Mini 567 - iPick - Game Over: The Stunning Conclusion

[vollkan]

Assuming we are meant to post the public discussion in thread:

On a scale of 1-10, how bastardly do you want the game to be (10 = evil)?

6

On a scale of 1-10, how complex/unbalanced are you comfortable with roles being (10=lol)?

10

Rank these themes, in order from best to worst:
1) Historical Disfigurements
2) Authority Figures
3) Things that don’t make sense
4) Literary Characters
5) Existentialism
6) Pokemon, Digimon, & Harry Potter

-I will give thoughts for any of the other questions if ideas come to me.

[vollkan]

Pretty evil! I'd say at least an 8 or 9, though I wouldn't mind an 11. I mean, come on, if people are /inning for this to up their win/loss ratio then they're stupid.

You make an excellent point. 10 will be fun.

I

amend my public answers

to

On a scale of 1-10, how bastardly do you want the game to be (10 = evil)?

10

On a scale of 1-10, how complex/unbalanced are you comfortable with roles being (10=lol)?

10

Rank these themes, in order from best to worst:
1) Historical Disfigurements
2) Authority Figures
3) Things that don’t make sense
4) Literary Characters
5) Existentialism
6) Pokemon, Digimon, & Harry Potter

[vollkan]

No skulkers, I HATE skulkers.

What on earth is a skulker?

[vollkan]

The crappy role in where you die if anyone targets you with any night action, ever in the game.

Eww....It sounds like something from the "worst role ideas" thread.

[vollkan]

By the way: What

is

a 'historical disfigurement'? It sounds interesting, but I don't have a clue what it means.

[vollkan]

I can envisage a mason pair:

Hitler and Napoleon's missing testicles.

[vollkan]

I gotta say, I don't trust Adel's private question answers. She put a 1 for the alignment question but couldn't she very easily PM a real set of private answers, maybe putting 10 for that? Seems like an early attempt to gain the future town's trust. Same goes for her putting 9 for being comfortable ith a post restriction, couldn't that be a prospective mafia's excuse to lurk?

FOS

You're being conspiratorial already?

[vollkan]

But if Nabby is only scum during the day, he should be lynched during the day, and you at night.

But right now, the only course of action is to

Vote: Cicero

[vollkan]

Well, that settles it for me then:

Unvote

.

[vollkan]

Vote: Guardian

Reverse tags are fun!

[vollkan]

You only like it because you were surviving scum. I prefer the game where someone else false claimed a Mason pair with Albert and he went along with it even though both were vanilla.

Mini 436 was funny, too. If you aren't aware, on D1 ABR (doctor) claimed he was a psychopath variant that would kill the person who hammered him and let him kill a person of his choice. He was then killed N1 and the town lost its doc.

[vollkan]

Jackie Tyler

Complete and utter scum.

[vollkan]

Shouldn't it be 6 to lynch?

There are 11 alive...so it should be 6 to lynch.

I propose a massclaim at some point. We'll lynch whoever has the most normal role.

Actually, that could be a little dangerous. We don't know what Guardian is planning... >.<

I think that would be a good idea.

/third

[vollkan]

1) Both the flavor and powers of every role in the game are likely to be non-standard. It's not like this is a situation where we can pick out which Stargate franchise a role is from or whether or not a cop would be balanced in this setup. It would be incredibly easy for scum to fakeclaim with few or no repercussions.

True. The mass claim in Stargate caused many problems for the scum groups (until I made up a good fakeclaim). Here, however, the range of possible roles is huge and you're right that there probably won't be any clear-cut method of differentiation.

[vollkan]

I will vote: xtoxm and FoS: vollkan because

I believe

that it's scummier to agree with a not-necessarily well-thought-through plan than suggest it, because the one suggesting it might honestly think it is the best thing, while others can more easily see flaws with the plan.

You take recourse to a belief here, but I must question as to why.

If it is possible to honestly suggest something and possible to dishonestly offer support for something, why is it dishonest suggestion and honest support not equally valid. You seem to be resting on the premise than raising something at first instance is necessarily more likely to be honest, without providing any justification for that.

[vollkan]

How about this one - Honest suggestion, honest agreement. No, that's impossible. No, i'm being silly. It simply can't be.

