California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)

[elmosaurian]

/confirm

[elmosaurian]

are you willing to lynch zwet this scene based on those statements then? if so, those are awful reasons.

This = scummy.

[elmosaurian]

People are scumhunting in the extremely early game, which is a good thing,and you seem to be jumping way ahead to "are you really willing to lynch him just for that?", which just seems odd; obviously no one is going to lynch yet, we can't anyway. So why are you trying to discourage people from scumhunting?

Also, as far as it goes, I think the attacks against Zwet make sense here. They're not especially strong, but they're logical.

[elmosaurian]

As a side note, I have no idea how I'm supposed to roleplay the angel Clarence Odbody from "it's a wonderful life" while trying to lynch someone.

[elmosaurian]

I'm still trying to get a grip on these game mechanics. Everyone should go read the rules though, like, 4 times, or something.

It sounds like...we'll be lynching off stage, and making decisions on stage. I would assume that people off-stage can't lynch people on-stage at the time. It also sounds the people on stage can't see the thread for the people off stage. The endgame section of the rules is really interesting; it seems like in the endgame, it'll come down to 2 scum and 5 innocents, and in the endgame either the town or the scum will have an advantage based on how many "right" or "wrong" choices we've made in the "on stage" phases. I think. I'm really still kind of fuzzy on how it all works, and honestly I'm a bit surprised no one else is discussing this.

If anyone who was in the first two California trilogy games could say how things went there, I'd be interested to hear it.

[elmosaurian]

(shrug) All the posts made so far by our hydra were made by me, Yosarian.

Don't really mind it now, but ftr, I'm not going to be singing posts in the on-camera thread.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

Lastly, the people On Camera should try to take as close to the 2 week maximum as possible as 3 days is definitely not enough to decide on a lynch, especially for the first couple of days.

Yeah, me and Elmo were just talking about that.

The people on-camera aren't going to know what's going on off-camera. I think a real, majority lynch is better for the town then a concordent thing, so people off-camera should do their best to get a real lynch off before the scene ends, and people on-camera should give the rest of us enough time to do so.

Also, it occured to us that we do have one way of communicating with people on camera. Zwet's job can post images on camera; we might want to figure out what they mean now before the scene starts. Like, a tortose might mean "slow down, we need more time", while a rabbit might mean "ok, we're done." Something like that.

[elmosaurian]

We've got 3 other pieces of information that we can pass on through zwetschenwasser and Mighty Orbots. What else do we want to be able to let the on camera people know?

Well, when we lynch someone and find out their alignment, that might be a useful thing for the on-camera people to know, since that could help them figure out if they should trust their advocate or not, if they're keeping careful notes about this thread and who they thing might be connected to who. That's be a pretty simple thing to communicate; all you'd need is a picture of their avatar, and then either a picture of an angel for "good guy" or a picture of a demon for "bad guy".

[elmosaurian]

As far as I can tell, the choice we make On-Camera will be largely random, and will

not necessarily enable us to find and kill scum

.

Have you checked the "Endgame" section under the Rules?

Confusing game is confusing. Not going to be useful until at least Tuesday, sorry!

Elmo

[elmosaurian]

MafiaJin: To confirm, you did copy down all of Zorblag's codes and what they mean, right? You have those written down somewhere, and aren't going to forget them once you can't see this thread anymore, right?

[elmosaurian]

We've got 3 other pieces of information that we can pass on through zwetschenwasser and Mighty Orbots. What else do we want to be able to let the on camera people know?

Well, when we lynch someone and find out their alignment, that might be a useful thing for the on-camera people to know, since that could help them figure out if they should trust their advocate or not, if they're keeping careful notes about this thread and who they thing might be connected to who. That's be a pretty simple thing to communicate; all you'd need is a picture of their avatar, and then either a picture of an angel for "good guy" or a picture of a demon for "bad guy".

I agree. The cameraman should probably preserve their pictures for this.

Sadly, I was wrong about this, mith corrected my misunderstanding last page. We don't find out the alignments until the end of the day, so it dosn't matter; we won't have that kind of information to send to the on-camera people.

-Yos

(last post was me as well)

[elmosaurian]

I agree that Day 1 is the most important day and it is not random at all. It's like the first few moves in chess.

I disagree that we should not use Condorcet. Scum lists are often very revealing, and the Condorcet votes are exactly like a scum list. We can use it to ensnare scumbuddies, once we've caught a live one.

