Mini 536: Heroes Smalltown. Game Over!

[mathcam]

Yeah, looks like TSQ will take Micah, shaft.ed gets Nathan.

I'll take Ted Sprague if ZONEACE doesn't, otherwise Ando.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'd be grateful if as many folk as possible target me tonight .

At any point during the game - day or night - you may go nuclear, target a player and kill them in the blast.

Mwah ha ha ha.

Cam

[mathcam]

You just had to go mess up the whole system, didn't you?

Cam

[mathcam]

Seol, now that we're done drafting, do you think could include role info in the first post? It'd be nice to have constant reminders of which player goes with which role (not the full explanation, just the job name, like Influencer, Networker, etc.)

Cam

[mathcam]

Until I see something particularly scummy, it seems sensible to figure out which of the roles are significantly more harmful if they are in the hands of scum than they are beneficial if they're in the hands of pro-town players. I haven't given a

lot

of thought to which roles fit into this category, but I think the one that stands out the most to me is the Subliminal Influencer -- while it's conceivable he could determine a scum player by switching the kill to someone else, it's somewhat unlikely and not a 100% guarantee. On the other hand, there's potential to cause massive confusion among pro-town roles by screwing with investigation-type results.

Consequently, I think for a first vote, I'll

Vote: Oman.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think I agree that the Haitian is more damaging to the town, and I agree with your parsing of the rules, but I need to think about it some more. More striking to me is:

I haven't given a lot of thought to which roles fit into this category, but...

vote: Cam for poor logic

I proposed a strategy for deciding who to vote for, and gave a little thought as to who that might be, with the intent of stimulating discussion and certainly without any claims that I had make an optimal proposal. Saying that it's voteworthily poor logic to have chosen incorrectly seems particularly opportunistic.

Vote: shaft.ed

.

And an

FOS: JDodge

not for anything he did, but for the above discussion of his role.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, I can't tell -- are you serious?

Cam

[mathcam]

So I take it by this that your first post was serious. Could you help me out by explaining to me what part of that plan you find objectionable?

Cam

[mathcam]

I would say it's a strategy that's superior to random voting, so yes, I think it should be taken seriously. You still haven't told me what you find objectionable about the strategy in the first place.

Cam

[mathcam]

Who said anything about lynching? I was talking about voting.

And I certainly never claimed that scumminess was irrelevant -- in fact, I'm

currently

voting for someone based on scumminess and not because of their role.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, one more thing: The

first line

of the post in which I suggested this plan begins with (emphasis added)

Until I see something particularly scummy

, it seems sensible to figure out which of the roles are significantly more harmful if they are in the hands of scum than they are beneficial if they're in the hands of pro-town players.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, good. Your original FOS confused me, but since I was already confused by ckd, I better take care of one confusion at a time. Out of curiosity, what was the original FOS for?

Cam

[mathcam]

That's the second time shaft.ed's jumped on a chance to attack someone that could have been easily prevented with a closer reading. To this credit, he's since backed down from one of them, but given how carefully he's been paying attention to the rules, I can't help but feel that it's scummy that he hasn't been paying similar attention to player's posts.

Cam

[mathcam]

While I'm not in 100% agreement with this plan (the same role may be particularly useful to scum, but also to town; should be working from a weighted net perspective of "cool scum" minus "cool town"?)

I may be misreading this sentence, but if the parenthetical remark is a suggestion to improve the plan, then I should point out that this was already part of the original plan:

Until I see something particularly scummy, it seems sensible to figure out which of the roles

are significantly more harmful if they are in the hands of scum than they are beneficial if they're in the hands of pro-town players

.

This was admittedly a little awkward. In a language I find easier to say this in: Let X measure the benefit to the town of a given role if it is in town hands, and let Y measure the benefit to the town of that role if it is in scum hands (so X is positive and Y is negative for any role). My strategy was to find the role with the lowest values of X-Y. I was certainly not trying to suggest that we simply find the most powerful role -- as you suggest, lynching that person could be doing as much harm as good.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oman: I think the most important thing is that you don't use your power indiscriminately -- if you feel at some point during the game that you can set up a beautiful trap to catch someone in a lie, then go for it, but take into account the consequences and potential confusion if you're wrong. I'm not sure there's any more guidance anyone can offer.

