Mini 1051: Utopia Mafia - Game Over

Kast · Post Post #6 (isolation #0) » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:31 pm

Checking in. Is anyone familiar with the source material? I am not.

Kast · Post Post #17 (isolation #1) » Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:32 am

@Exe/Fishy-
Strongly agree with Fishy. We should still aim to lynch scum.

Side thought from Exe's comment, scum have more incentive to bus in this game than a standard game. This should be taken into account especially in late game considerations.

Kast · Post Post #22 (isolation #2) » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:57 am

@Flameaxe-
My post had two very distinct points. The former is as you describe. The latter was not even remotely hinted at in any prior post. Please clarify whether you missed the point or genuinely think it added nothing.

Kast · Post Post #29 (isolation #3) » Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:43 am

@Flameaxe-
Thanks for clarification. It seemed obvious that Exe's comment referred to my post in entirety (the whole thing was a response to his post).

@Fishy-
Exe's claim that VPB is going for an "easy target" doesn't really rely on either of our responses. The "attack a player for mentioning an anti-town plan" strategy is frequently used by scum

because

it is a safe way to pretend to contribute/scumhunt. The problem is that it is safe for scum to pursue because it is also frequently used by townies.

I don't read either of their posts as inherently scummy; overeager perhaps, but that's not a bad thing in the early game.

Kast · Post Post #58 (isolation #4) » Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:25 am

@JDodge-
-Disagree that voting is generally superior to not voting. Voting is a necessary and valuable tool. Players shouldn't be scared to vote; but that doesn't automatically mean they should have a vote placed at all times (even barring your exceptions).

If you found scum, if it helps you find scum, or if you think it will help town in some other way, then go for it. If you don't think it will be helpful at the moment, it's not that big a deal.

-Please clarify your last exhortation; (1) are you simply complaining about the activity level? (2) are you expecting that scum have already slipped up & that you expect the current player-base to be capable of finding the slip-up?

@Exe-
-Please don't get into BS about "pressure votes" and "lynch votes". A vote puts a player closer to being lynched. This puts pressure. Every vote has both effects; some are more or less effective at doing each pending circumstances.

If you think someone is scum, vote for them. If you think the person is scum AND you think the rest of town is unlikely to follow you, it's your duty as a townie to explain what you see and convince others to vote for the scum you found. The whole "I think he is scum, but I won't vote because nobody else believes me" line of reasoning is BS and anti-town.

-JDodge is right though, your stance against voting before everyone has checked in does slightly contradict your initial proposal to start the game with a Morph policy lynch. To be fair you did not state a quick-lynch, but the implication was there. Regardless of that, the actions of suggesting to begin with a policy lynch + placing a vote before everyone has checked in is itself slightly contradictory to your stated reason.

In light of that, it makes your stated reason for not voting sound like backtracking or potential appeasement.

Kast · Post Post #67 (isolation #5) » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:58 am

@VPB-
Flameaxe/JD's point seems pretty clearly to be that if Exe is lynched and flips scum, there is a reasonable chance that your attack on him is a bus. This chance is high enough that Exe flipping scum should not be considered "proof" that you are a townie. I'm not sure what kind of response Flameaxe is expecting (what can someone do other than deny the actuality of that possibility?), but it does not seem like you are acknowledging any possibility of an early scum bus.

Buses happens in normal games and they're great tools for scum to buy town cred while preventing weaker members of the team from messing things up later. Our specific game makes bussing even more advantageous than typical games, since it means a stronger scum player will gain a powerup (or potentially a townie gets nerfed).

-How likely do you think it is that scum could/would bus in this game?
--Is bussing a strategy you employ as scum (examples appreciated but not necessary)?

@Flameaxe/JD-
Please clarify if that was an accurate understanding of your positions.

@General-
I asked the mod some questions. He wouldn't answer most of them, but I'll share the ones that seem helpful/relevant. They probably won't matter now, but might be useful to keep in mind in future, particularly once we get some claims to evaluate:
-The balancing power-ups are already pre-determined and will depend on the game circumstances.
-Power-ups won't take into account player skill (so I guess a poor player could end up getting a PR and wasting it).
--However, power-ups are intended to result in the best balance and make us enjoy the game (so an inactive/lurker/getting-replaced player is unlikely to get a power-up).
-The power-up might actually be a power-down to the opposite team.

Kast · Post Post #71 (isolation #6) » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:33 am

@Flameaxe-
-If VPB has a history as an avid busser, then his comments regarding bussing don't match well with that and may indicate his comments now are intended to hide/deny an attempt to bus.
Without asking, it is unlikely he would volunteer that information. Asking now puts it on record and is something that can be cross-checked by anyone who feels motivated later.
--If VPB flips town and we see he was being honest, then also provides a useful reference for any of us who play a future game with him.
-I'll likely ask many more questions in future; not all of which will have immediately obvious relevance, and some of which may imply something completely different from my actual intention. Feel free to be a pest and ask when you don't understand my point; just note that there are some questions I probably won't immediately explain.

Kast · Post Post #105 (isolation #7) » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:25 am

@Exe/BBM's Hate-fest-
Overall distracting and a lot of talking past each other.
-Disgree with JD's implication that Exe was the only one adding fuel to the fire and BBM was an innocent victim. Neither is a innocent in the exchange, though BBM very clearly initiated and made most of the personal attacks and incivility.
--However, that reads more like JD agrees with BBM's position and letting this bias his read, rather than buddying. Still, potential link noted.
-Fishy's analysis looks like a genuine attempt to understand what's happening there.

@JD-
-Not sure how to phrase it any clearer than, "Disagree that voting is generally superior to not voting." I think your statement that Exe (and everyone else) should always have a vote placed (barring special cases) is wrong.
-Scumhunting is not measured by how many votes you throw around or how many suspects you name. It's very early in the game and people are still discussing and thinking things through. You're remaining ambiguous about what exactly you expect, but from what you've said it sounds like you're expectations are set unrealistically high (BBM excepted). No need to rush things.
--If you're asking if I've found any scum yet, my answer is "no, nobody is standing out as scummy enough that I feel like placing a vote, nor is anyone so uncooperative that I feel a need to place a vote yet." It is a stretch to claim I haven't posted anything other than questions or throwaway answers.
It is also BS to claim/imply that posting only questions at this stage in the game is in any way inadequate or inferior to posting a weak case and off-topic personal attacks (I'm assuming your BBM-crush implies approval of "weak cases and off-topic personal attacks" as acceptable and preferential to "asking questions and clarifying ambiguities").
-I already explained the value and relevance of the questions you quoted. "Assuming he has no reason to lie" has no relevance to the topic.

@VPB-
-Your objection to early bussing being improbable/unlikely/unheard of is inapplicable. Exe just finished a game in which he saw an extremely effective, early game (page 3), mutual bus between Herodotus and myself. Bussing is an extremely powerful scum tool that most players on this site wifom themselves out of acknowledging. Having just seen it win the game for scum, then transitioning to a game format which makes it even more viable; it is plausible that Exe-scum would use share and employ such a strategy in this game with his teammates.
--That said, I don't really read this as bussing. It's possible, but it feels more like pushing the first case to come to mind (potentially out of a similar viewpoint as JD that players should always be voting, blah blah blah).
-Regarding the dismissal of bussing for sake of gaining powers: Your answer trivializes the issue as

just

bussing for the power-up and doesn't really address the inherent benefits (to be fair, your claimed personal stance reflects you don't feel it is inherently beneficial).

To clarify, whatever benefits are naturally present in bussing are still present in this game PLUS the additional benefit of a powerup to the scum team. This automatically increases the likelihood of scum to bus in this game. This does not mean scum

will definitely

bus.

It is possible that your vote and weak attack on Exe was an attempted bus.

I think it was probably not. I also don't think your defense (dismissal), was a good defense (though it may have been sufficient).

@Eldarad-
To be clear, you are attacking me for saying something that potentially sets up for a future scummy action. You aren't attacking me for actually doing anything that itself is scummy.
-Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with the thought:
"Scum have more incentive to bus in this game than in other games"
--Do you see any possibility that scum could bus and that I (or someone else) could call them out for bussing?
-What do you expect to gain from your vote/attack at this stage?
If I were scum, you've tipped me off. If not, you may be discouraging town from following up on potential future leads.

Kast · Post Post #106 (isolation #8) » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:27 am

@JD-
I left this out:
--If you think I haven't been clear about anything and want more clarity on it, please be more specific.

Kast · Post Post #110 (isolation #9) » Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:06 am

@Ergo-

Spoiler: My statements are entirely consistent.

The former is an assertion that the increase in utility of the town-strategy "policy lynch instead of scum lynch" that comes from the balancing mechanic is not sufficient to make "policy lynch instead of scum lynch" into a viable strategy. The latter is an extension of the point that a balancing mechanic increases the utility of the scum-strategy "bus a partner". The latter is objectively true.

It is similarly true that the utility of the town-strategy "policy lynch instead of scum lynch" makes it more viable than a game where there is no balancing mechanic. However, this is a strategy that is generally anti-town and remains anti-town despite this increase in utility. The scum-strategy "bus a partner" is markedly different from this because it is an effective strategy which can and is often implemented even without the additional benefit of a balancing mechanic.

As a simplification, if you were to assign utility values to each strategy:
(1) "policy lynch instead of scum lynch" = A, where A<0
(2) "bus a partner" = B, where B>0
(3) Adding a balancing mechanic to the game increases the utility of (1) by a, where a>0
(4) Adding a balancing mechanic to the game increases the utility of (2) by b, where b>0
(5) Additionally a < b (unstated previously but this is intuitively obvious with simple thought exercises)

-Exe's original point was stating (1) and (3), then proposing that although A < 0 in most games, A+a > 0 might be true in this game.

-Not applying this to everyone's posts since I'm assuming you all can figure that out on your own and it's not really relevant to Ergo's point

-My post disagrees and states firm belief that A + a < 0 is still true (implication being a << A) and to point out (2) and (4).

Additional note, just because a strategy has positive utility to a team, does not necessarily mean that team should pursue the strategy. There may be alternative strategies that have even greater utility but which are mutually exclusive for whatever reason. If a strategy has negative utility, then it should not be pursued. A more complex utility function that calculates a value relative to all other possibilities would be ideal, but is impossible to actually implement. It's a lot easier to evaluate on a sort of absolute scale whether something helps or hurts and have a general idea of how much it helps or hurts.

@All-
I'm gonna try to get a re-read up later today; though there isn't that much so I doubt there's much I've missed. If not today, will definitely have something up Monday.

