Mafia 88- Return to New Catania- Game Over!

[vollkan]

Hi everybody. I will read up then post my thoughts.

Unvote

if necessary

[vollkan]

My Read

13: GC is wrong to assume that a no lynch vote in the random stage is inherently stifling of information. As an occasional self-voter, I can attest that bucking the trend is often good for starting discussion. Moreover, I have never seen somebody's random vote be used reliable for voting patterns - if you have then I'd love to see where.
14: Hoopla is being clever. He bolds that random votes can cause reactions and start discussion, which is clearly what his vote has done
16: Seraphim votes Hoopla - misses the whole point of Hoopla's vote
17: I don't like Sobe's vote for Hoopla. He justifies it on "bandwagons are fun" (legit at this stage) and "no lynch is bad". Needless to say, a single vote for NL does not casue a NL. Really, a mislynch without any argument is worse than a NL. So, by this logic, it would be inherently suspect to cast a random vote, given the odds of voting a townie. This is complete crap, of course, because one vote does not maketh a lynch (or a no lynch, as the case may be) (+1)
19: Hehe, GC thinks Hoopla is taking him out of context. Not sure this is scummy, so much as a goof by GC. I don't like GC's continued assertion that random voting has any use "down the track", given that he makes what Hoopla did sound scummy, but provides no substantiation. Sounds nice, but I don't like this - unless I see some specific argument (+1 GC).
24: <3 BM. He's exactly right here - the very fact that Hoopla got a reaction proves that voting NL can be a good idea (same reason why I self-vote).
28: More goodposting by BM.
30: OGML agrees with BM
32: And OGML's reasoning is exactly correct - GC's play could be honest error, but there is also a reasonable enough prospect of it being scum exploiting emotional sentiments about "standard tells" to warrant suspicion.
34: I really don't like Seraph using random stage as a defence for craplogic. (+2)
36: wtf...Seraph backs off his vote because BM promises to de-FOS him. This just after he defended his vote despite its poor logic. (+2)
40: Ecto, being a good or poor debater is not inherently indicative of alignment, but it will typically be more difficult for scum to mount a logic defence of their behaviour, simply because their motives are usually not honest. This doesn't work all the time because it is not impossibly difficult, as scum, to mount a rational attack, but there's more likelihood of scum failing in logical defence than a townie (plus, debates are a good way to make scum use logical fallacies and so on)
41: Sobe repeats GC's mantra that a random vote on a player can help down the line. Again, evidence please. Also, he is completely wrong to say Hoopla wasn't seeking discussion. As Hoopla's bolding itself showed, Hoopla's whole point was to spark discussion (+1)
48: Yos also objects to Hoopla's actions, but at least recognises that townies do play the "stir the pot" game - so I have no problems here.
50: Natirasha self-votes. A man after my own heart.
53: Like clockwork, DH insists Nati explain himself
65: Ecto defends GC against Hoopla. Ecto is correct that the side on takes in a theory debate does not indicate one's alignment. But, here is why that logic doesn't operate in respect of a no lynch vote or a self-vote: the theory discussion is not abstract theory, but theory about whether what somebody did is scummy. Thus, it gives rise to

real arguments and real attacks

. Here, we've seen an internally contradictory case presented by GC. That's mildly scummy.
68: Wow...I am liking BM more and more. He is spot on in his point that DH's question to Natirasha showed anti-self-voting prejudice. Good work for dismantling cheap shots at an easy target. (-1)
72: Bad post by sobe. He begins by saying that NL isn't controversial, because "Voting No lynch doesn't seem all that controversial to me, as its easy to see why one wouldn't want to take the chance of lynching town". BUT have a look back at what he said in post 17 ("I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant"). So, we have a direct contradiction. (+3). Then pulls, out of his arse, the assumption that "he voted no Lynch and hoped people would pass right over his post and not pay it much mind" - nothing has been argued anywhere that would warrant this guess (+1). Then makes the really craplogic argument that, if GC isn't scum (so, already we are making a hugely unjustifiable assummption), somebody is wagon most likely is (not true) and that person would probably be the one who led the charge (definitely not true - scum might just as plausibly want to keep their heads low) , because "anyone the town is willing to listen to could prove to be bad for the Mafia" (not if their ideas are as flawed as GC's). From this series of assumptions, he builds the conclusion that he is more inclined to vote people voting GC. He votes BM based on this stupid idea that lynching BM can clear GC. (+2)
74: Very good justification of his no lynch vote by Hoopla.
76: Legit objection by Yos
81: Wonderful quote by BM: "You make a point, you back it up. If you dont back the point up to a good enough degree that it can be ASSESSED, then it is of no value." Akin to my own litmus test for a legitimate argument: "Could somebody say anything that would rebut this?"
87: Ecto makes the weird point that: "His response and others to the no lynch still does not invalidate the statement that a no lynch is useless if nobody reacts to it.