I do not think we want it to ever come down to a condorcet vote, though; a regular majority is much more informative, and much less, well, random. We should do a "real" majority lynch every day, I think.

-Yos

Tag fixed. - Mod

[elmosaurian]

Elmo/Yos: keep in mind, also, that if we get the scums down to 2, they will automatically be put in their "worst possible" endgame setup. There is EVERY incentive to keep Scumhunting as your top priority. Trying to make good decisions On-Camera is a fine and dandy backup plan, but it should NEVER take precedence over trying to kill the scums off.

Honestly, I don't even see why this is up for debate. I haven't seen a single person actually make a case as to why On-Camera decisions would be more important than killing scumbags, yet I've had three people question or disagree with me on this point. I would LOVE to see some counterpoints if you folks have them.

I'm not sure why you're directing this at us; we never said otherwise. Plus, good scumhunting, getting an idea of who to trust and who not to trust, will help with the on-camera decisions anyway.



-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Vote: Elmosaurian

, [Peoples], No Lynch, Gaspar

Any specific reason for that vote?

Also, is that a valid format of the vote? I assume you just voted us, then everyone else, then no lynch, then you, correct?

[elmosaurian]

Also, not sure about the MafiaJin hate, gasper. Is it just because he put himself on camera? You may be right that off-camera is more important then on-camera (honestly, we don't really have enough information to be sure about that), but either way, it's not like there was a consencuss on that when he picked the roles.

In other news, in the on camera thread, curiouskarmadog seems to be giving the town pretty clear information about which is the right and wrong way to go. It'll be interesting to see if the other advocate goes along with that or not, but unless both advocates are scum, I doubt he's lying. Which makes me wonder about all the people who seem to doubt him, unless they're just role-playing; it's hard to tell.

-Yos

P.S. I am going to be away for the weekend, and Elmo already said he'll be gone until Tuesday, so I guess we're going to be V/LA for a few days.

[elmosaurian]

Talillan 119

advocate(s) chosen by scum for subsequent scenes. They will still get the useful information whether they be scum or town. They are kind of like a weird version of night-kill choices for the scum.

Your word choice here seems to imply you know that scum don't have night kills. I just reread the rules (again. . .) and I couldn't find anything to suggest this. I don't like using slips anymore ( I used to really like them, but have recently found them to not work well) to find scum, but this one looks better than most.

I would actually hazard a guess that there probably are scum kills, or some kind of kills anyway. The rules seem to imply that it's possible we might get down to 5 pro-town people before round 7, and I'm not sure how that would be possible if there was just one lynch a day and no kills (unless there's, like, 9 scum or something out of 20 people in this game, which seems improbable.)

Yos

[elmosaurian]

Gaspar, I think the second point was directed at you: He was saying that

you

were ignoring one of the potential win conditions. I disagree on this point in the sense that our win condition isn't determined by what happens in any one thread but a combination of the two.

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting the phrase "win condition." Go to your role PM and look at the last line. It says, in bold, "Win Condition:" then lists your role's win condition. Better yet, go look at the very end of this post. It describes, word-for-word, the Innocent

win condition

. Saijin said that I'm ignoring "a win condition" which means he is apparently dealing with a win condition other than the standard Innocent win conditon.

This is why he needs to explain himself or die.

That wasn't how I read his post, but I'm not interested in defending him at the moment, so I guess we'll wait until he can answer the question for himself.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

If you don't mind my answering this question that is not addressed to me, I would say that if MafiaJin flips scum, at least one of the three people he took with him is scum, with nearly 100% certainty. Quite possibly exactly one.

Players chosen at random have closer to 1/3 chance of being scum than 2/3 chance of being scum. So there is no reason not to take a buddy along with him, if he were town, chances are pretty good that's what he'd end up with choosing a scum randomly anyway. Why waste that opportunity of bringing a buddy of his choice along, while keeping within the confines of what he would have done by chance? I am sure that opportunity was taken.

If he flips scum, and the players decide to examine which players he brought along with him, the chances of the town hitting scum among the players he brought with him are, again if choosing at random, nearly the same as if the town was choosing among the rest of the players, removing any advantage for the town to start lynching those players. That's because with bringing one buddy, the chances are 1/3, which is quite close to what it is among the remaining players.

Now I don't know if the MafiaJin hydra is a maverick risk taker in general. But that's what he'd need to be to have the guts to take 2/3 buddies along with him. If he's lynched and flips scum, the town will be shooting fish in a barrel. Players with better understanding of the members of this hydra will be able to make a better guess than me.