I'll prolly pay extra attention to VPB. Right now the strongest impression I have from this game is that VPB has been pushing an "anti-town = scummy" train despite being a good enough (and cynical enough) to know that's not any more true or likely than "anti-town = bad/weak player".

I'm also (pleasantly) surprised that we haven't had a bunch of the normal BS "so-and-so is defending such-and-such; ZOMGWTFBBQ THEY MUST BE SCUMBUDDIES".

@Mod-

I second any calls for prods over the weekend. If Morph and Domino are still MIA, please seek replacements.

Kast · Post Post #115 (isolation #10) » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:42 pm

Got the prod. Won't be around again until Monday. Didn't have time or feel motivated to re-read.

For the record, I did name 2 names

The people before you didn't. And you didn't name those names exclusively

- Omod

Kast · Post Post #177 (isolation #11) » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:48 pm

Gotta run. Did not quite finish re-reads of everyone; I left VPB for last (well...read through on first pass but haven't organized my notes on him done an in depth pass through), so his section is not complete. Also no summary at the moment.

Spoiler: Catchup Thoughts

Spoiler: *Nested Spoilers Broken

Spoiler: 3 Votes, does that make me vote leader?

Spoiler: RE-READ (10/12)

Kast · Post Post #195 (isolation #12) » Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:22 am

Reactions:
@Fishy-

if Exe is lying about reactions he's scum

I'd say this is where your thoughts diverge from Erg0's (or at least how I read Erg0).

I agree that it looks like Erg0 didn't think Exe was genuinely posting for reactions. However, I don't think he made the same progression from "Exe is lying about his reason" to "Exe lying means Exe is scum". Rather, it seems like he made the connection "Exe lying means Exe is a noob (could be scum or town)", ie. lying does not necessarily mean the player is scum.

@JD-
-How does lynching Ani (a lurker who has posted and claims willingness to post again) minimize losses any better than lynching Domino (a lurker who never posted)?
-Please explain how lynching Ani has the highest potential gains.

@Shanba-

I really don't care if you're voting or not. You even noted yourself that my case is based around your contributions, not around whether or not you're voting. If you were contributing more to scumhunting, then I wouldn't give a shit.

You are arguing semantics and technicalities. My point isn't about whether you specifically objected to my voting record.

The point is you object that I didn't name a specific player as probable scum. I made lots of contributions in terms of theory, game specific strategy, debunking crap arguments, clarifying distraction points, and even sharing reads of some people (Exe, VPB, & Fishy) as +town. Your snippets from my posts show reactions and explicit statements of where I stand on several arguments and issues. It isn't a problem of my not having conclusions or contributions, it's a problem of those conclusions not being "PLAYERX is scum".

Your position relies on the BS assumption that I already called out JD for pushing. Scumhunting is not measured by how many players you call scum or how many votes you place. To claim a lack of either is a reason to dismiss everything else that has been posted is complete nonsense. Yet that is exactly what you are doing.

This looks promising, but there's no followup.

The problem with iso reads is that they don't contain responses from other players. If you bothered to actually read the thread, you'd notice that my statements were answered, so there was no need to follow up. And actually, Exe has been extremely good in terms of answering (or attempting to answer) most people's posts (Flameaxe is the notable exception, though only after they started fighting). In contrast, if you really did an iso read, you'd see that I followed up with Flameaxe, JD, Fishy, VPB, Erg0, and Eldarad on issues that were not addressed or that I needed further dialog to resolve.

Shanba wrote:What about isopost 7?

Kast in isopost 7 wrote:nobody is standing out as scummy enough that I feel like placing a vote, nor is anyone so uncooperative that I feel a need to place a vote yet.

If you're going to read and quote from the post, why not quote the answer to your question? Saying things are null is a judgement. If you were really after any contribution, then I don't see how you missed that. This is further evidence that your attack isn't based on a lack of contributions, but rather an attack based on me not naming a suspect.

Shanba wrote:
Kast wrote:I think it was probably not.
It might be bussing, it might not be... eh, who cares, right!

You are blatantly lying here. My post is explicitly clear, I think it was not bussing. There's no "might be" or "who cares" about it.

Shanba wrote:I'm sorry, that just takes the biscuit.

Clarify your position. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your initial misunderstanding could be due to me not being clear enough. However, I already explained my post, so your continued reading comprehension failure despite the clarification suggests it was an intentional misinterpretation.

Further, if you honestly believe that my post expresses suspicion of and intent to vote for VPB, then you are contradicting your own claimed belief that I haven't contributed any suspicions of anyone. Some consistency would be nice.

Spoiler: RE-READ & SUMMARY

VOTE: Shanba

Kast · Post Post #198 (isolation #13) » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:44 pm

@Fishy/Erg0-
To be clear, I think Erg0 has since then decided and made it clear that he thinks Exe is scummy; in answering Fishy's question it should refer to what he meant at the time, which may not be the same as what he currently believes.

Kast · Post Post #206 (isolation #14) » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:50 am

@Eldarad-
-Your objection reflects a failure at parsing. As an example, if the mod said, "We are taking a trip to Africa. We will start our trip at the airport, but the mode of transport is really just a conduit for travel via flying." The point is the travel to Africa, taking an airplane to get there is merely the implementation of that point.

Context makes this extremely clear. I don't see any scum motivation for pretending to completely misunderstand the nature of this game, so I'm gonna assume it's a combination of misunderstanding & stubbornness against correcting your mistake.

Full quote since Eldarad is using it out of context. Italics & Underlining for emphasis wrote:The intention is to run a game where sides are
given power as they falter, creating a slight shift in balance towards the middle
each time. It also tests if people are
willing to lynch their own for rewards of power
. It's based on the Web game Utopia, but the
theme is really just a conduit for the escalation via relations
. So
no real requirement to know the thematic matter
beyond a cursory reading of the wiki/age changes. Mostly the game will run start to finish as per a good strong mafia game, but
if town starts to slide, they will achieve more power
. If mafia are getting snowballed, they will find their resistance to town power or their own power rises.

The game has a mod-confirmed balancing mechanic. You can ask Oman questions about it and he will make it explicitly clear that the game is centered around this. The

implementation

of this balancing mechanic is through the relations found in the game Utopia. If town does badly (e.g. mislynches a townie), the town's "relations" get worse (this is a flavor effect). In terms of game mechanics, this means the town gets a power-up to balance against their loss.

-Assuming the balancing mechanic works as I described AND assuming there are no other mechanics at work, do you disagree with my claim that it would increase the likelihood of scum bussing?

-To be clear, it sounds like you are assuming that this game has some kind of non-standard mechanic that is separate and distinct from the balancing mechanic and that is unlikely to be present in other theme games. Is this what you are proposing?
--If this is what you are proposing, then please explain why you think such a mechanic(s) is present.
--If that is not what you are proposing, then please explain how your comment about other potential mechanics has any bearing when assessing the effects of the balancing mechanic on bussing.

-I'm assuming you're going to address the other questions.

Advice:
If you don't trust me, try asking the mod. He's been extremely open about the balancing mechanism and you should be able to trust him.

After that, admit your misunderstanding. You aren't winning any points for your team (whichever that is) by being stubborn. It isn't inherently scummy to admit you made a mistake and revise your position; it is almost always anti-town to do the opposite (certainly is in this case).

@Fishy/Exe-
My vote on Shanba isn't very strong; if I felt there was a strong case on Shanba, I would have come out pushing it already. However, it's at least as good as anything else & it's practical. Shanba hasn't been contributing much; his attack on me is weak, uses anti-town points, and is arguably scummy. I have a gut negative read on him.

As far as who is next out of Eldarad and JDodge? I don't know. They're both about the same and not very far from Shanba. Shanba is a better lynch for today.

Kast · Post Post #209 (isolation #15) » Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:08 am

@a2rudeboy-
Have you done any catching up yet, and do you have any initial thoughts to share?

@Mod-

Second the call for Ani prod. It's been almost a full week since he last posted.

Also, not gonna be around the weekend and possibly Monday. Should be around rest of the day today and should be back by Monday night.

Kast · Post Post #213 (isolation #16) » Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:18 am

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:-Disgree with JD's implication that Exe was the only one adding fuel to the fire and BBM was an innocent victim. Neither is a innocent in the exchange, though BBM very clearly initiated and made most of the personal attacks and incivility.
That is not what I said whatsoever, and you know it.

JD was lying when he wrote:skipping the slap-fight between BBM and Exe, noting that BBM is becoming increasingly exasperated whilst Exe becomes increasingly hostile and belligerent

This very clearly names BBM as a victim and Exe as the problem. Your other comments in that and surrounding posts follow the same vein.

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:-Not sure how to phrase it any clearer than, "Disagree that voting is generally superior to not voting." I think your statement that Exe (and everyone else) should always have a vote placed (barring special cases) is wrong.
Please, explain why. "I disagree" is not a valid argument.

Spoiler: Since you have not provided any argument, there's nothing for me to directly address. You have an assertion, I disagree with it.

However, since you asked I'll honor your request. This isn't comprehensive, but provides some points for not voting. Early game, it is fine if undecided players wait until they find a suspect before placing a vote. Placing early votes on a players you don't suspect can sometimes be helpful, but it can also distract town and help scum in several ways. Scum can stay under the radar while the townies involved in the crap argument draw attention. Scum can join the crap wagon with the safety and false legitimacy of having an actual townie be the head. Perhaps most dangerously, scum are given material to logically tear apart and make themselves appear to be contributing. Mid to late game (even outside of LyLo), a player may learn new information that clears their current suspect(s). It is perfectly appropriate for such a player to unvote and refrain from re-voting until he has time to consider the new information.

Should players vote? Yes.
Is a player suspicious if he does not have a vote placed at all times? No, not necessarily.

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:-Scumhunting is not measured by how many votes you throw around or how many suspects you name. It's very early in the game and people are still discussing and thinking things through. You're remaining ambiguous about what exactly you expect, but from what you've said it sounds like you're expectations are set unrealistically high (BBM excepted). No need to rush things.
OK, we can just sit here twiddling our thumbs until the scum catch themselves then.

That is a terrible and extremely anti-town suggestion.

If you act like you are dim, you'll be treated like you are dim.