Reactions to it are not addressed at all by that argument. Whether random votes are also useless does not invalidate his statement either. Straw Man here." Any vote in random stage is useless if there is no reaction to it. Hoopla is exactly right and I don't see a "straw man" at all. It does disarm GC's argument, because GC's argument is equally applicable to any random action, but he only applies that argument in respect of Hoopla's vote. (+1)
88: Sobe mounts a new justification for his BM vote: "And I pick you over GC for this simple reason, you've been rather redundant with yoru reasonings why me voting for you is silly." He has completely missed the point of BM's defence of himself. (+1)
92: I take issue with the way ST casually states that he no longer suspects Hoopla and doesn't think GC is scummy - no explanations are given for either of these.
134: Sobe just says he is satisfied with the BM debate and then moves on to demand DH post more. Why DH specificially when there are plenty of chronic lurkers? (+1 unless explained)
147: Farside cottons on to the point I make wrt post 134, and gives a good account of her position on the NL vote. (-1)
150: Sens votes Hoopla "for his No Lynch vote, and defense of it" - there better be some explanation for this very soon!
151: Hmm...he admits it is not a scumtell, but then casts a vote for BM instead because "I don't like how you defend it, or how drastically you are undermining the "random" stage". He doesn't explain what is wrong with the defence, or how BM is "undermining" the random voting stage. As it stands, this argument is basically "I don't like non-standard play and so I don't like BM for legitimising it" (+2)
152: Sens makes the assertion that the random stage catches a lot of scum -

really

? Also makes the weird argument that Hoopla made a post that hid your alignment, while letting you jump on anyone that either agreed with you OR disagreed with you, really". Hoopla's post did nothing of the sort - it provides a chance to test whether people are thinking through their attacks, or are just leaping on to easy targets. (+1)
159: DH posts, but avoids addressing his questioning of Nati (+1)
173: Sens says "I am not liking the large number of people that seem to be accepting the "I did something scummy on purpose to catch scum!", which is obviously very flawed." False dichotomises the issue. He ignores the fact that one can plausibly accept that "I was deliberately scummy" should not operate in all circumstances (eg. outsdie the random stage, even I will be much more skeptical of any such argument), whilst still accepting that it can be a legitimiate ice-breaker. (+1)
177: Puta Puta posts a poem. FTR, in light of the possibility he may claim a PR, I note that he previously made a post with no hint of any restriction.
181: Sens ignores CKD's questions because he "hasn't finished reading", even though the questions related to what Sens had already said. (+1)
183: Spoke too soon, he says he hasn't read it (-1)
215: Sobe casts another post - this time to criticise Shanba for "Most of what he been doing is agreeing or disagreeing with peoples posts, and being extremely vague in just about everything he says." For starters, this isn't true. Secondly, however, there are still plenty of others not posting at all who or posting very vaguely who also are not questioned. (+1) This is exactly what happened before, and it suggests he is just trying to appear active by zeroing in on particular inactives.
219: PP posts "Yes, let's all vote SensFan". Until some explanation or argument comes from you (+2)
221: I don't like this vote by DH for Hoopla: "Made my decision early and nothing he has said since has made me think anything different." Doesn't entail a rebuttal of the arguments against Hoopla being scummy and amounts to little more than a sticking of fingers in ears. (+3)
225: Yos goes on a lurker hunt. I know his meta on this, so I see it as a nullity.
231: UGH....tubby simply says: "i have posted i have been reading i have nothing of substance to post, untill something pops up that i need to adress i prefer to stay out of the way". Unacceptable. I know this isn't scummy, but dammit I am so tempted to vote you just to kick you into line.
235: UGGGGHH! He invites a pressure wagon.
240: PP says his Sens post was sarcasm. In that case, I don't retract my (+2) and I add a further (+1). You're showing awareness of what is happening; you aren't a lurker - you are just refusing to post.
248: I don't like militant's suggestion that IF OGML is scum than a post by his could be construed as a warning to scum-buddies. This is totally useless and only serves as a source of innuendo (+1).
-- At this point can I just say that I am basically ambivalent on the Tubby wagon. I am neither for nor against pressure wagons on lurkers. In this case, though, I cannot see it serving as much of a source of pressure and I think that it might just serve as a distraction, given that Tubby himself welcomed such a wagon. I do have a question for everybody who is on the Tubby wagon, however: Are you prepared to take it to lynch if he doesn't post --
276: Shanba is wrong to say that BM's "But what if I'm a power role?" is scummy. The vote by sobe was based on some of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen (that BM should be lynched to indicate GC's alignement). BM's question makes sense as a means of teasing out GC's craplogic. I do agree with Shanba on the lurkerhunt.

Ratings

(Just to explain how this words. Each person has a ranking from 1-100. All players start at 50 by default. Scumminess pushes it up. Towniness pushes it down. 50 means I seen no preponderance of towniness or scumminess. It does not necessarily mean "no opinion" (though, for a lurker that never posts, it will probably mean that))

1. CuriousKarmaDog - 50
2. Sir Tornado - 50
3. Killa Seven - 50
4. OhGodMyLife - 50
5. SensFan - 54
6. Yosarian2 - 50
7. Sobeahero - 61
8. Natirasha - 50
9. farside22 - 49
10. Seraphim - 54
11. Ectomancer - 51
12. Militant - 51
13. Shanba - 50
14. Puta Puta - 53
15. Hoopla - 50
16. ZTR - 50
17. xyzzy - 50
19. GeorgeCarlin - 51
20. Battle Mage - 49
21. Tubby216 - 50
22. Der Hammer - 54


Standout for me is Sobe. I'll give him a chance to respond to me before I consider voting or anything, seeing as I don't doubt I may have missed something in my read.