As for Adele, I think shaft.ed's "depository" point of view is the right one. We should equip her with abilities that are the opposite of the ones I was proposing to go after, ones which would be pretty useless to scum and at least somewhat helpful to the town. On the other hand, there's no sense in loading her up so much that she becomes an immediate target for killing. Actually, I guess there's no way for scum to know which powers she has unless she reveals it, so maybe this isn't as much of a concern.

I think I'm convinced on shaft.ed for now, so

unvote: shaft.ed.

I think I like a

Vote: JDodge

instead -- this is based on a combination of the mild scumminess of JDodge so far and the fact that his role is scum-oriented (which I will use to mean is better for scum than for town as previously described).

Cam

[mathcam]

Given the preponderance of investigative roles, one strategy we might employ would be to attempt to catch one or more of them in a trap by having them all reveal their investigation results each night in a given order. If we have cops A, B, C, then on day 2, we could make cop A reveal first, then cop B, then cop C. On day 3, we permute the order so that B reveals first, then C, then A, etc.

In this way we might make it hard for a scum cop to do anything but report accurately, or get caught in a lie. I haven't completely thought this through, but it seems to me that the two most obvious reasons for a cop not revealing his/her investigations are that:

1) It reveals who the cop is.
2) It reveals an essentially-guaranteed innocent, making that person an obvious scum target.

The first of these is not a concern here, since the cops are public knowledge (assuming we have Adele reveals when she gets this power), and the second argument is significantly diluted because of the significant possibility that reported information is inaccurate (role-switching, scum cops, etc.) and the large number of people that could be reported in this way.

It seems that such a strategy might, in addition to making life difficult for scum cops, have the added benefit of turning part of the scum-hunting process into a logic puzzle which the town could solve, much like in Dethy-type games.

Cam

[mathcam]

Also, mathcam's post doesn't seem relevant to me, as its a hypothetical that isn't well...relevant.

I don't understand why you think it's a hypothetical -- I'm proposing we think about implementing this strategy.

They're also not fun.

Well, that's because the game is almost

only

about that aspect -- to me, this would be just a significant source of additional information.

Cam

[mathcam]

Doesn't sound too bad. A little too choreographed though IMO.

I agree. While nothing jumps out about the plan as being particularly dangerous, the more choreographed the plan is, the easier it is for the mafia to know how to circumvent it -- especially since this plan takes at least a couple of game days before we see any results out of it.

I think the game will pick-up once we've had a night's worth of abilities under our belts. It's hard for some people to get motivated just about the nuances of various strategies, as opposed to scum-hunting.

I think I'm leaving my vote on JDodge, with no new reasons than I had before (except possibly for increased lurking).

Cam

[mathcam]

Most effective lurker prod ever.

Cam

[mathcam]

Gorgon, I hear you on ckd, My only reservation is Adele's post:

karma's young enough I could half-believe it was a genuine error.

Reading through his posts again, I get a pretty genuine feel from his "headache" post. This certainly doesn't mean he can't be scum, but I'd believe a newbie defense (which he's sort of proffered in that post).

Oman: That's silly. Do you routinely believe anyone who claims to have an investigation result? I try to take

any

revealed information with a grain of salt. On top of that, any one of our investigative roles may have been handed to scum before the first post of the game -- our caution with respect to accepting investigation results better have already been in place.

Cam

[mathcam]

Can the rest of the town please comment on whats going on between zoneace and myself right now.

Well, if you really want it. Your claims of joking notwithstanding, I think it's clear you picked a fight with ZONEACE. I think you chose your words carefully enough so that you would come off as the reasonable one, which you do, but I think it's fairly disingenuous of you to pretend that you didn't have this in mind all along, or that you didn't bring any out-of-game feelings in to the game.

As to ZONEACE, Shea's been asking reasonable questions, and your lack of willpower to not be drawn into a conflict has prevented you from answering them in a reasonable pro-town-seeming fashion. And now your shocked that everyone thinks your actions have been scummy! You've fallen right into Shea's trap, and you have only yourself to blame.