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:--If you're asking if I've found any scum yet, my answer is "no, nobody is standing out as scummy enough that I feel like placing a vote, nor is anyone so uncooperative that I feel a need to place a vote yet." It is a stretch to claim I haven't posted anything other than questions or throwaway answers.
It is also BS to claim/imply that posting only questions at this stage in the game is in any way inadequate or inferior to posting a weak case and off-topic personal attacks (I'm assuming your BBM-crush implies approval of "weak cases and off-topic personal attacks" as acceptable and preferential to "asking questions and clarifying ambiguities").
There is a large and distinct difference between "nobody is standing out enough" and "I'm going to just ask questions, thus not showing suspicion of anyone and thus not allowing me to be linked nor making any waves".

-It sounds like you approve of saying "nobody is standing out enough" but don't approve of the latter. The former is and has been my position, so please clarify why did you object to me doing exactly that?
--Are you claiming that the former is equivalent to showing suspicions, creating links, and making waves?
-The latter does not describe the behavior of anyone in this game; why are you posting an irrelevant straw man?
--Are you claiming that it is impossible for a person to show suspicion, create links, or make waves by asking questions?

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:I'll prolly pay extra attention to VPB. Right now the strongest impression I have from this game is that VPB has been pushing an "anti-town = scummy" train despite being a good enough (and cynical enough) to know that's not any more true or likely than "anti-town = bad/weak player".
Don't pull that "you're better than this" excuse. It's an entire railroad company of BS and you know it.

JDodge wrote:Come on people, pick it up,
I know you can do better.

JDodge wrote:It's an entire railroad company of BS
and you know it.

-Lol at the hypocrisy & irony.
-Please clarify what you are objecting to. From context, you seem to be okay with using meta; meta from past reads and games gives me a strong impression that he would know his initial case was weak. Since I don't expect him to push a weak case, I wanted to pay more attention to why he made and pushed that case as well as whether I was missing anything in his case.

JDodge wrote:But
you've
used this is how I play multiple times in the past. Do you feel you were stupid then?

Note- potential distancing comment.

JDodge wrote:
Fishy wrote:He's also posting decent amounts of game-related stuff without ever commenting on anyone's alignment.
What about Kast? He's like
A la recherche du temps perdu
sans plot.

The difference would be that I have commented on alignments; the comments weren't "PLAYERA is scum". Regardless, it's erroneous to claim either Erg0 or myself are scummy for not calling out a top suspect.

JDodge wrote:
Shanba wrote:Kast is pushing nothing. He's posting, but I'm not sure why, because all he's added up to now is well... theory, I guess? Great way of flying under the radar. Also note that in his last post he's preparing to move on to the VP wagon which I am convincing myself is probably just an enticing townie lynch - and as such, is the easy lynch for scum to jump onto today. The explanation he gave that he wanted to vote for exe despite knowing the case was weak doesn't sit well with me, but I've been drawn into wagonning too many townies doing that kind of play. Regardless, Kast is scummier.
That's better.

No surprise that you agree with Shanba regurgitating your post. Why the discrepancy between calling me suspicious but not voting me?

JDodge wrote:
Kast wrote:-How does lynching Ani (a lurker who has posted and claims willingness to post again) minimize losses any better than lynching Domino (a lurker who never posted)?
Because Domino (a lurker who never posted) will be (and has been) replaced.

Claiming Domino's impending replacement was your reason to differentiate between the two is BS. At the time you posted, Domino was still simply a lurker with no mention of prod or replacement.

It's entirely possible and likely that Ani will be replaced out of this game, just like all other games he has joined recently. Moreover, it has been made clear since the first game post that Ani is a player who frequently disappears and gets replaced.

JDodge wrote:He is useless. If I am wrong about my scum suspects, they will be useful later on. Thus the potential losses part. The potential gains part relates to the fact that we will have more active, useful people in later days when it really matters.

How is having active players later in the game a greater potential gain than having a D1 successful scum lynch?

JDodge wrote:It's not a policy lynch; it's game theory.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In this case, lynching Ani for the reasons you provided is a policy lynch. You are not trying to lynch him for being scum, but rather because you think his behavior violates the norms of good game play (ie. a policy lynch).

For that matter, game theory would dictate that you don't look at simply the highest potential gain, but rather the expected utility which incorporates both the potential gain and the probability of that gain balanced against the risks and probability of those risks. Arguing simply the risk/gain without taking into account the probabilities invalidates your analysis and conclusions.

@JD in sum-

You've been alternating calling me scummy for not having a suspect and Exe for being (in your eyes) a stupid and useless player. How about placing your money where your mouth is and voting one of your suspects instead of egging on others to do so while keeping your hands clean?

Kast · Post Post #216 (isolation #17) » Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:18 pm

@JDodge-

Spoiler: JDodge's Post Annotated for easier responding

(1) You're trying to use a technicality to avoid the point. Your claim is wrong; you have not made any attempt to explain or justify your point, despite using it as a reason to attack other players.

(2) Mine is not the latter. Mine is the former, you've even quoted instances which disprove you. Your statement is false.
Post# = 7 | # Sentences = 50 | # Questions = 5 | Position taken = 10 | Link created = 12 | Waves Stirred = 8

Code: Select all

#	S 	Q	P	L	W
0	2 	1	0	0	0
1	4 	0	1	2	2
2	4 	0	1	1	1
3	6 	0	3	3	1
4	16	2	4	3	3
5	13	2	1	2	1
6	5 	0	0	1	0

(2B) At the time of your objection, my previous posts contained the above. Clearly not all questions and definitely not avoiding taking positions, creating links, or stirring waves.

(3) You didn't pay enough attention so it is potentially ambiguous as to whether you are arguing against the actual content (in which case you are simply arguing semantics) or whether you are arguing against the difference between a singular subject and a group of people (in which case you should read more carefully).
--If you are arguing semantics. Saying people are playing poorer than they are capable of is equivalent to saying they are a better player than this.

You are saying "you are a better player than this", I am saying "you are all playing poorly".

This is equivalent wrote:You are saying "you are a[ll] better player
than this", I am saying "you are
all
playing poorly".

--If you are just not paying attention, note that I quoted two examples, both of which involve you chastising other players (one generally chastising everyone, the other specifically chastising me) for engaging in a lower standard of behavior than what you expect. Saying "X is bad and you know it" is equivalent to your objection against saying "X is bad and you are good enough to avoid X".
(3B) As far as the meta, that's how I

did

use it. Your objection was that I used a "bad" argument that I should know better than to use, nothing do with your other case that I am "faffing about". It sounds like you are just responding to my most recent post without caring about the context of the post or what either of us poster prior.

(4) Again, are you reading the posts my comment responded to? Fishy said Erg0 was scum for posting without commenting on players.

YOU

addressed Fishy's post by claiming that Kast's behavior is no different from Erg0's. Your claim is an implicit statement that Erg0 is scummy and Kast should be held equally suspicious/scummy/

insert whatever word since you seem to enjoy weaseling out on technicalities

.

(5) This ties to 5B but is a reasonable response. To be clear, you would rather lynch a player who is not actually suspicious, and would instead follow a policy of lynching useless/inactive players rather than lynching your suspects.
(5B) This is addressed in (5)

(6) Ani had posted a reason he was absent and promised to be more active. He followed it up with a post expressing his thoughts and a vote. How is this worse than a player who had made no posts and there was no mention of replacement? Your objection does not address your paradoxical claim that your reason for naming Domino is a result of something that happened after you made you named Domino.
(6B) That is another issue of minimizing loss rather than maximizing potential gain. If you don't actually have any examples of maximizing gain, please be clear on that.
(6C) A policy lynch can achieve your goal. Your statement does not show how your decision to lynch Animorph is not a policy lynch. Whether it is a simple lurker lynch, or whether it is a lynch of a specific player who is known to suck, those are both policy lynches.

Since you obviously have no problem with getting a replacement for Domino's player slot, why not seek a replacement for Ani's slot?
(6D) This is addressed in (6), (6B), and (6C)

@All-
Out for the weekend, have fun all.

Kast · Post Post #242 (isolation #18) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:20 am

@Eldarad-
-Do you now see the difference between the mod-confirmed balancing mechanic and your speculated potential mechanics?
-To be clear, we have clarified and pretty much understand each other's positions on likelihood of scum bussing; we both think it is plausible that scum might bus in this game, but you think I am overestimating the likelihood.
-The difference between calling someone out for actually committing a potential scum-tells and calling someone out

before

they commit the scum-tell is huge. Up to now, it looks like you have not actually said anything I did was itself scummy, just that it could allow a future potential scummy action to be more effective. If you were

just

warning against something happening, that would make sense. Since you are voting along with the warning, it is slightly contradictory.
--It seems like you are letting yourself get hung up on a minor non-scum tell point as an excuse to avoid looking at other players. Your latest post is reasonable and measured; yet the scope is extremely limited.

@Shanba-
I suggest you calm down and re-read the thread.
-Discussing how a mod-confirmed game mechanic impacts the specific game including how it impacts specific scum accusations is obviously relevant.
--Just because you are incapable of understanding something does not mean nobody else can.
-I agree that bad arguments are usually pretty easy to tear apart. In contrast, good arguments are a lot harder to tear apart; I am guessing that is why you ignore my points and just whine.
-I have read my posts and they are not shit, but yes they are useful.
--When you are lynched, we will find out how effective my hunting has been.
-To be clear, you admit that your claim that I was not following up with anything was a load of BS.
--To be clear, you claim that despite tunneling exclusively on me and re-reading several times, you have not seen a single instance where I followed up and publicly stated a position about the response. I suggest you read again carefully before committing yourself to such a blatantly false claim.
-Your claim that I provided no explanation is a blatant lie. Your own post even paraphrases the post you claim never happened.

@Flameaxe-
-Was there a reason for 233 or 235? Are you trying to draw exe into another pointless argument? 237,238,239 are actually relevant and would serve just fine without the preceding taunts.
--To clarify, OMGUS is not a reason I hold Shanba in company with Eldarad and JDodge, however it is one of my own reasons for preferring Shanba out of the three. That isn't meant as a case to convince anyone else. It also isn't my only or primary reason. If you want to address specific problems you find with my other reasons, please be more clear.

I'll volunteer that the biggest weakness against my actual points against Shanba is that they aren't definite scum-tells, and could just be "Shanba is a weak player who gets easily upset and doesn't care whether he is lying"-tells.

I'll add that Shanba wagon will at the least give us some relational info since most people have taken some kind of position regarding Shanba. It may very well have the highest potential gains (based on Shanba being likely scum AND having ties to potential buddies).

Kast · Post Post #246 (isolation #19) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:38 am

@Flameaxe-
Please clarify your facepalm. Your recent posts are reminiscent of zwetschenwasser. Brevity is usually good. Brevity to the point that your comment tells us nothing without pulling teeth isn't good.