NO! Hasd prefers dishonest support. Any scenario which has honest support is therefore invalid.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, what do you think, did xyzzy really want a massclaim?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

His exact words were:

I propose a massclaim at some point. We'll lynch whoever has the most normal role. Very Happy

Actually, that could be a little dangerous. We don't know what Guardian is planning... >.<

It's unclear

when

he wants the massclaim to occur. He does vacillate at the end, though, and I would not expect him to do so if he actually was demanding we all claim right away.

[vollkan]

VI is a term I coined a while back that stands for "Village Idiot", essentially, a player who completely fails to understand the game or the way it is played and should therefore be ignored (though rarely lynched). Its not a term I like to throw around. Aside from being a downright insult, it carries strong implications (for me at least) on whether or not they should be lynched. A VI is so unreadable that neither innocence or guilt can be proven or even dected, so it's usually best to leave them alone. Lynching them gets the town nothing as its very difficult to analyze relationships with a VI.

I read the exchange over Xtoxm being a VI. He clearly did not know what he was doing back there - Adel demonstrated that pretty conclusively. He is not "unlynchable", but I think it's clear that Xtoxm doesn't have the game knowledge of most of us. It's just something we need to keep in mind.

[vollkan]

I read the exchange over Xtoxm being a VI. He clearly did not know what he was doing back there - Adel demonstrated that pretty conclusively.

@Lawrencelot how does that give you scummy vibes?

Lawrencelot didn't say that I gave him scummy vibes.

I don't like to speak for Adel at length, but couldn't it be possible that it was the scumminess of xyzzy's opinion, not the fact that it was different from hers that caused her to vote?

It's scummy to her BECAUSE she disagrees with Xyzzy about what's in the town's best interest. It's likewise perfectly reasonable for me to find her scummy for disagreeing with me about what's in the town's best interest. If anything is unreasonable it would be the opinion and not the action, for either of us.

You're equating the Adel-ZZ thing with a theory disagreement. I won't judge Adel's motivations, but there is a difference between voting someone because they do something you consider to be scummy versus voting something that you consider to not be "in the town's best interests". The latter category is very broad and ranges from anti-town play (which can be votable) through to ordinary theory disputes.

[vollkan]

If we are lucky, scum may be forced to claim before this point, and we may catch them if say, they claim something totally random and we later see that there is some complex or fundamental similarity between roles. And there are levels of randomness:

This makes sense. If there is some undercurrent of similarity, a scum claiming randomly will get ensnared.

List 1 is clearly less random than List 2, although the actual difference is hard to articulate. Now, the more random list overlaps the less random list, but if a List 2 role shows up in list 1, it stands out to some degree. Additionally an outlier role may show up as town, but scum may use this claim to craft their own claim. Observe this series of claims chronologically:

Claim 1. Elephant
Claim 2. Sound
Claim 3. Poverty
Claim 4. Jet Fighter
Claim 5. news anchor
Claim 6. cheerleader
Claim 7. cardboard box

Claim 2 and 3 are somewhat unlike the others(being non-physical), but we may infer that claim 3 based their claim on Claim 2 to some extent. This, admittedly, doesn't prove much, but if Claim 3's player is already suspected, this adds to the case against that player. If Claim 3's player dies and comes up scum, this retroactively makes Claim 2 less scummy, because scum are simply more likely to try to imitate town than scum.

I had to read this several times before I understood what you are saying.

Broadly speaking, it sounds reasonable. I don't know whether I would be willing to place much weight on an apparent act of following as a scumtell. I mean, 2 and 3 do look like outliers, but if one is scum, it follows that one is genuine.

Absent wifom, however, I think it's a fair point that scum will most likely try to mimic town than scum.

[vollkan]

Para's reasons for a mass rolename claim are reasonable, but after reading what Cicero wrote and thinking about it, I don't think it is worth it.

Para's reasons for the claim were fairly optimistic (the idea of scum appearing to mimic). I think it's probably more likely that a mass rolename claim would not have such a potent effect.

For that reason, the potential for a serious information leak that Cicero raises needs to take priority.

I don't support it, and I'm not against it. I wouldn't mind mass rolename claiming, but only if everybody or a majority agrees to do it. Now I clearly know that you and NabNab are against it, and Rogueben wants to wait, we shouldn't nameclaim (yet).