I'm not sure I find either of you/them particularly scummy right now.

Cam

[mathcam]

ZONEACE -- I know you're not out to make friends in the game, but your attitude is nonetheless quite senseless. What do you hope to gain by being horribly obnoxious? Especially when you're quite wrong -- Shaft.ed not only clearly saw your post, but has even responded to it specifically, and in fact made a reasonable counterpoint to it.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think you interpreted that post much more aggressively than I intended it -- "cold and calculating" is at least a step or two beyond what I intended. I just think you knew that if you poked ZONEACE a couple of times, even in jest, that he would probably blow up. If you hadn't figured that out in the multiple threads you've interacted with him in, then I think it's you that's meta'd incorrectly. I also think you're being overly modest about your linguistic competence. Finally, I never said you couldn't find ZONEACE scummy, that you should give him a carte blanche, or even that he didn't currently deserve it.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess what I'm asking you is, to what extend am I supposed to ignore his scummy behavior just because I know that he's going to get angry for no reason?

None at all. In fact, you may even deserve credit for extracting some of it. My point was only that it seemed naive for you to claim "You know, just because I don't like you doesn't mean I am bringing that into the game." In fact, the next two quotes seem downright contradictory:

Well, the point wasn't that I didn't know he's react this way; I did.

My general strategy with players I don't like is not to antagonize them,

In any case, I'm not accusing you of anything except perhaps being unaware of how out-of-game feelings got sucked in to the game. There are probably more important issues to discuss at this point.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, now an actualy content post:

Hold on there, david, what exactly do you mean when you say you'd rather lose Gorgon than CKD based on their roles. That doesn't sound right. We should be lynching based on scumminess, not on usefulness of roles.

What do you mean "should be"? Our job is to make the best lynch possible, not follow some ideals of the proper way of conducting business. If it's a better play to lynch someone because of their role, then that's what we have to do. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular situation, but it's not something to be ruled out either.

On a separate note, I'm generally against lynching based on the number of time a vote has been switched. I don't find it particularly scummy -- first of all, it's high profile, and second of all, it reflects the townie's plight of not knowing who scum are (which contrasts to the scum position of knowing who non-scum are and just pretending not to know scum). Vote-switching is frequently just a sign of uncertainty, something which townies should have a lot of.

Cam

[mathcam]

Interesting analysis of no lynch so far -- I see merit in both cases being made. I guess I'd argue that not lynching today doesn't mean we're going to be basing our decisions solely on night choices. It means that we're waiting until tomorrow to more intelligently make our choices of who to bandwagon and how to read in to other people's decisions regarding those bandwagons,

I think my top three choices right now are Oman, JDodge, and No Lynch, not necessarily in that order.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mathcam, want to explain why those two players are up there for you?

Meh, not really, insofar as I don't have much insight to hand out. I don't have particularly pro-town vibes for them, whereas I do for some other people. Notably, Oman's "we'll TRUST her" post seems like fake overconcern for the town, and -- hm, I don't know why I had JDodge there, except that I previously said I found him mildly scummy. In any case, completely independently, they are also the two roles ranked most anti-town by shaft.ed's post 271.

Cam

[mathcam]

That's some pretty mild antagonizing he was dishing out there, TSQ. You obviously have some bad blood between you two, but I thought the in-game obnoxiousness levels have thus far been relatively low on both sides. Replace yourself if you think it's absolutely necessary, but I think it might be worth just growing some slightly thicker skin.

Therefore, lynching him today will force him to either a)waste his power or b) make a very uninformed decision. Thus I will remove Mathcam from my "lynchable" list leaving my options of Oman, JDodge, TSQ, Zindaras and maybe No Lynch open for the day.

Uninformed? Whenever I want, I can destroy the player who has heaped the fewest number of praises upon me. Sounds pretty informed to me.