Kast · Post Post #248 (isolation #20) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:53 am

@Flameaxe-
Please clarify what is wrong with admitting that a case does not guarantee the suspect is scum. The comment you quoted applies to all of the other cases posted today and likely applies to a majority of D1 cases in any mafia game. The qualifier that I included does not necessarily apply to all the other cases today (some cases are just bad, and others might be wrong without the suspect being a weak player).
-Would it be better if we lynch a suspect with a case based on definite scumtells? Of course!
-If we don't have such a case, is it wrong to lynch a suspect whose case is based on probable but not definite scumtells? No, that's pretty much all we can do.
Since we don't have anything better, then we might as well acknowledge our situation and aim for the best we can do.

Kast · Post Post #250 (isolation #21) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:18 pm

@Flameaxe-
Not really. You are the one claiming there that my points fail to meet some undefined standard that you won't clarify. You are also the one claiming that there is enough information posted that I should have 100% rock solid case proving someone is definitely scum. Post some evidence to support your claims or admit that they're just the baseless assertions that they are.

Kast · Post Post #252 (isolation #22) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:29 pm

@Flameaxe-
Clarify, why do you mention flimsy points? That has nothing to do with our discussion. Please stop straw manning.

However, it is true that many mini games hit day two with flimsy point based lynches. Most hit day 2 without ever having cases built on definite scum-tells.

Use context. I clarified EXACTLY why my points aren't definite scum-tells.

Kast · Post Post #253 (isolation #23) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:30 pm

EBWOP:
However, it is true that many mini games hit day two with flimsy point based lynches. Most hit day 2 without ever having cases built on definite scum-tells.

The two are not identical; flimsy point based lynches are a subset of cases built on indefinite scum-tells.

Kast · Post Post #254 (isolation #24) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:35 pm

Also, not really sure what "proof" you are asking me to provide. I've already shown that your arguments are crap. You haven't bothered responding to any of that.

There is not a single case made on anyone in this entire day that proves 100% that the suspect is scum. If you are claiming the burden lies on me to go through every single post and show that it isn't a definite scum-tell, then it's obvious you're trying to shut me up by asking a ridiculous waste of time undertaking. If you think there is even one post that relies on definite scum tells, then post it.

Kast · Post Post #261 (isolation #25) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:48 pm

@Flameaxe-
-Stop the insults, they aren't called for and it's in invalid and irrational tack to use insults every time you get proven wrong or get upset. In addition, you were already warned by mod to cut it out.

Spoiler: I'm not going to give you what you want because it's too much work; you're not going to give me what I want because it's impossible. I'm lazy, you're wrong. I can live with that.

Spoiler: Your grasp of mafia theory is bad.

Spoiler: My points are not flimsy. I never said they were; your straw man claiming I did is a failure.

*- or at least better if good is shooting too high for you

Spoiler: **- I changed my mind. Since you asked, I linked to all posts in the thread that do not contain definite scum tells.

Kast · Post Post #263 (isolation #26) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:01 pm

Spoiler: I was still working on this part

Kast · Post Post #264 (isolation #27) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:02 pm

@Flameaxe-
Every time that people show you that you are wrong, that's because you are wrong, not because they are "dim".

Kast · Post Post #268 (isolation #28) » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:44 pm

@Flameaxe-
A) I showed you all the posts without definite scum-tells.

-To be clear, are you admitting that you do not see any definite scum tells? Your challenge implies that you think they exist. If you do not, then challenging my point is meaningless and distracting.
B) You are arguing semantics. In our discussion, I stated that my case is based on tells which are not definite for a specific reason. A definite scum-tell is a tell that definitely shows the person is scum. You are just arguing semantics.
C) There is an easy way to prove the existence of definite scum-tells in the game. Go to the post containing the definite scum-tell. There's a button that says "QUOTE". Click that and then click submit.
D) Why do you believe that? Elaborate, we aren't mind readers.
Be consistent. Are you claiming there are definite scum tells? If not, then what exactly am I supposed to find?
E) You're not sure because you don't know what it means. Look it up. You falsely claimed that I said my case was bad and equated my statement that my points are not definite tells with admission that my case is flimsy. That is not what I said and your attacking that false admission instead of my actual position is a straw man.
F) Read context. You posted an irrelevant post stating that D1 often ends before 10 pages. I pointed out that D1 also often ends with a flimsy case. Since you were not capable of understanding my point, I gave you an explanation. Now you quote a subpoint of the explanation and ignore the rest of it and claim you don't know the rest. Obviously if you are just reading a sub point out of context you will be missing something.

@Mod-

Since Flameaxe has publicly expressed an intent to lurk the rest of the day, can we get a replacement?
-This would supersede any action based on his disregard for rule 17 and general decision throughout the game to be an ass for the sake of being an ass.

Kast · Post Post #275 (isolation #29) » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:41 am

@All-
Apologies for letting myself fall for Flameaxe's waste of time & distracting BS. If anyone is genuinely interested in pursuing any portion of our dialog, let me know. Since Flameaxe has decided to emulate animorph and stop posting, I see no further point in continuing. Since he was ignoring the vast majority of my points anyway, there probably wasn't any point in the first place.

Unofficial VC:

Shanba (4): VP Baltar, Kast, Debonair Danny DiPietro, Exe

Kast (3): Eldarad, Shanba, Flameaxe,
Exe (2): Erg0, Jdodge
Erg0 (1): Fishythefish

Not Voting (2): Rayfrost, a2rudeboy
12 alive, 6 will lynch.

Based on current ruleset, we don't need a majority so Shanba would be lynched come deadline (

@Mod

is deadline this upcoming Monday?).

@Rayfrost-
-You've expressed suspicion of Shanba and Exe. Are you still suspicious of them?
--Are you willing to vote for either and if so, which one is your preference?

@a2rudeboy-
Please post or get replaced.

@Fishy-
Your Erg0 case is not convincing for me. It sounds like VPB and Exe are the only people who might support it, and that's not enough to secure a lynch over either the Exe wagon or the Kast wagon. I don't think your vote is being used effectively where it is. Are you willing to lynch any out of {Shanba, Kast, Exe}?

@Erg0-
Assuming you don't have support for an Exe wagon, would you support either a Kast or Shanba wagon?

@JDodge-
I'm assuming you'll switch to me if Exe is not viable. Is this correct?

Kast · Post Post #283 (isolation #30) » Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:22 am

@Flameaxe-

Spoiler: Pay attention.

-Your hypocrisy in ignoring my points and questions while previously claiming that "ignoring things is scummy" is noted. Your poor grasp of logic and general attraction and adoption of crap cases throughout this game argues that you prolly just don't know any better, as opposed to you intentionally being a bad player. This is consistent with my prior read. I suppose I should add a note that while you are reading most of the posts in the game, you have a tendency to ignore the posts and points of your current suspects.
--If you're just trying to provoke another distraction, then the town would be better served if you stuck with your promise.
--If you have any points to make, then make them.

Kast · Post Post #291 (isolation #31) » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:37 pm

@Flameaxe-
I'm going to take you at face value and assume you are genuinely seeking understanding.

Spoiler: My thoughts on Flameaxe

Spoiler: Points and Questions that Flameaxe has been ignoring. Provided at his request and on his good faith promise to attempt to answer them.

Re: the crap cases, I'll try to get to that later or tomorrow.

@JDodge-
-You are one of my top three suspects who I named in post 195.

I'll admit perfectly that my cases on animo and Exe were weak, and essentially policy lynches, but they proved the point which I am making now, which is that this town is so intent on focusing on the same 3-4 people that we don't give a shit about anyone else and the fact that people can have written Scummie-nominated essays condemning policy lynching and still not be called out for suggesting a policy lynch.

Who is this addressed to? Fishy and I called you out for suggesting a policy lynch. We've both also been commenting on all other players and arguments.

To be clear, are you saying the following two points?
(1) the town is focused on 3-4 people when it should be diversifying to look at more people
(2) the town should have called out JDodge for doing something that contradicts an out-of-game meta essay that he wrote (that probably nobody is even aware of)

Kast · Post Post #298 (isolation #32) » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:14 am

Don't have a lot of time today, some quick stuff.

@Mod-

Prod on a2rudeboy.
Prod on Eldarad.
Prod on Rayfrost.
Prod on Shanba.

@All-
We should hurry up and converge on a candidate and give them time to claim. I agree with Eldarad's speculation that flavor probably is related to what sort of power-ups townies receive, and this fits with Mod stating power-ups are pre-determined off a matrix for any given situation.

Given the low activity level and current voting patterns, my gut says:
-a2rudeboy and Rayfrost are MIA town.
-Two of the four on my wagon are probable scum (most likely Shanba and JDodge, with JDodge's late addition forced by the possibility of a Shanba lynch).
--We've likely only got 7 "active" townies and 2 of them (Flameaxe and whichever of {Shanba/JDodge/Eldarad} is town) aren't even trying to find scum anymore. Unless a2rudeboy or Rayfrost get active, there's almost no more chance of town overruling the scumwagon on me.
-There is probably 1 scum member avoiding me or even supporting me. Difficult to see who that is at this point in time.

Kast · Post Post #317 (isolation #33) » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:59 am

@Rayfrost-
-Does your disagreement extend to support of a Shanba lynch?

@Flameaxe-
-Still working through your posts for the other thing you requested. I'll try to get it up before the weekend so you can respond when you're free on Fri/Sat.

@a2rudeboy-
Please post your thoughts on Shanba. Some points to keep in mind:
-Shanba attacked and voted VPB for using a bad case.
--Shanba's number 2 reason for voting Kast is because he claims Kast was going to vote VPB for using a bad case (the exact same bad case)
---Shanba ignores that Kast explicitly stated he thought VPB was probably an overeager townie.
-Initial "RVS" vote on JDodge and then subsequent buddying between the two. Lots of buddying & links between them. Initial RVS vote was potentially an attempted distancing.
--Shanba changed his vote from VPB to Kast by fully adopting JDodge's prior post.
--JDodge jumped on Kast wagon after repeatedly excusing himself from it as soon as Shanba became the vote leader and most likely lynch.
--JDodge initially said Shanba's actions would be scummy except his meta of Shanba changes it to neutral. With no explanation and no change from Shanba, he now claims Shanba is probable town.
-Shanba's misrepresentations and flat-out lies
--Blatant lie that Kast doesn't follow up on anything, but when Kast goes through and shows the instances were followed-up Shanba pretends he wasn't objecting to not having follow-up but rather objecting to the follow-up not catching scum.
--Blatant lie that Kast has no position while quoting me explicitly stating I think one of two possibilities is our actual case
--Claims Kast had no position despite quoting Kast saying certain people who others were calling scum were actually +town or null/neutral.
--Blatant lie that Kast never explained his position regarding VPB.