[vollkan]

Dammit....Ignore the italics. Renegade [ i ] tag.

[vollkan]

Hey, Volkan. Welcome to the game.

I do have a question for everybody who is on the Tubby wagon, however: Are you prepared to take it to lynch if he doesn't post --

Yes.

I wouldn't be happy about lynching him based just on what he's posted so far, but yes, I would be willing to do it. Pressure wagons don't work unless there is a real threat, an actual risk that if they player dosn't give in to the pressure and start acting in a more pro-town way, that he might be lynched.

Besides, based on his posting right now, I consider Tubby to be somewhat less likely then random to be town, and if he is town much less likely then random to be helpful town. Which adds up to "not a bad day 1 lynch", at least unless he starts posting some content that might change my mind about that, or unless a better wagon comes along.

Okay good. The reason I ask is that, like you it seems, I think pressure wagons are inherently useless (and, thus, an excellent time-sink for scum) unless people are actually prepared to follow through.

Is there any reason in particular why you think Tubby scummier-than-average, rather than just arsehole town?

17:Bandwagons are fun is hardly the reasoning. I just agreed with GC at the time. Had you read the paranthasese, you'd have noticed that. No lynches don't really show anything about the person, thus I don't really like it. :p
[/quoe]

I never said "bandwagons are fun" was the reason (I actually wouldn't have a problem if it was). My questioning of post 17 primarily focuses on your attacks on no lynch. Quoted for posterity:

Needless to say, a single vote for NL does not casue a NL. Really, a mislynch without any argument is worse than a NL. So, by this logic, it would be inherently suspect to cast a random vote, given the odds of voting a townie. This is complete crap, of course, because one vote does not maketh a lynch (or a no lynch, as the case may be) (+1)

You said:

Bandwagons are fun! (That and I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.)

Vote: Hoopla

Thus, what I was attacking was your insinuation that no lynch votes are bad because no lynch is bad. That same logic would say that random votes are bad because random lynches are bad (worse, in fact, than no lynches)

41: How can you be sure I was wrong though? If you beleive that, you'd have to take Hoopla for his word on things. There is no garuntee that had discussion not started, if he ever would have brought himself into the limelite. But he was called out enough that there really isn't much choice for him to do anything else. So why is it you, by default, seem to believe Hoopla? Do you have a reason to trust his word?

41: Sobe repeats GC's mantra that a random vote on a player can help down the line.

Again, evidence please.

Also, he is completely wrong to say Hoopla wasn't seeking discussion. As Hoopla's bolding itself showed, Hoopla's whole point was to spark discussion (+1)

Firstly, I'd love something from you on the bold.

Secondly, as to your questions for me. I am self-voter and I can see myself doing exactly what Hoopla did (including the ironic bolding of the stuff about generating discussion). The way he has explained himself post facto only fits with the profile of the discussion-generating self-voter. For that reason, I am prepared to trust Hoopla's justification of his self-vote. Note that I don't think this has any bearing on his alignment. Scum can self-vote to generate discussion and so can town.

72: There is not direct controdiction. I say I did not Contraversial, though I still think it looked scummy. Something being contraversial, on the same note, doesn't by default make it a scummy move.

Post 17:

Bandwagons are fun! (That and

I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.

)

Vote: Hoopla

Post 72:

Voting No lynch doesn't seem all that controversial to me, as its easy to see why one wouldn't want to take the chance of lynching town.

In 17, you seem to be pretty clearly disparaging no lynch, but by 72 (without acknowledgment of any mental shift) you have changed tune completely.

88: Well If I missed the point, care to explain it rather then going "HE doesn't undersatnd, clearly he is suspicious."

BM was arguing that the idea that he should be lynched to determine GC's alignment is manifestly absurd. It runs the risk of wasting an entire day, giving scum a free night and offing a power role. Your rebuttal to this in 88, I will quote: (everything below comes from 88)

I never ignored the possibility you are a power role. I'm just not ignoring the possibility that you are Mafia either. You voted GC. Ever though maybe HE might be a power role? That seems like a very weak defense. :p

This is just twisting the onus of proof. It isn't incumbent on BM to show he is NOT mafia. You need to show there are good reasons for thinking he IS

And I only acknowledge that if you are town and lynched, we waste a lynch on a town and learn nothing. But guess what? Same thing happens if GC is town. If he's lynched town, we learn nothing. Unless you can give me a reason why him flipping town yields any additional information, you're voting at the same risks I am. :p

This ignores the fact that BM wasn't voting Carlin simply for information reasons.

And I pick you over GC for this simple reason, you've been rather redundant with yoru reasonings why me voting for you is silly.

-We get no info if you flip town? We get no info if GC flips town either. We are both taking the same risk if we are both town, so its a silly argument.

-Saying you disagree with the sentamant that Scum would start instead of follow? They can do both, so thats not much of a point. :p

- The whole 'I could be a power role' line? Same goes for GC.

In short, I vote for you for redundant and pointless defenses. :p

BM gave plenty of reasons;
- Same as above. This is drawing an equivalence between a serious suspicion lynch and an "information lynch"
- BM never positively said scum wouldn't start. He just said that they are not more likely to start than follow.
- Again, this ignores the whole suspicion-information distinction

Tubby is a lurker, like me...there can only be one lurker (me!) so he's got to go. Vote:Tubby

what are you talkin about??