What do you think of the potential risks vs potential benefits of the proposal?

[vollkan]

Para's reasons for the claim were fairly optimistic (the idea of scum appearing to mimic). I think it's probably more likely that a mass rolename claim would not have such a potent effect.

You say cicero convinced you, yet his arguments are just as pessimistic as mine are optimistic, if not moreso. I mean how likely is a role which can do something once they know your role name?(as cicero suggested)

Paranoia, mainly. I don't know whether a rolename claim would actually be good or bad - but I'd rather be conservative and not take the risk, especially in this game.

I'm trying to help town figure out the scum.

Explain how your hint accomplishes that.

[vollkan]

How is it a hint?

Because you are providing information about your rolename. Namely, that it is not Potter-related.

I was saying that it could be that Harry Potter or similar type roles are scum.

This doesn't make much sense. You are saying that your role is theme "X". Therefore, you think anything Harry Potter-related is potentially scummy. I don't see the logic. At most you can say "Anything not X" is potentially scummy, and even that could be stretching it.

[vollkan]

I'll answer this question if a majority of people wish me to do so.

[vollkan]

@Xtoxm:

Given your recent question, I'm somewhat curious: How would you propose that we go about rolename claiming, mass claiming, etc.? Essentially, what do you think is the best approach?

[vollkan]

Popcorn!

Is this a nonsense answer, or do you want a popcorn mass claim?

[vollkan]

Only supportive of a rolename claim in the forseeable future.

How odd....

you sir are not aware of the world you exist within. There easily could be a benefit for scum resulting from a massclaim, and are several reasons a scum player might suggest one.

Adel, why are you against massclaiming? Because you are scum and have nothing to claim?

vote Adel

And your second-to-last post:

I think Adel is a good lynch, guys.

So let me get this straight: Adel is scum for opposing a massclaim which you yourself do not want?

[vollkan]

BTW, I think Xtoxm is not so bright at this point, not sure yet if he is scummy or not.

I agree on this much. My latest question should provide a good look inside Xtoxm's head.

[vollkan]

vollkan[2] (shaft.ed)

shaft.ed is special

[vollkan]

It just occurred to me that I haven't cast a vote yet and, thus, don't know if I am also special.

vote: Shaft.ed

die scum die

[vollkan]

I am Napolean's Dynamite and i'm a Doctor.

Volkan, what is your question?

Congratulations....

*headdesk*

!

I asked you a question. You weren't in peril of lynching (L-1, or even L-2). So why the HELL would you claim!?

My question was simple:

You said you only wanted a mass rolename claim. Ergo, you did not want a massclaim proper. And yet, you were/are voting Adel for not wanting a mass claim - ie. doing precisely what you are doing. Is that not hypocrisy?

You guys are going to lynch. The only way to stop it is claiming. Lynch Adel.

Your "case" on Adel is a load of crap. I am not in the least persuaded to vote for her purely because of your claim.

Stop rolefishing. I'll answer that if over half the people in the game want me too.

*brain hemorrhage*

I know it's unusual but is it scummy? Is there any reason that once the cat is partially out of the bag, we have to let it roam around the living room? Seriously I'd like opinions on this before people start pressuring Xtoxm to fully claim without discussion first.

It's really a judgment for Xtoxm to make (as much as it pains me to say that). If there is anything extra, it might be something that ought not to be released.

[vollkan]

@Xtoxm:

My question was simple:

You said you only wanted a mass rolename claim. Ergo, you did not want a massclaim proper. And yet, you were/are voting Adel for not wanting a mass claim - ie. doing precisely what you are doing. Is that not hypocrisy?

Answer please.

[vollkan]

@Xtoxm:

My question was simple:

You said you only wanted a mass rolename claim. Ergo, you did not want a massclaim proper. And yet, you were/are voting Adel for not wanting a mass claim - ie. doing precisely what you are doing. Is that not hypocrisy?

Answer please.

I don't know. But I think it's likely Adel is scum.

So, basically, you think Adel is scum for holding the same attitude as yourself?

....no comment.

Current working hypothesis: Adel is scum who, unfortunately for her, was paired with Xtoxm. His constant "she's scum" with no backing is an incredibly bad attempt at distancing. Adel is being unusually quite towards Xtoxm hoping it will go away. Also tried to pin xyzzy as a possible scum partner for him here:

Also, Xtoxm, stop quadruple posting and start thinking about what you want to say before hitting submit.