@Erg0-
-Similar to my point to Fishy, at this point I'm not sure that you have a viable lynch candidate in Exe (you may depending on Rayfrost or rudeboy). Are you up for changing your vote to Shanba?
--Preview edit: I count 4 supporters of an Exe lynch {Rayfrost, Erg0} + maybe VPB (haven't heard recent opinion on this) + maybe JDodge (Somehow, I don't really see that happening...)
-You completely lost me on the comment about fishy being right. Could you elaborate or share what the context of that is?

@Exe-
-You said you didn't want to lynch Shanba without him posting/giving more info. He has now posted and he didn't provide any more info and indicated he doesn't care to do so. Balls in your court now.
-You're right about Shanba tunneling. After he dropped his VPB case, his posts have almost exclusively focused on me except for one line responses to direct questions and the comment about JDodge (which was sort of related due to their excessive buddying and shared attack on me).

@DDD-
It looks null. JDodge's other posts show he's not that careful about parallel structure or grammar in general. I think JDodge is scum, I don't think enough players have expressed support for a JDodge lynch to make it happen nor is your potential scum slip convincing or damning enough to change that.

@JDodge-
You're using the term wrong. Do you have any essays on "semantical arguments" you'd like to share with us?

@Rayfrost-
Thanks for the clarification.

@VPB, Exe, Erg0, DDD, Rayfrost-
Let's get lynching scum. You guys all have expressed willingness to lynch Shanba and trust or less willingness to lynch me.

@Shanba-
If decide to claim, I'd suggest doing it sooner than later so people have time to think and evaluate.

@Eldarad-
I'm very pleasantly anticipating seeing Shanba flipping scum and you not caring a whit when someone accuses me of bussing him.

Preview Edit:
@Exe-
It looks to pretty clearly mean he suspects Exe as number 1 and Shanba as number 2.

Kast · Post Post #321 (isolation #34) » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:14 am

@All-
Also note that mod posted 6 to lynch not 7, so with 6 people expressing willingness to lynch Shanba, that's enough for a lynch already. L-1 is 5 votes in our current game.

I'm assuming it's 6 to lynch since majority isn't actually required for a lynch. If it says 6 to lynch due to mod error, then ignore this

.

Kast · Post Post #327 (isolation #35) » Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:36 am

Hey all, checking in, this is turning out to be a busy week, so may not check back in again until Monday.

@Rayfrost-
It was reference to a previous post, but you answered in between when I wrote that and when I posted it, so it's already been answered.

@JDodge-

JD To Fishy wrote:It's not a policy lynch; it's game theory.

JD To Kast wrote:A policy is a lynch based on policy. The goal is to lynch people in order to increase my chance of winning

JD wrote:I'll admit perfectly that my cases on animo and Exe were weak, and essentially policy lynches,

-To be clear, you are admitting that your previous posts were wrong and that your votes were in fact policy lynches. Further you seem to be claiming that you felt a policy lynch was the best option for town (presumably due to having no real candidates at the time). Is that correct?

It's a bit hard to believe your claim to have missed my post seeing as you quoted and directly responded to it.

-You're upset that the town didn't attack you for doing something that you think you should be attacked for. What do you expect to gain from your chastisement? Are you claiming scum/asking for votes?

JDodge wrote:They're two different kinds of declarations - Exe-town refers to his general town contribution (and I should probably drop the town off of that, as it's alignment-null).

This is just revisionism.

JDodge wrote:
VPB wrote:why the fuck are you voting Exe?
3. Exe-town is useless at best and distracting at worst. Exe-scum would be flying under the radar of intelligence right now.

You are clearly and explicitly answering VPB's question by comparing results if Exe is town or if Exe is scum.

JD wrote:I never said probable town. I said that everything against him was null.

You're correct, I misread your last statement. Do you have other objections to the points I asked a2rudeboy to consider?

Kast · Post Post #367 (isolation #36) » Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:12 pm

Hey all, just got home from a long day & decided to check in case lynch happens before I check tomorrow.

Skimmed, & Shanba's claim is a load of BS. Aside from my race & personality, my role is identical to the sample PM. Shanba's claim that his role PM says he is a doctor is an obvious attempt to false claim doc, & possibly draw counter claims.

Strongly not liking A2rudeboy's calling me scummy & suspicious without committing to it.

Last second attempts to swing voters to Exe are clearly a last attempt to save Shanba. After Shanba lynch, I'm rolly gonna get NKed so final thoguhts are look @JD & rudeboy.

Kast · Post Post #406 (isolation #37) » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:47 pm

@JD/Ray-
-Sorry no dice. Glad I checked back in before sleeping. The sample townie PM is not just a "Sample" it is "THE TOWNIE ROLE PM". We all get the same role PM except for the race/personality. Shanba's claim isn't about a flavor interpretation, he is flat out lying and claiming he has a different role PM from what the mod has publicly stated is THE TOWNIE ROLE PM. Let's lynch the liar.

-Nice hypocrisy in wanting to save a claimed future doctor but not saving a claimed future cop.

-I never claimed vanilla who stays vanilla. Cut the lying and misrepresentations. I claimed the same role PM that mod posted publicly and which Shanba has claimed is not his. My role PM allows for future possible roles and my

Personality

sure suggests something, however there is no flavor text saying I will definitely be something AND mod has clarified that PRs aren't inherently predetermined (not even for the same Personality).

@Erg0, Fishy-
You two are the only ones who I can really count on to make any sense at this point. JDodge is gonna stick to his buddy's ass like he's been doing all game. Flameaxe just hates Exe.

Rudeboy is being nonsensical and it could potentially be the final scum.

I'm thinking Ray didn't read the rules carefully and got suckered into believing Shanba's false claim.

@Ray-
Re-read your PM. Re-read the town PM. Then re-read Shanba's claim. He isn't claiming about flavor guesses, he is claiming a different role PM. If you were just assuming you yourself are purely vanilla with no chance of gaining abilities, ask the mod if there is any chance of you gaining abilities. The structure of this game is open, so you should get a pretty clear answer, even if mod won't say what specific abilities you would gain.

@JD-
You know my post is nothing to do with picking lynches ahead of time. It's plain and simple last thoughts in the event we lynch Shanba, he flips scum, and I get NightKilled. Claiming otherwise is a load of BS. If we lynch Shanba and he flips town, obviously my post is wrong. If we lynch him and he flips scum, obviously you are a candidate because of your backtracking and all your extreme defense of him. If I am alive, I'll push that at that time. If I am dead, I'm leaving final thoughts to help the town. Get over yourself and your crush on Shanba please. Advice for future games, don't buddy so much with your scum buddies.

Kast · Post Post #446 (isolation #38) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:08 am

Wow town's really screwing around now. Let go of your preconceptions and accept reality already.

@Ray-
There's absolutely no reason to hide your answer from mod. From context you've already admitted that your role is not like Shanba's claim. So your question could have one of three answers, Yes, No, or Unknown. If mod said Yes or Unknown, then obviously Shanba is lying so just accept the objective facts.

If mod said No, then you better take a stand on that because all the rest of us can ask the mod the same thing and easily find out if you're lying.

@Townie = VT-
Load of BS. Townie means a town player, nothing more, nothing less. Claims that townie means vanilla are blatant lies. Nobody here is stupid enough to really believe that BS claim.

Further, everyone in the game starts off as vanilla and our sides gain powers depending how things go. The specific powers we gain will be based on our Race/Personality (ask Oman to confirm; he's already done when I asked), but not everyone who has the same Race/Personality is guaranteed to gain the same power. Powers and Bonuses are granted based on his matrix so that the game remains balanced. Having only a small subset of town able to gain powers would screw up the ability to balance since any deaths of PRs or future PRs would rob the town of end game balancing options.

@VPB-
Mods do try to be ambiguous, but it's not the mod's job to obscure his already made public posts just because scum make a stupid mistake while false claiming. Shanba made an objective claim that his role PM explicitly states he is a future protector (doctor) and is different from the mod's publicly posted town role PM. The whole point of providing a town role PM is to make things fair and help scum avoid making a stupid mistake like that.

We're essentially playing a semi-open role game and Shanba is claiming something that contradicts the

open

part of semi-open.

@Exe's screwups-
-The claim that posting thief instead of rogue is a sign of a liar is BS. Townies mess up like that just as much if not more often than scum.
-Exe obviously messed up his read of my post and has already admitted his mistake and moved on. Bringing up that mistake as a way to discredit unrelated other posts is nonsensical.

@All-
Let's get one more Shanba vote.

Kast · Post Post #447 (isolation #39) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:10 am

Ugh, too slow.

@Exe- share any final thoughts.

Kast · Post Post #453 (isolation #40) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:06 am

@A2rudeboy-
You called me scummy and suspicious but didn't commit to it. The only post with any substance that you have done is to attack me (half of the things you said aren't even about me, they're about things other people have done), then you voted for an alternate wagon instead of voting me. You haven't posted a single thing justifying your Exe vote.

All you've done is:
-Claim Shanba is innocent because Kast is scum
-Claim Kast is scum because Shanba thinks Kast is scum and he posts a lot
-Vote for Exe instead of Kast for no reason (well obvious reason is to save Shanba)

@Flameaxe-
You've been screwing around the whole day. Maybe that's just your style of playing, but newsflash to Flameaxe: you and your playstyle are anti-town.

Saving Shanba to avoid lynching a claimed doctor is a BS excuse when you turn around and lynch a claimed cop. This is even more true when mod info shows the claimed doctor is lying. It's simple objective information presented to all of us. This is a game in which we all start as "vanilla" with the chance to gain PRs if our team does badly. The town role PM is posted publicly. Shanba did not realize this and claimed something that contradicts the role PM. It's straightforward; cut-and-dry.

If you have any doubts at all, just ask the mod whether the "sample" town role PM allows for any possibility of gaining future powers. A townie should have asked this question and gotten mod confirmation; instead we've got a bunch of people who dislike Exe's playstyle and already decided that he's scum and won't even bother asking the mod a question to confirm it.

That's terrible play for townies.