Cam

[mathcam]

Heh. Okay, fair enough -- I misunderstood. I thought you were complaining about ZONEACE's last post. In our defense, you did ask us specifically what we thought about the interaction. I personally was just going to ignore it up until that point. In any case, I'm ready to stop talking about it, and for that matter, much has been happening in this game that hasn't revolved around you and ZONEACE.

Of recent interest is your vote on shaft.ed, and Gorgon's subsequent asking of why, which I'd like to echo.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm buying what shaft.ed is selling, at least for now.

Unvote: JDodge, Vote: Oman.

Cam

[mathcam]

For example, if you were to put up some compelling reasons to no longer vote for you, I would probably no longer vote for you.

Cam

[mathcam]

As did we all -- an interesting aspect of the set-up indeed, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Cam

[mathcam]

Adele, I disagree too strongly with the LAL meta. If someone is caught in a lie, I will evaluate it on a case by case basis.

I too am quite anti-LAL, at least as a general policy. On the other hand, I don't think I have a philosophical objection with us as a collective agreeing not to pull the kind of antics Adele describes. Back on the first hand, I'm not yet convinced this is our best strategy -- admittedly this will cut down on confusion, on which the mafia thrive, but it also eliminates a lot of interesting pro-town tactics which can catch scum. I can certainly understand a preference for not being confused, but I think I'd need a little more than that to propose a ban. Adele, do you have a more specific argument?

Cam

[mathcam]

If I think somehting is scummy it will get my vote...I dont care about who has what role.

Then I would like to gently encourage you to think more about your best strategy in this game. If there were a role

"You are pro-town. If you are alive at the end of day 1, then the town loses."

certainly you would agree to lynch that person day 1, no? It's not an injustice to this player, as the town is simply following their best strategy, and if you went off voting for someone else because they appeared scummier, you'd be shooting yourself in your foot. This particular example is an obvious exaggeration to make a point, but certainly you must agree that some of the roles in this game are more inherently detrimental to the town than others. All that's being proposed (by me, and others) is the fairly reasonable suggestion that you don't completely ignore the role of the role (heh) in determining the merits of who to lynch -- exactly what you're insisting that you're doing in your above quote.

Cam

[mathcam]

For what it's worth, I myself can easily commit to not lying, since I don't have anything to lie about. I plan to just not disclose when I phase out, so no lies are necessary. I'm sure you will agree that this is the best way for me to use my power (Just want to be sure everyone agrees with this).

I agree that this is the best use of your power. I too have little to gain by lying about whether I did or did not just explode.

Cam

[mathcam]

Pssht! I only claimed I wouldn't lie about whether or not I had already exploded. But fair point about me lying about other things.

Cam

[mathcam]

Man, what a headache.

JDodge: That's really all you wanted to discuss after about a week of not posting any content?

TSQ: By your logic, does JDodge's post 411 make him scum? Seems to fit the same mold. I find it hard to believe that you think there's no way that ZONEACE's posts come from petulance instead of scumminess.

Adele: Sorry to disappoint, but I fully agree with Shea on this one. I've already conceded that if you can argue that there's something about this game in particular that makes LAL particularly necessary, then I'd be willing to sign up. If it's just the standard meta-argument against lying, then I'd rather leave it up to the individuals how to play their role, and leave it to us to decide whether to punish them afterwards.

Cam

[mathcam]

As to LAL, the situation in mind was lying about whether or not someone was blocked or re-directed with the intent of catching mafia in a trap. I have to admit that I don't have a concrete scenario that I can think of where this would be advantageous, but I'm not sure I'd want to be posting it even if I did. And if there

is

no such scenario that would benefit the town, do we really have to worry about enforcing a ban against it?

Not to sound too belligerent, but just because TSQ (or anyone) requests something, especially something as laborious as a full run-down of players, doesn't mean we have to comply. In fact, I think you could find almost all the information you're looking for if you went through my posts -- I posted my top three choices for lynch, and have mentioned at least a couple of people I don't find scummy. It's early enough in the game that I don't have particularly strong feelings in either direction on some players -- is it really important that I list these out?.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay,

maybe

"demand" was a little strong, but your original request wasn't what I was referring to:

I asked everyone in the town a question, please go about answering it.