I hope that nobody brings this up as an example of scum coaching jr. scum.

Thoughts?

Interesting ideas.

The fact that Xtoxm is being so insistent on Adel being scum (and declaring this), despite him having craplogic and not being able to justify himself makes it a plausible example of newb distancing. Then again, he may just be a newb that caught a stupid idea (Adel beings scum for doing what he himself did) and now, either out of stupidity or pride, won't back down.

As for the xyzzy thing, that's a good observation for us to keep in mind.

[vollkan]

Anyway, even if Adel's kill was fake, I'm pretty sure Xtoxm is town. If it was real, we'll find out soon. Not that it matters, but I think the latter is more likely. The next question is: should we lynch Adel if Xtoxm is town? I'm not sure, I was a bit suspicious of Adel earlier, but I can understand her reasons for killing Xtoxm as town, although I don't agree with it. I also want to know how she jumped from not doc to dayvig as nabnab puts it, cuz it seemed she was right. I will keep my eye on Adel though.

If Adel has faked it, and Xtoxm is town, I think I may have an idea as to her motivation.

If Adel actually killed Xtoxm, and Xtoxm is town, then we need to look at this really carefully. The role justification she gave ("my role pm seems to indicate that if someone uses their daykill before me then I lose my ability") is a little far-fetched, but I suppose anything is possible here.

[vollkan]

note that xtoxm hasn't made any last min case against any other player, which is totally common for day-killed town-aligned players.

Wait, day-vigged townies don't make a last min case? In the sense like, day-vigged scum does? I don't understand this, sorry.

I think you've got it the wrong way round. ie. Adel is saying that it's common for dead townies to make a last-minute case (apparently) and the fact Xtoxm didn't do so is a point against him.

[vollkan]

I find Xtoxm's post just to tell us he's not going to watch the game anymore very suspicious. It seems like just a planned lurking tactic.

I disagree here. He has declared an intention not to leave the game. Lurking usually involves some degree of posting (eg. "I'm here and finding it hard to keep up"). More likely, he will either play as normal, or not play at all. His actions here give him no justification for lurking, and if he attempts to get by without posting, he will be replaced.

I still don't understand what an OSV kill is.

O

ne

S

hot

V

ig

[vollkan]

I disagree here.

He has declared an intention not to leave the game.

Lurking usually involves some degree of posting (eg. "I'm here and finding it hard to keep up"). More likely, he will either play as normal, or not play at all. His actions here give him no justification for lurking, and if he attempts to get by without posting, he will be replaced.

Xtoxm is not lurking

nor did he ever declare the intention to lurk.

As far as he knew, he was dead. If anything, he quit.

First of all, I think it'd be ridiculous for someone to present any INTENTION to lurk.

Volkan, you say his actions give no justification for lurking. But he's not here! He's no posting! How is that any different than lurking? And yet you're not holding it against him. He'll probably show up again after a prod, but he still get's like 72hrs where he has an excuse to not post.

You aren't understanding me properly.

I was distinguishing Xtoxm (someone who, by all appearances, has left the game) from someone who posts sporadically and/or severely deficient in content (which is what I said "lurking" usually is).

I am not excusing his not posting, by any means. My point was that if he posts again even once, that then binds him to post with his previous frequency (since his inactivity has only been justified on the basis of him thinking he is dead).

[vollkan]

I don't think Xtoxm is stupid enough to assume he's dead before the mod posts, but smart enough to mention that he's no longer paying attention, just in case he should be.

This is a really weak crutch to rely upon.

You've seen Xtoxm's aggregated play here - you couldn't tenably argue that he is a fully competent player. He might be scum, sure, but so far all we have seen just looks like ordinary stupidity from someone who doesn't have a clue what they are doing.

Why do you ignore the possibility that his "I'm not going to read the thread anymore" was just him expressing frustration at what seems to have looked to him like a quick day-vigging?

[vollkan]

Shaft.ed is a double-voter. I think we just hit twilight.

6 votes by my count.

The last votecount had "7 to lynch" at the bottom...but we only have 11 alive.

Regardless,
/second the call for a claim.