Kast · Post Post #456 (isolation #41) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:13 am

@VPB-
Shanba said his role PM states he can protect against thieves and magic. He did not make a flavor guess or interpretation or anything like that; he claims his actual role PM states a game mechanic of being able to protect others when things get bad for town.

It makes no sense to tell one individual player that he would gain a specific power, but not tell that to anyone else and to publicly share that people will not be specifically informed beyond what they can guess from the source link.

Kast · Post Post #457 (isolation #42) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:16 am

I can assure you that not all players start as a vanilla and gain PRs.

I don't buy this at all. You are making assumptions about the game setup based that contradict what the mod has directly posted and not basing those assumptions on anything. If this is a reference to your claim that Oman is being dickish, consider that you're just making a bad assumption.

Kast · Post Post #469 (isolation #43) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:36 am

@Rayfrost-
WTF? Your answer has nothing to do with informing anybody as to your role.

It's a Yes, No, or No Answer issue. The only answer that is compatible with trusting Shanba is "No" and (

assuming it was true

) it would simply reveal you are vanilla. Any other answer might give away a potential town PR, but it would be in exchange for a guaranteed scum lynch. That is absolutely a good trade for town, revealing 1 potential PR out of the entire town of potential PRs (and not even revealing what that PR is)-for-1 guaranteed scum.

@BBM-
-Lol, what happened to being direct and not making people read between the lines?

-Usually when someone makes their assumptions contingent on the Mod being a dick, that's a sign that the person is making a stupid assumption. Given the rest of your play, I have no trouble at all believing you would make such an assumption.

-Also, note the hypocrisy with soft claiming while telling people to stop claiming. If you think there's too much information, then don't soft claim more info. If you think the soft claim info must be shared then don't make a soft claim and just come out and share what you think town needs to hear. Ambiguous soft claims don't help town at all since we don't know if you really mean anything, but scum know that a soft claiming townie is telling the truth. Your townies who soft claim give scum free license to do the same and mislead townies while keeping a backdoor to deny everything later.

Kast · Post Post #472 (isolation #44) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:44 am

Day is over, we'll see soon enough.

If anyone gains a vig power when Exe flips town, I strongly suggest Shanba.

Kast · Post Post #497 (isolation #45) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:27 pm

@Erg0-
I'm assuming it's a quirk of Oman's implementation of voteleader with seniority gets lynched at deadline. Once 6 people vote for the target, that's sufficient to force a lynch (assuming no unvotes) since any counterwagon can have at most 6 and will lose due to not being first. But you're right that it's not technically a majority lynch at that point.

@Mod-

Please clarify whether the example town role PM from the second post is compatible with a player who could potentially gain a PR in future.

Kast · Post Post #499 (isolation #46) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:57 pm

@Erg0-
Exe's request, that you share and commit yourself to some thoughts prior to a potential night phase of discussion with scumbuddies, isn't asking you to accept any assertions that you think are wrong. He's going to be out of the game and confirmed one way or the other. If he flips town, then it could be helpful to have your thoughts. If he flips scum, then sharing your thoughts for otherwise becomes moot. The only danger would really be if your thoughts somehow helped scum with night actions, but that's hardly relevant to the questions he asked.

That said, I don't think you are likely scum; Shanba and JDodge are much more likely, and there's other more likely candidates for their buddy. The way I see it, you look like you're just being uncooperative because it's Exe.

Kast · Post Post #500 (isolation #47) » Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:03 pm

To clarify, if you don't trust him and don't want to answer, that's fine and just say so. The excuses you are providing don't hold up.

Kast · Post Post #522 (isolation #48) » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:36 am

@Shanba-
Clarify if you protected someone last night and if so who did you protect and why?
-If you stopped the mafia kill, you're not giving them any info and you'll be clearing a townie when scum NK you.

The lack of N1 death is the only thing that makes me wait on voting you right now (but it is an important thing).

@Ray-
Why did you refrain from sharing that the mod answered "No" to your question? You already revealed that your initial PM was the "stock" townie role PM, so how does it hurt us anymore to say mod told you that you are unlikely to ever change?

I received a different answer from the mod that was much more similar to his public answer to the same question. The default "townie role PM" does not disallow gaining powers but also does not guarantee it. As expected, mod isn't going to guarantee either way on the likelihood that I personally would gain or not gain powers.

Given that mod has publicly confirmed that people who gain powers will be given a new role PM, I'm less inclined to believe Shanba.

@Fishy-
Flameaxe pretty much claimed he has his own power-up hint in his initial role PM. His interactions with Exe at end of day strongly indicate it was the same or similar (either also a rogue, a cop, or both).

Side note, insisting on soft-claiming cop/PR in TWILIGHT, despite someone giving you an out to avoid claiming, is absolutely abysmal play. If Flameaxe is really town, I have to seriously question whether playing to his win con or just playing to get in fights and flame people.

@Erg0-
Your claim that Exe's question was only "justify why you lynched a townie" shows you weren't paying attention to his end of day posts. He asked several people, including yourself, how their thoughts would be affected by Exe flipping town. From context, this was clearly what both Exe and I were asking if you would answer. I want to hear those answers now.

Kast · Post Post #525 (isolation #49) » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:13 pm

@Erg0-
Asking questions is how you play the game.

Cover your ass how you like, the point stands you refused to share thoughts on the playerbase in the event Exe was town. Further you avoided doing so by using BS reasons that didn't address that point.

It's great that you say you'll re-read everyone, however you should have at least some idea of all other players so please share those.

Your comments on the Ray wagon fail to actually state your position on the wagon itself. You comment negatively on his claiming and said the reasons for the votes aren't strong enough to warrant the votes, but in a more absolute sense, do you find him scummy/suspicious? Elaborate please.

@Ray-
Firstly, I like to play without assuming every single player is a complete and utter idiot. Your claim requires making that assumption. Your assumption is a bad way to play.

Secondly, "I will not answer" is still very different from "it is unlikely".

Kast · Post Post #539 (isolation #50) » Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:28 am

@Erg0-
I didn't quote because I'm getting a bit tired of doing the legwork and then it just gets ignored or called fluff. That plus I think Shanba is by far more likely scum than you; your actions indicate stubborn town who just didn't want to grow up and play nice with Exe because he rubbed you wrong. If you really want to derail things by getting into an in depth discussion that shows you are wrong, but not necessarily scummy, then say so and I'll get to it in spoiler tags when I have the time.

@Rayfrost-
Only an idiot can read your soft claim and not realize that it is a soft claim. If you had anything other than the stock PM, then your "question" to the mod makes no sense at all to ask. I've already pointed this out; though nobody except you needed it pointed out. I'm unclear whether you are playing dumb about this or you just really suck at soft claiming.

@Shanba-
-Agreed that Shanba-town has no incentive to lie. If Shanba-town were an active doctor, he would be able to clear a townie now, before scum can get rid of him.
However, the continued vanilla claim combined with lack of NK removes a lot of the value of sparing him.
-Voting patterns yesterday were strongly influenced by protection of Shanba. The Kast wagon formed to protect Shanba, then the Exe wagon formed in direct response to Shanba being pressed to claim and threatened with a lynch. They were both reactionary wagons made to keep Shanba alive (with JDodge the key voter in both cases).
--While Ray is a possible buddy, today's shift from Shanba to Ray looks like more protection and diversion away from Shanba.

Vote: Shanba

@DDD-
Please elaborate on your Rayfrost vote.

Kast · Post Post #540 (isolation #51) » Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:33 am

Also to note, even when facing his own lynch, Shanba did not vote Exe to save himself when he had that opportunity. Likely a result of knowing Exe would flip town and counting on his buddies to save him. This would indicate one of Rayfrost or Eldarad as a late wagon buddy (JD being the most likely early wagon buddy whose vote was the setup for the Exe wagon going through).

Kast · Post Post #544 (isolation #52) » Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:49 am

@Ray-
Ok, I get you are claiming it was unintentional etc. That is plausible, but I don't know how well you play to determine if this is just an act or if you are being genuine.

@Ray/Erg0-
I think my last few posts probably come across a lot harsher than intended. I'm standing by my points, but I'll try to tone it down a bit since I'm sure they aren't making the game more enjoyable.

Kast · Post Post #545 (isolation #53) » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:24 am

@JD-

JD fails at reading my post wrote:And he has claimed that he has not yet become a doctor.

Which is entirely consistent with my analysis. Shanba is either lying scum, or is currently vanilla town.

JD wrote:Who do you think is the most likely kill target for last night? I'd say VP myself. I'd say it wouldn't be you because if you're town and wrong then you're a great asset to the scum alive, wouldn't be Shanba to cast suspicion, wouldn't be me for the same reasons it wouldn't be you, wouldn't be Ray, see: Shanba, wouldn't be anyone else because there's no reason to kill someone who isn't at all active in their play.

-Why are you fishing for the doctor? You're probably upset that your kill failed, but seriously...
There's a huge difference in discussing a claimed doctor and searching for an unclaimed and apparently successful one.

Spoiler: Your analysis of potential mafia kill targets is irrational and full of crap logic.

You know what I hate about you? Your "I can do no wrong" attitude.

Is there any game relevance to this statement or are you just venting?

Also the fact that you don't assume stupid; that's illogical as most people are stupid.

Context is important. I don't play assuming that scum are stupid enough that town can get away with also being stupid. I try to recognize and differentiate between stupid plays and scummy plays; I'm not the one who insisted on lynching Exe for what was obviously just his playstyle and admittedly not scum-tells. I'm also not the one who voted Rayfrost without considering whether his behavior is actually a scum-tell or a VI tell. My decision to not assume that everyone is an idiot is not the same as assuming nobody makes stupid or sub-optimal moves.

-Having a "reason" for a Ray vote is not mutually exclusive with the pressure on Ray being a diversion to protect Shanba. The strength of your Ray case is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the diversion away from Shanba. If you had a crap case, it's not going to protect Shanba much. If you have a strong case, it's going to protect him more.

-Obviously not everyone is scum but me. There are likely three scum and the remainder of players are townies.

@Eldarad- Note that this is an instance in which calling out JD for his scummy move results in him changing his action (switching from protecting his buddy to bussing/distancing), however, he has already been called out so the support gained is worth the risk of letting JD bus a little.

Kast · Post Post #547 (isolation #54) » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:47 am

@Flameaxe-
That's a worthwhile to consider. I'm discounting that possibility based on this:

Mostly the game will run start to finish as per a good strong mafia game
, but if town starts to slide, they will achieve more power.
If mafia are getting snowballed
, they will find their resistance to town power or their own power rises.