I'm allvwing this continue beacuse:

1) i think its funny
2) its telling more about everyone else in the game,
3) i highly doubt i will get lynched today but if i do thats ok to i just hope everyone is paying attention

*sigh* Could both of you just replace out?

[vollkan]

Tubby, the tribe has spoken, it's time for you to go.

The problem I see here is that, even if we do lynch Tubby, we still have Puta Puta hanging around. One lynch of a lurker might be tolerable, but two is taking it too far.

[vollkan]

Puta Puta has shown no improvement.

Vote: Puta Puta

[vollkan]

Excellent, glad to see Puta is going.

Unvote

, pending replacement (though 'pending' is probably redundant, it's unlikely anybody else could be that completely useless)

[vollkan]

BM, connect the dots. If it is against the rules of the game to be on your own lynch as town without a good reason, then anyone who is self-voting with intent to be on their own lynch is either (a) not town, (b) possessed of a good reason, or (c) breaking the rules. Cases 'a' or 'b' are good reasons to lynch the person. Case 'c' is handled by extra-game mechanisms.

BM's response to this in 542 has my endorsement.

I'd like to stress the point, though, that you cannot possibly justify a general policy that self-voting is scummy from the fact that being on one's own lynch is against the rules.

No, but I'm currently doing a research project on people who adopt deliberately antitown playstyles, and I'd like your input.

Seriously?

Post 98
This is what originally drew my attention and vote. His reason for the FoS is total bull, and the fact that he FoSes when he hasn't got a vote out is something I find really scummy, in that noncomittal, don't want to leave a paper trail sort of way.

His reason is bull, I'll give you that.

Having said that, it's also bull to accuse him of being non-committal. It's odd to FoS without voting, but so long as one makes one's suspicions known, one is accountable. The idea that just because you don't vote there is no paper trail is just wrong.

3) However, I am not so convinced about BM up to this stage though. I am noticing an overwhelming lack of smileys from him, which I think he puts a lot of when he is town, not sure if this is a general change in his posting style though.

This is an incredibly ridiculous reason to attack BM.

I'm not sure it is ridiculous. If BM does indeed have a meta for smiley-overkill as town, then a shift from that meta might be a cause for concern.

Post 494
Then pulls this sudden switch to voting xyl, playing follow the leader with BM, the guy who he, let us not forget, attacked earlier for not using enough smileys. But then shortly after that, he Chainsaw Defends BM by way of attacking Natirasha and Der Hammer for their BM votes. How strange.

"Chainsawing" seems to be the flavor-of-the-month scumtell right now and, frankly, I think it's a load of crap. Scum distance/bus just as readily as they do defend each other. The focus has to be on the reasons for attacks or defence of another player.

Sir T attacked two pretty terrible votes from BM and Nati. Now, sure, there's a bit of hypocrisy there (depending on the validity of the smiley point)- but his reasoning is certainly legitimate.

How on earth can you view that as an attack? I of course had no idea whether BM posts more smileys as townie or scum, I just remember he used to do a lot of that some time ago. I was trying to see if he would consciously put more smileys in his posts after that -- which he didn't.

Fair enough; I can accept this.

Oh wow, that's a pretty thorough OMGUS. No townie points to tubby216 for making it. I especially like the implication that OGML is calling tubby scummy because he has a personal grudge; it sounds like tubby isn't even considering scumhunting as a possibility? I think I need to go find the "weirdly vague softclaim-type thing" OGML says tubby216 made.

An unrelated point for my future reference: I really don't like the idea of someone playing deliberately ambiguous; it's bad for the town. "I'm playing badly because I don't want to be night killed" (or whatever SirT said) doesn't sit very well with me.

*sigh* OMGUS is where you vote somebody because of the fact, simpliciter, that they are voting for you. It's a scumhunting fallacy because, as we all know, townies can genuinely suspect townies, often with excellent reasons.

Tubby's vote had justifications beyond this (He accused Sir T of grasping at straws), so it isn't OMGUS. If you have a problem with his criticisms of Sir T, by all means voice it, but don't say it's OMGUS.

"I'm playing badly because I don't want to be night killed"

I never said I was playing "badly". I just meant that I wasn't trying to be "obviously" townie which I usually am (regardless of my role) early on in the game.

Follow along.

You're obviously townie...
...so the town is less likely to lynch you...
...so the town is less likely to lynch an innocent player...
...so the town is more likely to lynch scum.

Therefore, not playing obviously townie lowers the town's chances of lynching scum, and therefore lowers the town's chances of winning. What do you call that? I call it bad play.

I don't agree with you here.

I don't expect to have much sympathy for my viewpoint, but I actually think there is an optimum and non-zero level of suspicion. When I play this game, I don't aim to be a squeaky-clean "obv townie". Take self-voting as an example. Whenever I do it, I inevitably attract suspicion from people. I also generate a debate, which creates an environment better for me to scumhunt in.

Ultimately, the right playstyle for a townie is the one which gets the right balance between avoiding one's own lynch and catching scum. That doesn't necessarily imply one that attracts no suspicion at all.

"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"

what if i have a power role what then?? does that make you a scum hunter or a role fisher??