Thunder booms violently overhead. A bolt of lightning zooms towards the ground. It singes one of your heads! Damn, this unnatural controlled lightning just keeps getting closer!

I take it this means that our votes are probably controlling the lightning?

[vollkan]

I don't think someone with 1000+ in game posts can truly not know what they are doing. I agree he's incompetent, but I think this is below his level.

You should know that number of posts means nothing in isolation. If Xtoxm's poor play here is inconsistent with his play elsewhere, then you may have a valid meta-argument - but mere number of posts doesn't show anything.

I don't ignore the possiblity. But I don't think Xtoxm was venting when he said he wasn't going to read. If you're already dead, how does saying youre not going to read express anger? It's clear that Xtoxm intended his previous post to be his last words, but afterwards he felt the need to add that he wasn't reading.

Now why would a player go out of their way to indicate they aren't reading, unless they think people will expect them to be reading later?

Ah okay, that clarifies it.

At the point when he left, nobody had raised doubt about the dayvig. That suggests he would have been more likely to perceive it as genuine. Now, what motivations might he have had in declaring he was taking the game off watched-topics?

You're correct that he might have been trying to dodge posting in the future. Frankly, I don't see the strategic point in that for scum. It just means that he lurks for a few days and then gets dragged back in under threat of replacement, under the limelight. He hadn't died when he made his declaration. That speed with which he left again suggests frustration. Thus, the most viable alternative I can see is that he was just annoyed at being day-vigged and he left the game, refusing to make further contributions - despite not having died.

I'm Neville Longbottom. Some sort of doctor.

This reminds me:

I was saying that it could be that Harry Potter or similar type roles are scum.

[vollkan]

Looks like it...unless Guardian just made a typo.

[vollkan]

You were voting Cicero by the looks of it...

[vollkan]

PX, I don't like her tactics regarding me either, I think Adel would be a good lynch too.

Why don't you like Adel's tactics to the point of thinking she is a good lynch?

[vollkan]

hunch vote: xyzzy (sorry vollkan)

*hiss*

Hunch = bad

hunch

vote: xyzzy

(sorry vollkan)

Why?

He said "hunch". That's a catch-all. It means he can avoid giving reasons. See my *hiss* above.

(If you were asking about the apology to me, it's because shaft.ed has encountered my detestation of hunch-voting before)

Sorry, guys, just got Brawl. I realize there's a deadline, but I think Para and Xtoxm are both not very good lynches. I really want to lynch someone, however, but prefereably someone like Adel/xyzzy/hasdgfas. Unvote, switching to one of these three, whichever has the most votes.

Supply reasons, or direct me to where you have previously given reasons. Thanks.

hasdfgas: admittedly, I didn't realize there were 2 doc claims. Your explanation was sufficient,

but still I have a feeling you're not very protown.

I'll answer your questions when I have time.

Interesting turn of phrase there.

For starters, you use the word "feeling". That comes second only to "hunch" in my lexicon of despised words.

Moreover, your reason for still suspecting hasd is that he doesn't seem "very protown". I ask you, then, who does seem "very protown"?

[vollkan]

the vote was because I thought you didn't believe Para's role at all. How sure are you that Para is lying/speaking the truth?

I'm not sure either way, to be honest. I still want clarification on what Para means when he said "some kind of doctor." That can mean any number of different things, and because he claimed doctor, some people don't want to lynch him. I still want him to answer that question, because he seems to have ignored it in all posts since the question, which doesn't make me feel any better about him.

@Para: Doctor was not prefaced with "Mafia" by any chance, was it?

[vollkan]

@Volkan, I note that you have been doing mostly interrogation recently, scrutinizing everyone's thoughts, but have largely kept your own opinion to yourself. And looking at your posting record, it's essentially nonexistent(which is no good). Exactly what is your thinking? Don't you think it's about time you voted someone? It seems like you lack any central focus and could easily jump onto any wagon at this point(though you're certainly not the only one). Are you waiting for a wagon to form before you vote?

I've been asking questions for the very reason that, frankly, nobody is leaping out to me as obvious scum.

Since you asked for my opinion, however, I will present a scumdar - to at least show where I am at right now:
As usual: 0% = absolute town, 100% = absolute scum, 50% = no preponderance of town-tells or scumtells.