-DGB

DGB, I'm not really clear on your thinking here. Why is it you think scum would want members of their scum team on-camera? I could see scum going either way; scum on camera can't get lynched, but more scum off camera means they get more influince over the lynch. I don't really think the day 1 on camera decision should be at all hard for the town people on camera to get right, considering there are two advocates and all that, so I don't really think getting more or less scum votes on camera are likely to matter.

-Yos.

[elmosaurian]

On a side note, this comment, on camera, is kind of worrying.

If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.

Pro-town people can choose to flip and become scum at certain points? Really?

Ugh. We're going to have to keep an eye out for that, especially if someone advocates for a position that turns out to be "wrong".

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Also, Panzer sounds honestly confused in the on-camera thread here, in a way that I don't think a scum would be. I think he's probably town.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

On a side note, this comment, on camera, is kind of worrying.

If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.

Pro-town people can choose to flip and become scum at certain points? Really?

Both advocates are voting to follow Valentine Wiggin. CKD is probably being truthful about changing alignment. But which alignment? WIFOM here I come.

I'm not sure what you mean there.

I would guess that both advocates are probably telling the truth about which choice is the "good" choice. Which doesn't necessarily say anything about their alignment; if a scum became an advocate on day 1, it'd probably be in his or her best interest to tell the truth rather then lie, since lying about that on day 1 is a surefire way to get caught and there's still a big chance the town won't listen to you anyway.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Elmosaurian, I get that they are probably both saying the truth about defending the "good choice." But are they both advocating in favor of the choice that is "good for scum" or "good for town?" Or am I missing something.

This is my understanding of what's going on.

There are two choices, a "good" choice (helps the town in endgame) and a "bad" choice (helps the scum in endgame).

It seems that both advocates were given quite clear and unambiguas information from the mod about which choice was which.

Also, at the end of the scene, it appears that the mod will tell us if the choice picked was the "good" one or the "bad" one.

So, if a town person is the advocate, the course of action is simple; just tell the truth, and help town pick the right choice, and you get the town a little closer to winning. *

If a scum person is the advocate, then they have two options. They could tell the truth, or they could lie. If they lie, then there is a high chance you won't be believed (because the other advocate will be telling the truth, if he is town), and no matter if you are belived or not, town will find out you were lying at the end of the scene and will lynch you next chance they get.

If both advocates are scum, they could both lie to the town, in which case the town makes the wrong choice, but at the price of the town then catching 2 scum in the process; a very high cost to the scum, plus the odds of both advocates being scum if randomally chosen seems really small.

So, honestly, I think that even if a scum is the advocate, or even if two scum are both advocates, they would still probably tell the truth on day 1, unless they thought the payoff of getting the town to make the wrong on-camera choice was much bigger then the cost of getting lynched, which I would tend doubt at this stage of the game.

*one complicating factor here is the whole "oppurtunity to change alignments" thing here CKD is talking about. It's possible that a pro-town person might decide that even though it'll get him lynched, he'd rather lie in order to try and change alignments, for whatever reason. Not that likely, not a very logical move, but possible, and we need to watch out for that. However, since both advocates are in agreement here, I'm pretty sure that's not happening.

[elmosaurian]

Also note that all that only applies to the day 1 scene. In future scenes, where the scum pick the advocate and where there is only 1, and where there are multiple choices (and it sounds like the scum also get to pick what the outcome of each choice is, if I'm reading the rules correctly), it gets more complicated, and rather WIFOM-tastic.

Also, for that reason, not only do the advocates have information, so do any scum on camera. So that's something to look out for; we need to keep an eye out for any on-camera people who seem to know more then they should, because they're probably scum.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

And, on that note, Talian's on camera stuff looks pretty scummy to me. He really seems to be trying to confuse what should be a simple decision, with posts like this:

follows John Locke onto the bus to have a quiet word

The decision, Mr Locke, is whether to have you drive knowing that either you are lying now or you will defect to the enemy, then dispose of you at the next opportunity.

Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one who

knows

but has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.

You act the martyr but wouldn't the truly noble action be to drive, knowing that we

will

have to kill you?
WWWSD? What would Will Smith do?

That post dosn't really make any sense to me at all; I'm pretty sure if Panzer drives he's not going to turn scum, that's probably just part of the cost to the town of picking the wrong decision. Plus it sounds like he's trying to make it sound like we're going to "eventually need to lynch CKD" which dosn't make any sense at all; if he's telling the truth, which I suspect he is, then he dosn't turn scum if he dosn't drive.