It makes you an idiot for playing in a deliberately anti-town fashion, thereby drawing a wagon which forced you into the position of softclaiming in the first place. On that note, I think you should full claim.

I'd like to know why you wanted him to fullclaim at this point. He was in no imminent danger of being lynched.

Unvote, Vote:Tubby until he claims...

Hmm. Why did you want to push Tubby towards a claim?

so if i shut up and say nothing i get wagoned, then i speak up try to help ,, present a case and i still get voted ,, i love this ,,,this game is awesome

FFS, don't make this out like it's a Catch-22. If you say nothing, you deserve whatever comes your way. Ditto if you present a dodgy case.

and I will not claim, i will go to the gallows nice and quiet and with out a claim

*facepalm*

unvote tubby216

Maybe I'm underestimating scum-tubby, but that reaction feels townish to me.

You can't be serious!

Look:

Der Hammer,
posts very little and when he does there is hardly any content
so what aever happened to this

Will make a post more with a more detailed amount of my thoughts so far later

Yos,, nevermind i read through and you have been on me the entire game..i found in your previous posts i assume your revoting me stems from the case you made earlier right??

Sensfan, i really don't see you havin a case at all other than i seem to be the only thing goin right now?? is there more to it other than my previous lurking and apparant ignorance??

His DH point is just pointing the finger elsewhere.

The Yos point is a subtle accusation of tunneling against Yos

Questioning sens for a case is legit.

But a "townish" response? Hardly. I'd say minorly scummy.

[vollkan]

Yos:

In the interests of exploring new, and possibly fresher pastures, Vote: Natirasha pending meta investigation of his playstyle.

Natirasha's play struck me as possibly scummy depending on whether or not he always played like this. Checking, he is often concise, sarcastic and does not necessarily comment on everything.

And I agree that Yos is not distracting from the issue, because I have yet to raise the issue, mostly because it's gut. I'm working on articulating what it was that made my gut go off, but it may take some time. Consider this a placeholder until then.

I don't see, though, why you would cast even a gut vote in such a weird way. You said nothing related to Yos all post, give no preface to the vote, and don't even say "For gut reasons I am going to vote Yosarian2".

Psychological research tells us that decisions made on gut are usually better than decisions made on logic.

*groan*

This is a game of incomplete information where some people are bad and want to kill the other people. Gut might well be, for many people, reliable. But it let's the scum slink by without accountability - you cannot critically evaluate somebody's gut. Moreover, even townies are susceptible to emotional prejudice and error.

This is exactly my point. There should be no reason for you to be so desperate for you to emphasise this position if its been something youve felt for a while. A townie is happy to prevent a mislynch. A scumbag will want to gain credibility for doing so.

Town won't want to do things to reduce their own chances of being lynched?

[vollkan]

How?

[vollkan]

In which case, you've really just affirmed my point. In order to obtain insight into the gut voter, one needs to look at the gut voter's reason/s. Gut is a fine means of pointing oneself in the direction of people to have a closer look at. But a vote should only be based on reason/s, so people are held accountable at the time. Of course, if gut votes are bad, having gut votes on a lynchee or on somebody at L-1 is worse still and totally unacceptable.

[vollkan]

I have formed the opinion that lynching me actually is a good option for the town. Here is my reason. I am a Miller.

Regardless of whether I suddenly got very active in this game someone would still suspect me for my start, which is bound to lead to confusion. Like I said, I am a Miller, so clearly sooner or later I am going to be incorrectly lynched and I don't want a scenario where a cop comes out to get me lynched on the basis of a false investigation......it is therefore that I dishonourably disarge myself and now endorse a Der Hammer lynch.

Vote:Der Hammer

....
This is an incredibly stupid play to make. People would suspect you for your atrocious early play, but that's no excuse for doing something like this. There were still a good three weeks until deadline.

Sounds good enough for me.

Vote: Der Hammer

(oh yeah, I'm back, lol. I'm catching up now but as I read the post above me, claiming miller and voting for oneself is bad play)

Clarify what you mean here. Do you think he's scum?

from those one/two posts? Hell yes.

Ok. Could you explain why you think a scum would be especally likely to claim miller, self vote, and then ask the town to lynch him?

QFFT

It's a bad play, no doubt about it. But nobody to join the DH wagon has explained why lynching him is a good idea.

The miller claim was bad. Lynch all claimed millers still applies.

I haven't heard of "Lynch all claimed millers" before. Lest I get the impression that it is just an empty slogan, would you mind explaining to me the rationale for such a policy?

Why is there so much idiocy in this game?

I don't know, but it's frustrating me to all hell

[vollkan]

The miller claim was bad. Lynch all claimed millers still applies.

I haven't heard of "Lynch all claimed millers" before. Lest I get the impression that it is just an empty slogan, would you mind explaining to me the rationale for such a policy?

Maybe I'm imagining it (I'm on the 4th day of a bad cold, and not thinking clearly). I think it was something about scum using miller claims to avoid cop investigations.

Right. I imagined something like that.

I don't think it should be an auto-lynch, but should be a factor supporting lynch.