Cicero

- He has said a lot regarding the mass claim suggestion, and his reasons for opposing it were quite well thought-out. Other than that, there is little else - even interrogative questioning. My guess is that this is probably just a D1 thing. For now, though, he gets a

50%

.

Adel

- Meta, Adel is someone I find immensely difficult to get a read on. I agree with her on Xtoxm being a VI. I do not like her insinuations about Xtoxm not supplying an exit case. She knows he is a VI - so she ought to know that it would be unsurprising for him to leave in a stink and not provide a case.

60%

xyzzy

- His massclaim suggestion is interestingly worded, insofar as he pushes it "at some time". Looks like he may be trying to give himself an out. This is just conjecture, and hence I don't hold this against him, but it is odd nonetheless. Other than that, he does nothing of significance.

50%

Rogueben

- He makes decent attacks against Para throughout the game. Other than that, he is fairly short on words.

45%

Lawrencelot

- He makes vague insinuations of Adel being scummy and NN appearing aggressive town, but doesn't supply reasons. His assumption that massclaim advocacy = scummy seems to be quite simplistic, particularly given that he adopts a neutral position (if you are going to allow it to pass without protest, that's effectively just supporting it without making yourself accountable). Is worried that Xtoxm is dumbtown (a good concern) but then proceeds to confirm his vote after Xtoxm made a joke post. I don't follow his vote for Adel with all the %s about Adel and Xtoxm, and I don't see how it incriminates Adel. Wants to lynch Adel/xyzzy/hasdgfas but then doesn't justify. he later justifies Adel on "vibes" (which is ranked #3 on the

Index of Detested Words

). Ultimately, I see him as declaring opinions without substantiation, with the worst points against him being his vote on Xtoxm and his mugwumping on the massclaim.

60%

hasdgfas

- I don't like his assumption that supporting a massclaim is scummier than suggesting it, and he basically shrugs his shoulders when I ask him to justify it. I like his stance on Xtoxm, however - asking the right questions.

50%

Xtoxm

- To put it simply: VI. He consistently attacks Adel for opposing a mass-claim, despite the fact that he himself was not in favour of one. His abandonment of the game after the fake daykill looks more to me like frustration than any of the nefarious conspiracies that have been suggested. I'm giving him a

55%

. It would be higher, but he is clearly a VI and I want to see how this progresses before I make a definite comment on his alignment. For now, he could be newbtown or newbscum.

Paradoxombie

He also votes Adel for being against massclaiming, and doesn't articulate how this is scummy. Then he justifies this on a sort of tit-for-tat disagreement thing, basically just dodging the question of how Adel's actions are scummy. He then goes on the defnesive and twists this into being attacked for his opinion (when one could say the same thing about Adel). He still hasn't explained HOW it is scummy. He also pushes a mass rolename claim for very optimistic reasons - trying to gild it a bit. Of course, he then goes and claims doctor. His play merits a

70%

in my opinion, but he has claimed, which adds another necessary level to any inquiry about him.

NabakovNabakov

- His reasons for opposing massclaim are good. He also makes a strong attack against Para's stupid "equal but opposite" ideas. Nothing scummy here at all, and he is probably the most protown so far.

40%

shaft.ed

- A lot of his play is just about his double vote. He then develops the Shafted Thesis - which is valid but unnecessarily conjecturing. He then votes Xtxom because town wouldn't leave the game in that way - as with my remarks on Adel, I don't agree. I don't like the fact that he criticises the content level of myself and Nab when, largely, he hasn't been developing enormous cases either.

55%

I hope this shows my thoughts more clearly.

[vollkan]

Volkan, is your vote still on Shaft.ed for any purpose other than wanting to see if you had a normal vote?

Yes.

Para had my highest ranking so I will

Vote: Paradoxombie

for now, in the interests of avoiding No Lynch. But I am keeping an open mind on my other high-ranked.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

Unvote, Vote: Paradoxombie

[vollkan]

I misread you.

Volkan, is your vote still on Shaft.ed for any purpose other than wanting to see if you had a normal vote?

I thought you said:
"Volkan, is your vote still on Shaft.ed for no purpose other than wanting to see if you had a normal vote?"

My vote on shaft.ed was purely to test my vote, as I said at the time.