To me, this seems to imply that it's gone beyond a simple suggestion and that you

expect

every player to provide a response.

Cam

[mathcam]

TSQ: Funny that you should find it scummy when I strengthen "strongly suggest" to "demand", but it's okay for you to strengthen

Not to sound too belligerent, but just because TSQ (or anyone) requests something, especially something as laborious as a full run-down of players, doesn't mean we have to comply. In fact, I think you could find almost all the information you're looking for if you went through my posts -- I posted my top three choices for lynch, and have mentioned at least a couple of people I don't find scummy. It's early enough in the game that I don't have particularly strong feelings in either direction on some players -- is it really important that I list these out?.

to "refusal to do it." I basically think it's unreasonable to expect someone to have a read on every single player in the game so far -- for example, I don't have a significant feeling one way or another on Adele. Those who I

do

think I have a read on one way or another, I post about, so it's already in the thread. Asking for more than this is just asking me to invent opinions I don't actually have -- an obviously sub-optimal situation. If you ask me, my post was much more decidedly anti-unnecessary-work than it was decidedly anti-town.

As to your post: I'm surprised you're not more interested in lynching Oman, but I think you articulated the arguments against JDodge quite well -- enough that I'm strongly considering switching my vote. I also think his falling into "DWA" was much more telling than ZONEACE's. I know this will frustrate you, and I apologize, but I just can't take your argument against ZONEACE too seriously -- you're obviously entitled to your opinion on his scumminess, but it's clear to me that you're not completely objective on this front.

I think I'll leave my vote on Oman, though -- maybe I'm just stuck in a groove, but almost every single post of Oman's sets off my scum-ometer. This last one seems like just the sort of opportunistic jumping-on that TSQ accuses JDodge of. His vote against ZONEACE is similar. In fact, if we could, I'd probably lynch both JDodge and Oman today.

Cam

[mathcam]

maybe I'm just stuck in a groove, but almost every single post of Oman's sets off my scum-ometer

I blame confirmation bias.

Well, yeah -- that's what I meant by "stuck in a groove." But it's also possible you're scum.

You'll notice even I didn't do that.

True enough. Fair point.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree with pretty much everything ckd said.

Cam

[mathcam]

To clarify, I realized that my "everything ckd said" was a bit of an exaggeration -- it was referring only to the paragraph, and not the "gut" response that the scum players were sitting back and not participating.

Adele: As to ZA, it was just an expression of agreement, and not an attempt at an argument. For the record, here's my stance and reasoning -- I don't think ZA is particularly pro-town, but I find it hard to believe that anything genuinely scummy can be extracted from his interaction with TSQ. I think the two of them could have rolled a dice and been arguing about whose number was scummier and gotten the same sort of results. ZA's interactions with non-TSQ have been significantly more obnoxious than they have been scummy. It's not clear to me that his bandwagon isn't based on eliminating obnoxiousness more than it is on eliminating scum.

Cam

[mathcam]

shaft.ed: I'm not convinced ZA's pushing no-lynch is particularly anti-town (It's typically hard to argue that no lynch is definitively, IMHO), but I definitely don't think it's scummy. The risks of proposing no-lynch are well-known, and a scum ZA (even a town ZA) would be foolish to propose if if he didn't genuinely believe it. I also think that no lynch has some merits in this case -- not enough for me to put it over lynching JDodge or ZONEACE, but enough that I don't find suggesting it inherently scummy.

Cam

[mathcam]

I remember one game with ZONEACE in which I was sure he was innocent, because he was so vehemently angry at the town for thinking he was scum, and I think he even ended up self-voting at one point. At the time, I didn't think he was capable of such a play as scum, so I was pretty shocked when he was revealed as mafia. I don't know if this has much relevance, but I'll see if I can hunt down the game and reread it.

Cam

[mathcam]

Fonz --

a) I had the same confusion about that post of ckd. What I decided he meant was only the latter half of the quote, essentially "I'm not going to not vote for someone scummy just because they have a pro-town role." That made a little sense in the context of that page, where someone was arguing that we shouldn't lynch a super pro-town role at all. He didn't mean "I don't care who has what role," despite the fact that, well, he said exactly that. I say this not to defend ckd, but hopefully to avoid repeating the same discussion.

b) It's going to be confusing to me that you're in the only two games I'm playing. Bah. But welcome to the game.