Given that, my solution would be as follows:
We have 3 weeks until deadline; that's a long time (I usually have 3 week deadlines for whole days). We should keep DH alive, but insist that, as of his next post, he selects one of the following options:
a)

Read up in full with a decent summary of his views on each player

; or
b)

Leave the game and replace his avatar with a plain white square containing, in large black letters "I am a Known Flaker"

If he chooses a), the summary has to be completed within 72 hours unless he has a reasonable excuse.
If he chooses b), auf wiedersehen

[vollkan]

Well, scum has very little motivation to claim miller unless they've been investigated. Even if they don't get auto-lynched, they are bound to come under a lot of pressure throughout the game/be vigged. It just doesn't add anything to the scum's position. (Btw, I am NOT saying it is a town-tell)

(FTR: I have been a miller myself once, in Mini 562. I had a look back and I used the exact same justification there as DH is using now - that it can save a cop outing himself. I claimed in my second post, though, because my own view is that millers should claim asap)

[vollkan]

Something like this.

If there was a guilty cop result on someone, you would lynch them even if they claim miller.

If someone claims miller early, then you know that any cop inspect on them

will

be guilty. That means that there is no difference in information about the miller's alignment whether or not the cop uses an inspection. (The cop knows, too, and will never actually inspect the miller). So a claimed miller is logically equivalent to an inspected miller.

Since you would lynch an inspected miller, and a claimed miller is logically equivalent to an inspected miller, you should lynch a claimed miller.

Yes, but I think the difference is that scum has little motivation to claim miller. The fact that they claim before being investigated is enough to spare them from auto-lynch.

[vollkan]

Xyl, Volkann, I don't see the point of this discussion on policy lynching of millers. Please focus your brains in more productive causes.

It's directly relevant to the game, and it's hardly as though our eight posts on the subject have derailed the game.

If there is a recent post which
outlines your view of the players, feel free to link to it instead.

My summary of game and players. Recent enough.

[vollkan]

Doh...I copied the image URL not the post URL.

Let's try that again

[vollkan]

That worked surprisingly well No way I am going to tolerate an auto-lynch of a claimed miller, but my hope of forcing out some content to analyse has paid off.

The striking features are the whole Hoopla, BM conflict, and in that I think both come out looking scummy. Obviously this is unlikely, but I think one of them may turn up scum. Seems an early attempt by one of them, to try and clear themselves for the rest of the game as scum wouldn't put themselves out in the limelight so early.

This is completely meaningless.

Sensfan, and then Tubby also stand out as late suspects on Page 10. Tubby's attempts to act stupid look dodgy, as does Sensfans inconcisency throughout the whole day.

Is Tubby's stupidity scummy?

What inconsistency?

If you don't die tonight, please, be sure to give us results every single morning. Or we will lynch you.

Have a nice day.

This from Sera just doesnt come accross well to me. Just stinks of someone with some information, setting the balance either further against Putas likely replacement.

Uh, that's a pretty reasonable thing to say to a lousy claimed cop.

Look at the reactions to my bombshell.

Sounds good enough for me.

Vote: Der Hammer

(oh yeah, I'm back, lol. I'm catching up now but as I read the post above me, claiming miller and voting for oneself is bad play)

The ease at which he accepts it? Just looking quickly for a lynch in my opinion.

Vote:Seraphim

You have been playing like trash all game; you then attempted to give up and be lynched; and you claimed Miller. I am by no means fond of his vote (no explanation as to why you should be lynched), but you're not exactly in any position to be throwing accusations around about. It is unacceptable that you would play so atrociously at this stage of the game (to the point of advocating your

own

lynch), and then snap at your attackers.

I really don't like how quickly Der Hammer backs off his self-vote. It completely wipes out the "scum wouldn't do that" argument.

I know. He's spent the whole game playing like an asshole and then, when I throw him a lifeline, he totally backflips. Hmm

[vollkan]

The two week milestone is tomorrow.

[vollkan]

Claiming miller helps scum, so the balance of WIFOM demands that claiming miller be inherently scummy.

How does claiming miller help scum?

Logically, if you actually are a miller, the not claiming might help scum, since if you claim you at least don't waste a cop investigation.

Claiming miller

as a falseclaim

helps scum

because it removes the possibility that they will be caught by a cop

, so the balance of WIFOM demands that claiming miller be

viewed as

inherently scummy

by the town in order to neutralize the possible benefit to scum of claiming it

.

Yes, and it is also guaranteed to make the claimed miller under an inordinate amount of pressure and suspicion for the rest of the game.

What we can and should be doing is taking this as a factor supporting his lynch, but not lynching him purely and simply for it.

[vollkan]

1- I find that abstract theory discussion to be harmful to the town, if not to the mafia game in general. Why argue if lynching millers in general is a good or bad idea, when we have our own personal miller, with his personal characteristics (not posting, then volunteering to die, then posting content when asked).

In short - Non specific theory discussion - cop out for scum. Specific discussion about players - good.

The theory discussion here was all directly relevant to the question at hand. It annoys me when people complain about "theory discussion" when, 99% of the time, it is entirely appropriate to discuss.

OGML and Shanba…your thoughts on Sera?

Seraphim is an equally good lynch (probably slightly better than, even) to Sir Tornado. But Sir T has a wagon on him, and we've spent too much time pursuing claims and not enough voting to lynch, so my vote on Sir T is with intention to lynch.