It's possible that Tallion just dosn't know what's going on, or that he's just trying to gather information or something, but it really just sounds to me like random BS thown around by a scum to try to muddy the issue and trick the town.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Yeah, I agree with you about Hewitt; he's basically trying to make the same arguemnt Talilan is, which oddly is to apparenlty believe CKD but still say "but if we make the other choice, the consequences might be even worse!". And that just dosn't make any sense, and is the exact opposite of what both advocates are telling them.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

I thought they already established that there's one good and one bad choice.

Well, that does seem to be obvious from the rules, but in the other thread Talilan and Hewitt seem to either not understand that, or else seem to be delibartly trying to confuse the issue.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

By the way, Zwet, img tags aren't allowed off stage, but it looks like url tags are allowed off stage, if I'm reading the rules right. You could just post the url of the image here, and we can look at it and comment on it.

[elmosaurian]

elmosaurian has spent the entire game doing game mechanics discussion and commenting on the on-camera thread. I believe this is called active lurking.

I believe you don't know what "active lurking" is if you think I've been doing it. I know we can't lynch Talilan today, but I'm still pretty sure I've all ready caught a scum. Anyway, especally considering we've both been V/LA for basically the entire day, I think we've made a hell of a lot of contributions so far.

[elmosaurian]

Why must you look so scummy while zorblog looks so town?

Your whole % thing is crap, and I think you know that. More content is better, posting a lot of posts on game mechaincs is a pro-town act, especally in a game where the game mechanics are so completly useless.

I confirmed 5 days ago. For 2 of those days, I was V/LA, and Elmo has been V/LA for longer then that. In the 3 days I was here, just going by your lists, I count 5 posts discussing people's alignments. Considering that a significant portion of that was pregame anyway, and I think I've contributed a hell of a lot, more then many people who have been here the whole time.

Also, your discription of my post seems delibratly designed to misrepresent me. In post #2, you make a big point of how I "don't explain my vote on cowfrog", and yet you completyl ignore that the entire poitn of my post # 3 was to explain why cowfrog was being scummy there, and just inaccuratly discribe it as "fensesitting on zwet". Did you completly miss the point there, or was that a delibrate misrepresentation?

Argh. So frustrating to be accused of being a "active lurker" considering how much damn time I've been spending on this game.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

EBWOP: That third sentance should have read "...especally in a game where the game mechaincs are so compeltly confusing".

[elmosaurian]

Why must you look so scummy while zorblog looks so town?

I'd assume that's because I want to vote you but Troll wants to vote someone else.

No. Troll looks town to me because his game mechanics analysis, his discussion of codes, and his analysis of the on-camera stuff all looks really pro-town and useful to me. You look scummy because you're attacking me for doing game mechanics analysis, discussion of codes, and analysis of on-camera stuff, all of which I believe are pro-town things to do.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

Yeah, I should vote for someone here.

KY Krew seems scummy/useless here. He's a hydra, as far as I know neither one has been V/LA, and they haven't done anything all game. His only revelent post was to call Mighty Orbots scum for...questioning Glork's comment that he's "100% confirmed", and saying a post of mine was "forced" for some vauge reason. And that's it. One, confirm post, two useless posts, and the one post that has content looks odd and scummy to me.

On my other suspicions...I've got kind of a bad gut feeling about Gasper right now. I can't really explain it, but he seems off, feels more like scum-Glork then town-Glork. I don't really like the way he's scumhunting, and I'm unconvinced about and unsatisfied with his attack and focus on MafiaJin. Talking to Elmo now and he also has a bad feeling about Glork.

Zwet and Bagel Eating Cowfrog are slightly scummier then par, and I think Thok and Zorblog are slightly townier then par.

PPE: Actually, I was going to put Thok under [everyone else], but Elmo's not as confident about Thok as I am, so I'll move him back up to the main pack.

-Yos

Vote:KY Krew

, Gasper, Zwet, Bagel Eating Cowfrog, [everyone else], Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, elmosaurian.

[elmosaurian]

I do realize it's a condorcet system, but I don't like voting unless I'm hammering. It works for me.

That's a really anti-town "policy" to have. Especially in a game like this, where we might have a lynch without a hammer vote at all.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

I find Yos's use of meta more amusing than anything else, considering I haven't looked at a mafia game in, what... over five months?