Kast · Post Post #599 (isolation #55) » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:08 pm

@Mod's clarification-
Having confirmation that the example role PM is vanilla for the entire game changes some things.
- JD gets noob-points for using crap analysis that fails to consider the game from the PoV of a player with the default role PM. His responses to VPB and Fishy also show inconsistency and failure to fully understand our game state or either of their arguments.

Spoiler: Fishy and VPB's understanding and analysis of our game state are top notch. Some additional thoughts.

-It's usually a bad sign when mod publicly answers a question one way, then when asked the same question will answer in a completely different way. The change in answer makes JD's claim more plausible (and bumps him from scum trying to lead town astray to simply stubborn town who doesn't know any better).

@JD's claim-
-Barring counterclaims, it seems like JD is our doc. It does explain some of the baseless assumptions he has been making and his inability to look at the game from the PoV of a VT.
--It is a bit odd that being a bodyguard with hints of becoming a doctor does not make him remotely suspect another doctor claim.
--It is also odd that he isn't acknowledging that scum would have huge incentive to lynch Shanba (claimed doc) instead of Exe (claimed VT) on D1. Given his private info, he should have known Exe was claiming VT AND that scum also should have known that.
-The lack of counter claim and Mod changing his public answer in response to JD's question makes me think JD is more likely town, however, the possibility still remains that his current PR claim is just an attempt to bolster Shanba's claim.
-JD's bulletproof claim makes it MUCH safer to lynch Shanba without risking a loss of protective roles. It also makes a backup doctor less plausible.

@Shanba case-
-While I disagree with VPB's position on the unlikelihood of permanent VTs + VTs who later gain powers, I agree strongly with the argument that scum would have lynched Shanba if he was really a townie. There's really no reason at all for scum to avoid hammering Shanba at end of D1. There were plenty of players in support of it and he was sitting at L-1 for long enough that any scum could easily have added the hammer (or even just refrained from voting or pushed an aimless wagon and let vote-leader Shanba die).

@Recent posts-
-JD's clarification to Shanba about what Policy Lynches are is wrong. For someone who was previously tooting his own horn about writing essays on policy lynches, those senselss comments are mindboggling. A policy lynch is a lynch based on a policy and in particular a policy that does not inherently catch scum. Common examples are lynching VIs, lynching specific players known to be anti-town, or lynching lurkers. Pushing a lynch of Exe, not because Exe was scummy, but because you felt he was being useless or anti-town (without necessarily being scummy) is a policy lynch.

-Lol @Shanba parroting portions of my posts about JD while simultaneously claiming that I'm not posting any substance.

-Shanba's reluctance to state why people (and scum in particular) might be averse to lynching a claimed doc doesn't fit. If there is a reason for townies to avoid hammering the highly suspected vote leader, then that almost invariably results in reason for scum to want to lynch that suspect. Certainly true for scum who believed Shanba's claim. The simplest and obvious explanation for what happened is that Shanba is scum so obviously his buddies are against lynching him.

-It seems unfathomable that JD couldn't see why scum making a false claim to save themselves would claim something aimed at avoiding an immediate counter-claim. Also, it is inconsistent for JD to claim that Shanba's potential doc claim is the primary reason people avoided lynching him, but also claim that Shanba's potential doc claim is not something that could derail his wagon.

-Eldarad claiming he believed Shanba's claim and disbelieved Exe's claim based on Boost mafia and ignoring that Exe's claim was the mod posted Townie Role PM sounds implausible. If he claimed his experience from Boost mafia made him believe Shanba's claim, that would be reasonable, but to claim that it somehow makes Exe's claim implausible is nonsense.

Spoiler: Erg0 avoiding and making BS excuses to avoid answering Exe's questions

"No point in me commenting on the setup/PM stuff right now, let's see what tomorrow brings."
Exe's point had already been clearly and explicitly raised that he would like to hear your (and others) thoughts

prior to

having a night phase to coordinate with scumbuddies. Your claim that there is no point is BS. If you simply did not want to do it, that is one thing (and would be fine), but making up a false excuse to avoid it is unnecessary/uncalled for.
""You think I'm scum. When you are proven wrong, you'll have to justify it. Justify it now."
No."
Exe's quote is arguably ambiguous in isolation, but in context (especially given that two other players had JUST ANSWERED THE EXACT SAME QUESTION), it's clear that he isn't asking you to "justify why you just lynched a townie", but rather share your thoughts on each player in the event that Exe is town and justify those thoughts. Your flat out refusal to cooperate with a simple and straight forward question is anti-town.
"Oh, I didn't know it was anti-town to not fall into simplistic traps."
This is obviously a BS deflection. Exe's question was in no way a trap; this was already clear at the time but if you had any objection his flip proves them wrong.
"If I answered your question as written then I'd be accepting your assertion that I'm wrong. Scum do things that they know are wrong. QED."
This reasoning is crap logic. (1)Answering a question that has a premise of "If I am mistaken..." and (2)admitting "I think I am wrong" are not equivalent statements and your claim that they are the same is a load of BS. Townies can and should always be open to consider alternatives, provided that their current suspect is not 100% guaranteed scum. Doing so does not mean they are abandoning their primary beliefs, nor does it mean they are doing something that they know is wrong.

""Justify why you just lynched a townie" (before the flip) is akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" By answering the question, I'm accepting the premise that I knew I was lynching a townie."
This is crap logic on two levels. Firstly, that is not the question Exe asked (more detail above). Secondly, the implication that a player participating in a mislynch is equally culpable to a person who is beating his wife assumes that a person who commits a "bad" act without knowing whether it is "good" or "bad" is equally culpable to a person who commits a "bad" act with no ambiguity of the morality of the act.
-It's implicitly understood that "beating your wife" is a "bad" action. Further, there is no question about the identity of the wife and no reasonable possibility that the target of the beating could actually be someone/thing deserving of a beating.
-Lynching an unconfirmed player who turns out to be a townie is not an inherently "bad" action. You don't know Exe's affiliation at the time of the vote, so even if you genuinely misunderstood Exe's question as the BS you claim it was, your "answer" would be the same as it is now (e.g. Exe acted suspiciously, you didn't believe his claim, he had an anti-town playstyle...etc, whatever your reasons for suspecting him). That in no way accepts the premise that you intentionally lynched a player who you thought was town.

"Nope, don't see that in the above quote. In answer to the new question: I don't think you're town, and I'm not going to do analysis based on a premise I don't agree with. If you do flip town then I'll reassess, but there's no guarantee that it would effect my reads of other players."
You are correct that in post 503 you finally gave a straight answer to Exe (flat out refusal), however, this was only after I called you on your BS evasions. That doesn't erase the previous evasions, nor is it relevant to my posts or points.

The whole "you aren't providing quotes because you can't" argument is childish and petty, especially in response to me telling you I'll provide the quotes on your request.

I'm sticking with my Shanba vote for now. It sounds like people are still thinking about things. If everyone decides they're too scared of his false claim to risk lynching him, then I'll support Eldarad next (though Shanba really should go first since having his buddies save him is a pretty strong indicator that his actual power-up(s) are probably painful for town).

VPB and Fishy are still reading prob-town. JD's claim re: VPB adds more support to VPB town. Fishy and Ray are both prob-town based on their assumptions about VT role (though to be fair, I think Fishy is astute enough to understand and bluff even if he were scum).

Kast · Post Post #626 (isolation #56) » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:44 pm

@JD-

Spoiler: #600

@Fishy-
-Scum wouldn't know the town distribution, but they do know the publicly posted "Townie Role PM". They also would presumably make the same assumption that it seems townies with explicit PR PMs made.
-From your posts, it doesn't seem like Eldarad (or anyone) is significantly "more likely scum" than Shanba. All else being equal, it would presumably be preferential to lynch scum who was saved rather than random scum (scum who was saved is presumably equal to or greater than random scum)

@Erg0-

Spoiler: I think we're getting sidetracked here.

If you want to argue pointless technicalities, then no, his "question" to you was "how is there no point?".

Getting back to more relevant discussion, a read of his actual post shows two possible requests:
-Share and justify your thoughts on the entire playerbase in the event that Exe is town.

(From context, this is what he actually meant)

-Justify your reasons for thinking that Exe (a townie) is scum.

(This is what Flameaxe initially thought the questions meant)

It does not at all mean:
-Justify why you tried to lynch a player who you knew (or suspected) was a townie.

(This is what YOU pretended he was asking and objected to. This is the misrepresentation that I objected to)

If you want to claim that Exe was actually asking the second potential reading, then your answers don't address that. However, from context he clearly meant the former. He clarified it as the former (just as he did when Flameaxe misunderstood him). It's also clear from context, given that he asked Flameaxe and Rayfrost the exact same question immediately before AND his question to you was an obvious response in the same line of questioning. He clearly thought your unaddressed statement, "No point in me commenting on the setup/PM stuff right now, let's see what tomorrow brings." was a response to his immediately preceding questions of what people thought of the game setup and his request that those thoughts be given now instead of waiting until tomorrow.

I believe your note that 490 was not really addressed to Exe, but the fact you felt a need to make that distinction implicitly admits that you realize Exe potentially read it as a response to him. From context, he clearly did read it as a response to him and as continuation of his questioning of Flameaxe and Rayfrost.

-It's annoying when people try arguing technicalities while themselves being extremely imprecise. Hypocrites!

The short of it is that you objected to me not providing quotes despite me promising to provide the quotes if you requested them. Claiming that the lack of quotes in any way undermines my position, instead of simply requesting the quotes, IS an attempt to use invalid tactics to dismiss my argument. It is petty crap-logic.

@JD-

Spoiler: 611

JD wrote:I would be suspicious if he'd said he'd upgraded overnight.

This does not jive with you voting him when he said he had not upgraded.

Given that your claimed bodyguard ability would not reduce the number of deaths in a night, you must have considered that there was an active protection role last night.

@Eldarad-

is one of the reasons I was inclined to believe Shanba's claim
over Exe's

If something isn't a factor in your decision, then don't say it is. Saying it is a factor (which you did here) then later complaining when people hold you to it is senseless. If it simply made you believe Shanba's claim, then the bold is unnecessary.

@JD/Shanba-
I thought I wasn't suspecting anyone for almost the entirety of D1? What happened to that claim?

@Flameaxe-
What happened to your reason for not trusting Shanba?

@Rayfrost-
What would Eldarad-scum have to gain from ending the game a few hours before deadline?