I haven't weighed in clearly on my lynch preferences recently. My top suspect is and remains Iamausername (though, my suspicion derived from his predecessor, not from iama himself). I don't think we should be lynching Sir T - unless I am mistaken, it seems to be a lurker lynch and, in this game, there is such a degree of lurkage that I don't think a single policy lynch is going to achieve anything. Seraphim is also a good lynch, and seems to have support behind it.

[vollkan]

Best wishes Sir T.

as far as der hammer,, i would support that lynch i know he is a claimed miller but i do not understand why its in the best interest of the town to keep him around, cause we will show up as scum if investigated, so that would be a wasted investigation, but if we lkynch him that would also be a wasted lynch,and the scum get a kill , so by lynching der hammer it would be like if we voted not lynch at this point right?,, so thats the quandry as i understand it is that correct??

No.

The quandary is that some people (see Xyl's posts for a better explanation) have a view that miller claims are innately scummy and should be auto-lynchable offences . Others (eg. me) think that miller claims should be treated with doubt and so on, but not an autolynch.

There are also the subsequent posts by DH to consider.

[vollkan]

Best wishes Sir T.

as far as der hammer,, i would support that lynch i know he is a claimed miller but i do not understand why its in the best interest of the town to keep him around, cause we will show up as scum if investigated, so that would be a wasted investigation, but if we lkynch him that would also be a wasted lynch,and the scum get a kill , so by lynching der hammer it would be like if we voted not lynch at this point right?,, so thats the quandry as i understand it is that correct??

No.

The quandary is that some people (see Xyl's posts for a better explanation) have a view that miller claims are innately scummy and should be auto-lynchable offences . Others (eg. me) think that miller claims should be treated with doubt and so on, but not an autolynch.

There are also the subsequent posts by DH to consider.

such as his lack of content, and utter non opinion on anything really related to the game? there by makin his his claim seem scummy

I don't think you can say that his poor play makes his claim seem scummy. The claim is a null-tell. His play is scummy. He is a "better than average" lynch, sure, but his claim is not rendered scummy simply because of his play.

I like my vote where it is. Der Hammer's lack of actual content until he was attacked leads me to believe he is active-lurking. His miller claim smells. I'd be a lot less willing to lynch him if his miller claim had come closer to the beginning of the game rather than when he was attacked. Instead, it only comes when he is attacked. Therefore, I like my vote.

What Sir T and Yos said.

Don't like this directing of the vig. Seems like Mafia trying to get a vig to do their dirty work.

Unvote, Vote Sir Tornado.

Don't like this attack on Sir T. There is nothing wrong with a player giving their opinion on optimal vig strategy. If I think that I have an idea of what a vig should do, I should express it. Now, the vig needs to take everything with a grain of salt and use their own judgment, but Sir T made a perfectly reasonable point (which I happen to agree with) that a claimed miller can be a good vig target (provided the vig thinks it has the best chances of hitting scum).

I would like to explain for me why Sir T giving his opinion on a vig's kill is actually scummy, rather than simply accusing him of "directing" the vig.

[vollkan]

Volkann, would you explain your post 731 to me in few words, please? What I want to know is: You attack DH on his comment, but doesn't ask him any questions, even if he is giving input. However, you don't vote or FoS him. What was your intent in that post?

I don't understand what you mean.

DH posted content as I demanded, and I attacked what he had posted, as well as questioning his point on Tubby.

My "intent", if you want to use that word, in the post was to analyse what he had said, potentially opening a channel of debate on his content. I didn't FoS him because I tend not to use FoSes (I cannot remember the last time I gave somebody an FoS). And I didn't vote him because I wasn't settled on him as being voteworthy.

Volkann, short question: Who do you think is scum? Name a few people if possible.

1. CuriousKarmaDog - 50
2. Sir Tornado - 50
3. Killa Seven - 50
4. OhGodMyLife - 50
5. SensFan - 54
6. Yosarian2 - 50
7. Sobeahero - 61
8. Natirasha - 50
9. farside22 - 49
10. Seraphim - 54
11. Ectomancer - 51
12. Militant - 51
13. Shanba - 50
14. Puta Puta - 53
15. Hoopla - 50
16. ZTR - 50
17. xyzzy - 50
19. GeorgeCarlin - 51
20. Battle Mage - 49
21. Tubby216 - 50
22. Der Hammer - 54

That basically reflects my position now, though Seraphim has increased a bit for the miller claim response, and DH has increased for the lousy content post.

Anyway, since deadline approaches, I

Vote: Seraphim

[vollkan]

I think he is scummy (for play, not for claim) and would be an acceptable lynch.

[vollkan]

Hoopla has never made a case against me today. He's just saying I am his no 1 suspect without allowing me to defend myself

@Hoopla: Is this correct? As in, have you anywhere presented an argument for why Sir T is scummy enough to be your number 1?

[vollkan]

I think the majority of Seraphim's Case comes of off this one reaction she had about the Der Hammer case, which didn't make any sense to me, I had to read twice to figure out that was the reason.

The DH reaction is most of it, but I also had problems with Seraphim's play earlier on.

34: I really don't like Seraph using random stage as a defence for craplogic. (+2)
36: wtf...Seraph backs off his vote because BM promises to de-FOS him. This just after he defended his vote despite its poor logic. (+2)

How is Der Hammer more useful than I am? Der Hammer has been doing the exact same thing as me, except he

1. has self-voted
2. has a miller claim
3. Attacked those who went on his wagon after he self-voted.