You too, Cicero -- nice to meet you.

Unfortunately, I'm out of town until Wednesday. Sorry about that.

Still like lynching Oman.

Cam

[mathcam]

I too was having a hard time connecting to the site in the last couple of days, but it seems to be fine now.

The only thing I've seen in the last couple of pages that's slightly altered my opinion on Oman is that I thought he was completely making up his "plan," but now it seems that he at least believed that he had a good one. Perhaps this is evidence of genuinely pro-town behavior, but it's not clear that we wouldn't have made this attempt as scum, either. I also don't really have a better lynch for today, and so vote stays

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, more to catch up on than I expected. I'll get up to speed by the end of day.

And I'll leave you in suspense as to whether or not I used my ability and am now dead.

Cam

[mathcam]

Lynching Gorgon has got to be the right play for the day. Unless I'm thinking about this wrong, there's a 50/50 chance that Gorgon's the SK, at least assuming that Sylar attempted to make a kill last night. 50/50 odds on killing the SK on day 2 are phenomenal, and while this goes down a bit if you take into account the chance that Sylar didn't kill, it's still seems to me to be a dominating strategy.

I'm not saying we have to rush through discussion, but I'll need a pretty convincing argument to vote otherwise.

In other news:

I came in today too late to make this argument in time, but it's not clear to me that Adele should reveal what powers she has. If she's town and doesn't get any, than all the better for us when the mafia, fearing she has super powers, goes and kills her instead of one of our power roles. If she's town and gets powers, why not leave it to the mafia's imagination which ones, at least until she can reveal them simultaneously with some incriminating information? If she's scum, the only way she can hide having a role is by killing the person who gave it to her before they reveal this fact in discussion -- exerting control over her nightkills like this would certainly be some kind of advantage for us. Plus, at any point, the person who gave her the role could at any point "Tell us what you did with the role I gave you for the past n nights", in which case if she didn't use them to the town's best interests, she'd have a lot to answer for.

ckd: Why would you target Gorgon if you didn't even know whether or not it would work?

FOS: cks

for that -- makes it look like he might have been more occupied with making other night choices.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh right. Never mind.

[mathcam]

In other news:

I came in today too late to make this argument in time, but it's not clear to me that Adele should reveal what powers she has. If she's town and doesn't get any, than all the better for us when the mafia, fearing she has super powers, goes and kills her instead of one of our power roles. If she's town and gets powers, why not leave it to the mafia's imagination which ones, at least until she can reveal them simultaneously with some incriminating information?

Cam

Adele has already revealed that she knew herself to have been targetted by Yvonne. Therefore, she has claimed her power.

True...what's your point?

Cam

[mathcam]

How is it avoidable? If everyone reveals their nightchoices, then it can be easily figured out; either my information matches what they say or it doesn't - in which case I think I ought to say so.

Yeah, I misspoke slightly -- I meant that Adele's status should be kept hidden, not just that Adele should stay quiet. This would require compliance by more than just Adele herself.

Someone want to run by me why Gorgon is 50/50 the SK again? Or rather, for the first time because I don't think I've seen it done.

Sure. A rough argument is the following. Consider all possible pairs of the form (Player A, Player B) where Player A is Sylar and Player B is whoever Sylar tried to kill last night. As of last night, with no extra information, there were 11 possible choices (anyone but Oman) for Player A and for each choice, 10 different choices for Player B (assuming Sylar would not target himself). A total of 110 different possibilities.

Now, assuming that Sylar tried to kill last night, the fact that no one died means that Gorgon was either Player A or Player B. He is player A in exactly 10 of the 110 possibilities (e.g., (Gorgon, Adele), (Gorgon, cicero), ..., (Gorgon, The Fonz)) and is Player B also in exactly 10 of the 110 possibilities (same pairs, just flipped). Thus out of the 20 possible scenarios, he was scum in 10 of them. This makes for 50/50.

