?
3)Do you think PZ's comment about MM being here tomorrow was a scum slip?

[qwints]

unvote, vote: Cojin

FOS:PZ

I Really Really dont like how you said she would be here tommorow, givin that scum to day talk I am going to make the assumption that pz knows that MM will post tommorow due to PM conversation.

Meanwhile with MM I cant let the slip slide as a brain fart, and as far as unlikly choosen/most likely to be scum im going to have to go with MM.

Vote Miteymouse

This is not sufficient reasoning. I asked you questions, and you didn't answer.

[qwints]

Hohum's rapid fire posting makes judging his activity levels difficult, but I think his brief periods of inactivity are coming at convenient times. If so, that would seem scummy to me, but I need to re-read to evaluate this hypothesis. We haven't heard any suspicions from MM in over a week. That bothers me a lot with deadline approaching.

While I could support (at this point) either a hohum or MM deadline lynch, I still think Cojin is the best option. He's been completely useless this game. He hasn't answered questions posed to him (with one exception.) His vote on MM lacked justification and was quite opportunistic. I also don't think he's likely to be chosen given the lack of a wagon on him today despite horrendous play.

[qwints]

I seen to be in.a targwt rich environment. Cojin is providing noncommitted/useless answers even after pressure while MM is spamming AtE's. I'm fine with lynching either but my vote will stay on Cojin for now since he's less likely to be useful in the unlikely event that he's town.

[qwints]

How have I been tunneling hohum as much as he has been of me?

Almost.

[qwints]

Sajin, are you saying you'd rather we lynch you than either MM or Cojin?

[qwints]

It feels intentional to me, given the way he got the odds right (assuming scum wouldn't veto him) when he first discussed the issue. Furthermore, there's very little chance of a genuine slip from someone paying attention given the extensive discussion that was correctly based on the right number of vetoes. Not to mention the fact that the rules bold the number of vetoes that the scum get. With all those factors, I think it's much more likely that he's scum trying a gambit that he thought of at the last minute rather than a genuine confused townie.

[qwints]

Also, this conclusion makes no sense if Cojin truly believed there were two scum vetoes.

2. Given my meta i find it unlikly to be vetoed, and a higher chance to be lynched, i would say I am 1/3-1/4 likely to be choosen.

Combined with Cojin's early contradiction, I think Cojin is now obv-scum.

[qwints]

That has to be the scummiest-looking hammer I've ever seen on a target I agreed with.