I'd like you to explain why each of 1-3 makes it a good idea to lynch DH.

Hi all.

Vote Yos

He clearly knows i'm town.

What?

[vollkan]

That's the whole idea of the role...

Um...no. By withholding results, he forces people to post their opinions in ignorance of what he knows. Doing so prevents scum from avoiding attacking a confirmed innocent/attacking a confirmed guillty, and gives us more content to run with.

As for who I suspect, my initial list is still a reliable guide, albeit Claus obviously is not suspected as the list would indicate, given his claim, and DH has increased given the events which came subsequent to my list.

[vollkan]

@Claus:

My suspicion of Sens comes from the early stuff I deal with in my first post; specifically his attack on Hoopla for the no lynch vote, and on other people for their tolerant response to it. The trouble here is that Sens has basically lurked all game. I'm uncomfortable judging him based on that early content which, whilst scummy, is effectively too small of a "sample space" (for want of better phrasing)

My Sobe suspicion began with the same issue as my Sens suspicion - although Sobe flatly contradicted himself by shifting position on NL. Additionally, there was a vote for BM later that ignored BM's main point, and a set of posts focussing on specific lurkers in isolation (DH and Shanba); the shanba one especially so because his accusation against Shanba was completely untrue

Against DH, I'd say Sobe and DH are relatively equal. Sensfan lower.

As for Tubby, he has elevated slightly, especially given the hypocrisy of attacking DH for being useless.

[vollkan]

I assume this was your question that I missed elmo:

Hey, Vollkan, have you ever considered having two numbers in your lists, one for scuminess and one for confidence? E.g. if you've got someone who's made one post at 65, that's maybe a bit different to someone who's posting frequently and has been at 65 all game. Battle Mage at 65 is different to PJ at 65. Etc. That's how I tend to think of people, anyway. (Okay, I have a third for "level of scrutiny required", but that'd be overdoing it.)

Interesting idea.

For my next list, I will try that. In addition to the scumminess ranking, I will give another number also between 1 and 100 reflecting my confidence in the scumminess ranking.

(FTR, a while ago I tried using a single number to express my expected probability of a person being scum, but it just didn't work for me, probably because it conflated behavioural scumminess and confidence)

[quote="Elmo"
p.s. why is iam scyummy?
[/quote]

I don't think I did say you were scummy...in fact I gave BM a 49.

p.p.s. did you not do another list yet or did I miss it? not like this game needs one... 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking 50 lurking etc.

I haven't done one yet. (And yeah, the lurking in this game is problematic)

And DH has requested replacement...hmm...As he said in an earlier post, he has requested it in other games, but he said he was happy to keep playing this one. I'm not inclined to treat his flaking as scummy, because I think it's more likely than not that his personal problems have spilled over here as well.

[vollkan]

Ugh...I thought I hit submit. I've lost a post.

Anyway, I was responding to Elmo and Claus's questions to me relating to Sobe/iama. In essence, I'd point you both to the first post I made, which outlines my reasons for suspecting iama.

Claus, you said Sobe struck you as more clueless than malicious. Have you read my arguments on Sobe?

[vollkan]

I like voting for dead town... not.

No lynching until claus-stump says he's ready to die.

I don't think there are two mafia groups. The "Florida" bit is just a red herring.

Vote: Xylthixlm

Hmm...the "Florida" thing could just be a red herring. In a game of this size, however, I think we have a better than avergae change of having two scum groups.

In any event, could you clarify what you think Xyl did that is scummy?

mag is much more worried about what I have on him than what anybody else thinks.

You just did the same thing in relation to Xyk - voting without any expressed reason as to why. People have every reason to be worried when somebody acts that way.

[vollkan]

I read Natirasha in isolation, and I feel confident in stating that tubby is not part of the Florida mafia.

Any specific reason?

[vollkan]

Unvote (if I am), Vote: Magisterrain

[vollkan]

The last time you made a post that contained

anything

besides a false promise of real content or complaining to Claus for not revealing his result immediately was on

December 4th

. That's over TWO MONTHS that you've contributed absolutely NOTHING to this game. This is something that needs to be dealt with before anything else.

Nice misrep on that one.

Anyways, iamusername, tubby, Ectomancer are all likely Scum imo.

Vote: tubby

Hmm? What's the misrepresenation in his post? (I'm not saying there isn't a misrep; I just can't see it)

What you didn't mention is that I was gone from the site for about 2-3 weeks in that timespan, that we've had two nights, and that we've had a day that lasted a little over a week (iirc) in which it would have been anti-Town to post any opinions on anything, since we had already decided who to lynch.

*shrug* Maybe this is just a semantic thing, but it more seems like you are saying that your lurking was reasonable than that there was a misrep. In any event, I am curious as to why you think posting anything would have been anti-town?

[vollkan]

Anyways, I went to go for a detailed analysis of tubby's posts so far, and I really couldn't. His posts are basically all one-liners, and there is a ton of OMGUS and other faulty logic.

A ton of OMGUS and faulty logic - and yet you aren't able to post more than a single sentence (yet alone ANYTHING on anybody else)...

Why does this feel like SensScum, as opposed to SensDoingAMassiveCatchUp?

Mainly the complete lack of a "MassiveCatchUp" part