If Shanba is town and Eldarad is scum, then Eldarad would know that Shanba is telling the truth about being a future doc. What would he gain from lynching a claimed VT rather than a claimed potential doc?

If Shanba is town and Eldarad is scum, then what does he gain by contradicting his previous "town" read in order to lynch a disliked VT rather than staying on a non-candidate and letting town push through a mislynch?

Kast · Post Post #637 (isolation #57) » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:57 pm

@JD-
A blocking role would essentially know who one scum member is.

You have crap arguments, you are inconsistent, and your just keep making up stuff instead of reading. Not surprising at all that you want to stop playing and just spam the thread.

@Looking at publicly voiced suspicions (a couple changes based on preview edit)-
-a2rudeboy
Scum: ?
Neutral: ?
Town: ?

Post something.

@Mod- Prod on a2rudeboy please.

If you can't play, consider replacing out.

-Debonair Danny DiPietro
Scum:

Shanba

, Rayfrost
Neutral: ?
Town: ?
To be clear, are you against any lynch other than Shanba (or maybe Rayfrost)?

-eldarad
Scum: ?
Neutral: ?
Town: Shanba
Who do you suspect today? I suppose you haven't recanted your suspicion of me, but you also aren't voting, so no idea where you stand (aside from you really hate Exe).

-Erg0
Scum:

Fishy

, DDD, Eldarad
Neutral: Shanba (?), a2rudeboy, Rayfrost, VPB, Kast
Town: JDodge, Flameaxe
You previously expressed suspicion of Shanba, and even after his claim on D1 you were willing to lynch him if Exe wagon had no support. Has any of his posts since then (or lack of posts...) changed your impression of his play? What changed that makes his claim less lynchable for you than yesterday?

I don't think I've seen you comment on the Shanba votes and reactionary counterwagon. Please do so (or point out where I'm missing that).
You expressed some disapproval of Eldarad, but didn't quite call him scummy. Is he one of your suspects?

-Fishythefish
Scum:

Eldarad

, Shanba, Erg0, a2rudeboy
Neutral: JD, Rayfrost, Flameaxe
Town: DDD, Kast, VPB
He's been pretty open and clear.

-Flameaxe
Scum: Eldarad (?), a2rudeboy (?), DDD (?)
Neutral: ?
Town: Kast, Shanba, JD
To be clear, you thought Shanba was town as of end of D1 and N1. After he claimed no upgrade you doubted him. After JD claimed bodyguard & bulletproof (with flavor hints of becoming doc), you believe Shanba again.

How does a player semi-counter-claiming Shanba make his claim more plausible?

-JDodge
Scum:

Kast

, DDD, Fishy, VPB (?)
Neutral: ?
Town: Shanba
Do you have any thoughts on anything in this game other than "JD is awesome", "Shanba is bored=>Shanba is town", or "Everyone who voted Shanba is scum"?

-Kast
Scum:

Shanba

, Eldarad
Neutral: a2rudeboy, Flameaxe, Erg0, DDD
Town: Fishy, Ray, JD, VPB

-RayFrost
Scum:

Eldarad

, a2rudeboy
Neutral: Shanba, DDD
Town: ?
You've mostly excused yourself from sharing thoughts on others. Since you're being active, being open about your top suspects, and (prolly most importantly) since I think mod's "changing his answer to a public question" practically clears you, it's fine that you aren't being open about non-top suspects yet.

How much stronger is your preference for Eldarad over Shanba?

What changed your position from "Shanba #2" to Shanba-only-over-nolynch?
Has Shanba's play gotten at all better?
Has his claim become more plausible?

-Shanba
Scum:

Kast

, Rayfrost
Neutral: JD, DDD
Town: ?
Other than claiming "Kast isn't posting", "Kast is posting too much", "Kast isn't suspecting anyone", "Kast is tunneling on Shanba and everyone who disagrees with him", what are you doing in this game (lol forgot you prolly were trying to kill a townie last night right?)?

-VP Baltar
Scum:

Shanba

, Eldarad, Rayfrost, Erg0, a2rudeboy
Neutral: Flameaxe
Town: JD, DDD, Kast, Fishy
He's been pretty open and clear.

It looks like Shanba's lurking strategy has been successful in dropping him from Erg0 and Rayfrost's suspicion lists. It also looks like people are making the fallacious leap that evidence that does not prove Shanba is scum is reason to think Shanba is less likely to be scum.

It looks like there is roughly equal support though overall more preference for a Shanba lynch (3 with him as #1, 1 with him roughly equal to Eldarad, and 2 with him #2) over an Eldarad lynch (2 with him as #1, 1 with him roughly equal to Shanba, and 3 with him #2).

However, given that is how things are, it looks like there is support for an Eldarad lynch (6 players with Eldarad as #1 or #2 and one with him as #3) and insufficient support for a Shanba lynch (4 players with Shanba as #1 or #2). If anyone is going to change their position re: Shanba, please post something to that effect. For Erg0 and Rayfrost, please explain why you dropped Shanba.

a2rudeboy, Flameaxe, and Eldarad aren't doing anything.
JD is hiding behind his "I <3 Shanba" sign.
Shanba obviously isn't paying attention to this game.

Kast · Post Post #670 (isolation #58) » Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:27 pm

That looks like a lynch.

Unofficial Vote Count:

Shanba (6):
Kast, VP Baltar, Debonair Danny DiPietro, Jdodge, RayFrost, Fishythefish
Eldarad (1): Flameaxe
Kast (1): Shanba
Fishythefish (1): Erg0

Not Voting (2): a2rudeboy, Eldarad
11 alive, 6 will lynch.

@Shanba-
Any final thoughts or anything to share?

@JD-
Not sure why you seem concerned about scum NKing you; if you are town they obviously know you are town and thus bulletproof. While a vig would not know for certain whether you are really bulletproof or not, it would seem like a waste to count against your claim and seems unlikely that you'd be picked given much better targets (Eldarad and a2rudeboy cover both ends of the scummy/useless spectrum regardless of what criteria potential vigs apply).

Kast · Post Post #773 (isolation #59) » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:52 am

Good game, thanks for running it mod!

@Town-
Very nice playing and especially discussing with Fishy and VPB. It's good to play with people who will consider new evidence and posts and update their thoughts based on those.

Erg0, it really felt like your game was impaired from disliking Exe's play-style/posting-style. It might help to try separating that out a bit better from suspicions.

DDD, nice job and good instincts.

Ray, thanks for replacing in, catching up, and being active in the game. It felt like you were a little too doubtful of your reads and easily swayed by others; in this game that worked out since scum were mostly inactive.

JD, good job MVP for scum team

. You're welcome to never play with me again. We won, despite your best efforts, and you'll probably have better luck if you drop your ego a few notches and actually take pointers from how the "newer" players find scum. Hint- it involves actually reading the game. Hint2- it also involves basing conclusions off the evidence instead of tunneling on your preconceptions and ignoring everything in the actual game.

Exe, good playing with you again. Sorry about the lynch, but it's an unfortunate fact that the general site meta allows for and encourages policy lynching to remove players who have abrasive playstyles. It's hard, but try to not let players like Flameaxe rile you up. It shouldn't be grounds for a lynch, but it happens.

@Exe lynch-
It did serve nicely to get scum to out themselves pretty readily, and the townie death upgrading VPB turned out to be a boon.

@Scum-
Nice try, and missing the deadline for N1 kill was a major setback for your team (though if VPB had been the kill, then JD's bodyguard reveal might have the same result). Low activity levels from all three (but a2rudeboy and Eldarad in particular) hurt a lot.

Eldarad, parking your vote on me D1 would have probably been a safer move if Shanba + admirers didn't follow you. Your activity level also hurt your team; you had some solid posts earlier in D1, but it all just disappeared after that.

a2rudeboy, not sure why or how you thought I was a likely or viable mislynch candidate in the scum-QT. Was that just because I was pushing your buddies hard so you wanted to get rid of me (or just disliked the long posts)?

Shanba, solid scum posting in your QT, but your day game didn't match up. Joining Eldarad's throwaway vote/wagon just reduced scum influence on the entire day's outcome as well as made Eldarad's throwaway vote less effective at keeping him under the radar and harder to shift to another person if he needed to. Also, if you're going to push BS/idiotic cases, aim for an inactive; it works a lot better.

Kast · Post Post #777 (isolation #60) » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:01 pm

@Shanba-
Yes, it actually was.

@JD-
You were wrong about almost everything (especially your suspicions) almost all game. Note the players who actually used evidence actually figured out who the scum were from that, instead of doing what you did and deciding on everyone on D1 then never changing your mind despite being wrong. FYI, just because you dislike and insult how the rest of town played, does not mean the town actually played badly.

As for your list:
1. Exe was town; you were wrong.
2. You were right to protect VPB. Good job. I don't recall being opposed to protecting VPB, but since you weren't reading my posts, I guess it's not surprising that you didn't know that.
3. You were wrong about Shanba on D1 and D2. Even up to his lynch you maintained that he was a townie. Your claim that this is something you were "right" about is your ego crying out.
4. You weren't pushing Eldarad as scum. Your explicitly claimed suspects for the majority of the game were Kast, Fishy, and DDD (everyone who went after Shanba).
5. VPB was a PR, this is double counting point 2. Nobody doubted this.
6. Flameaxe claimed PR on D1 and everyone believed him.
7. You were right about the VT PM because you had private information that told you as much. Nobody disagreed with you on that once you claimed. You refused to read or consider what VPB or I posted about Shanba's VT claim which was a lie and differed from the VT PM.

Kast · Post Post #779 (isolation #61) » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:19 pm

@JD-
Your entire (game relevant) contributions to this game can be summed up as:
1. Protect Shanba because he is bored of the mafia.
2. Policy lynch Exe because Exe got mad that Flameaxe called him stupid.
3. Bodyguard VPB.
4. Try to get the people pushing Shanba to be lynched instead.
4.1. If that fails, delay the Shanba lynch as much as possible.
5. Despite best efforts, town kills all scum. CLAIM CREDIT FOR TOWN WIN!!!

The DDD, Fishy, Kast, VPB "bloc" already realized Shanba/Eldarad as scum from D1. For that matter, Exe realized Shanba-scum too and likely would have gone along with Fishy and me pushing Eldarad. The end of D1 posting left a2rudeboy, Erg0, and Rayfrost as the possible final scum members with plenty of mislynches to kill all three (and clearly Ray was fine with lynching either of Shanba/Eldarad). You were the biggest obstacle to a clean town victory.

You did good in protecting VPB. Congratz.