Obviously there are some erroneous assumptions in this model -- namely, there is a positive probability that Sylar would choose not to kill, and it is clearly not the case that Sylar would kill any non-Sylar person with equal probability. Also, presumably information from Day 1 would make some people more or less likely to be Sylar, which hasn't been incorporated into this model. Nonetheless, I think the answer so overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Gorgon is the most likely to be Sylar that I think that barring any outstanding evidence against someone else, Gorgon should be our lynch for today.

Cam

[mathcam]

If there were a Scummy for "Best Post About Mathcam," I would so nominate that post. That cracked me up.

Some responses:

1) I don't see your point as to the conversation I had with Adele. It sounded to me like she was suggesting an improvement to the plan I proposed, and I was just pointing out that her improvement was already (if poorly worded) part of my original proposal.

2) As to Oman -- I don't think it was as obvious are you're making it out to be. Oman took a somewhat belligerently anti-town stance on lying to the town, and I was trying to pull him back from it.

3) I think my difference in behavior (especially with regard to "boldness") between today and yesterday is pretty reasonable given that yesterday we had no information, and today we have much information.

Was anyone suggesting giving me a free pass in the game in the first place? If so, let me know who so I can play more games with them.

Cam

[mathcam]

Ditto. Except my vote's not on Gorgon.

Vote: Gorgon.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree there there's little merit to Yvonne's latest plan. What's the point? We're just going to end up lynching someone less likely to be scum than Gorgon is, so it's not like we're helping save innocent lives here.

I think DGB made that hidden insightful comment that Adele alluded to -- I think she makes a good case against Yvonne.

FOS: Yvonne.

Cam

[mathcam]

DGB: What do you think about the argument against Gorgon?

Cam

[mathcam]

That's how I see it as well.

DGB: That also answers

@Cam - why do you think Gorgon is more vote-worthy than Yvonne?

I think the case against Yvonne has some merit, but it's nowhere near a 1-in-2 shot.

Cam

[mathcam]

so I read that as a one-in-two chance, irrelevant of other factors, that Gorgon is the SK. Which is a pretty good D2 lynch.

Why aren't you voting? I would, if I were that convinced.

So you're saying that you're less convinced? If so, what part of the argument do you not agree with or understand? If not, why aren't you voting?

Cam

[mathcam]

In regards to Gorgon. He's certainly more mathematically likely to be the SK, but what about his role. I'd say Gorgon's power is clearly of most use to Sylar. So how do people think that effects the numbers?

I would guess that it's nearly impossible to quantify accurately, but certainly improves the merits of lynching him.

DGB: I understand what you're asking of Adele, and I'm applying the same logic to you. Either you're

not

convinced by the Gorgon argument, and I'd like to know why (more than just "underwhelmed"), or you

are

convinced by the Gorgon argument, and you're open to the same questions that you're asking Adele.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm not sure what else we have to say. I think there's a pretty good primary reason for lynching Gorgon, and there seem to be a couple of other additional reasons that other people are using. We can either end this day now by lynching Gorgon, come up with a better candidate (seems unlikely), or spend some time discussing what we're going to do tonight or in the future. As the risk of looking like I'm trying to speed through the day, I'd advocate the former of these options.

Aside from not getting around to it yet (or being Gorgon), anyone care to explain why they're not voting Gorgon?

Cam

[mathcam]

For the record, not all of us were on the Oman bandwagon for that reason. I genuinely found him scummy.

Cam

[mathcam]

It is true that Gorgon's ability is the one Sylar is the most likely to covet. However, targetting Gorgon was also the kill most likely to fail.

This is a good point, and furthers the case against Gorgon -- it's less likely that he was the one targeted, so increases the chance that he was the one targeting.

Cam

[mathcam]

I tend to agree that there is little harm in asking Gorgon to reveal whether or not he hid last night. On the other hand, perhaps what ckd is alluding to, it's possible that Sylar-Gorgon is giving up on the game, realizing that his lynch is an inevitability, and so waiting for answers from him might just be prolonging the day for no reason.

Cam