Yeah, well, that last game we played together I had a gut feeling you were scum there as well, and didn't follow up on it as much as I should have. We all know how that turned out, heh. My suspicions on you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your

Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.

On a side note, I am pleased to see that Elmo was wrong about you; he was sure you were going to OMGUS us right away for that, hehe.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

EBWOP: Also, I completely disagree with your listing of Shanba/Dahill/Hascow. I find them distinctly protown, based on what I've seen from dahill and what I know I saw in him when I played scum with him in the past.

I mentioned this earlier; dahill's early overreaction to DGB's suspicions of zwet seemed strange to me. The way he moved his vote to Zwet later after defending him against DBG's origional attacks seems odd, as well, and I'm not completly clear why he did it. None of that is a huge deal, but it's enough to put them just above "background scumminess levels" in my mind, so I put them just above the "everyone else" group.

[elmosaurian]

Also, I really don't understand why KY krew is getting at in their last post; if you could explain what you mean a little more clearly, explain why you think Mighty Orbots is scum and perhaps talk about his play in general this game and what you think about it, it might help me get a better read on you guys.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.

Funny you should say that, considering I haven't mentioned MafiaJin in over two pages.

Um

I'm not nearly as sure about Krew, Jin, or Talilan as I am about MafiaJin being scum, but I'd be willing to throw down a Day One lynch on any of the four, really.

This was only two posts before my vote, glork. What do you mean you "hadn't mentioned mafiajin in 2 pages?"

Even when you talked about your suspicions on other people, you still seemed to be focusing on mafiajin in a way that seemed strange to me; the way you worded that post, I wonder if you were setting up for something like this tommorow: "Well, I was wrong about X being scum, but that's ok because I was more sure about mafiajin the whole time, vote:mafiajin".

But hey. If you want to ignore others' lack of contribution in favor of accusing me of focusing too much on MafiaJin, that's cool.

Actually, my vote for inhim was partly based on lack of contribution. I'll always go after lurkers, but I'm also going to go after people who I find scummy for other reasons.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

I also didn't like Talilan's suggestion of "well we could have Locke drive, then just kill Locke." While the argument of "we will lynch known scum" is technically true, it is far better to keep a town than to turn him into a scumbag and kill him. In that discussion (especially this post), Talilan posits that both Valentine and Locke have been given equal choices... which is stupid, because we are explicitly told that one choice is Good, while the other choices is Bad. The outcomes of the decision must necessarily be different, yet Talilan posits them as being the same.

This, though, I agree with. Plus, Talilan also seems to be ignoring the fact that making the wrong choice on thread now will not only turn someone scum, it also would do something that will hurt town in endgame. At least, that's my reading of the rules; I really don't think the alignment of one player is the only thing riding on this decision.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Posting to avoid getting a 72 hour warning. Will catch up now.

[elmosaurian]

WOOOOOOOO

:throws confetti:

That's an impressive hydra. Ok, guys, I'm expecting you to have caught all the scum by the time I finish getting caught up.

Quote removed. Don't quote the mod. - Mod

[elmosaurian]

Therefore, I am very skeptical about Valentine for not giving any information, and I have to wonder (i) if there is some gag order in play, or (ii) if Valentine would rather avoid being shown to be a liar by not saying anything. There is no point in being an

Advocate

without any information, and I think Valentine has information that is not being shared.

All the rules say is that "the advocate will have some information that will be helpful in making the decision." It wouldn't surprise me if all the information Velentine has is "X is the right choice", that would make perfect sense. I don't think the advocates would generally know everything.

[elmosaurian]

6. Overall, I dislike elmosaurian’s focus on mechanics and attempted justification for thinking mechanics-based posts are protown.

Mechanics based posts are pro-town in a situation where the mechanics are this confusing.

I mean, the rules for the on-camera thread apparently completely confused YOU, PJ, and I know how closely you read the rules. They confused me, too. I doubt anyone fully understood them on the first readthrough, or the second, or the third. If we hadn't taken the time to figure out game mechanics, we'd totally be up the creek without a paddle here.

Anyway, while I did discuss mechanics for a while, I certainly have been scumhunting lately.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

That said, I actually do think now that the Town should choose to follow Valentine. If the consequence of that is very clearly

bad

, then I think it is safe to assume that at least John Locke is probably lying scum, and that there is a good chance that Valentine was scum squeezed into a situation where the best thing to do was to say pretty much nothing that could catch her in a lie. I think if the consequence of following Valentine is bad, a rebuttal would be along the lines of "Yes that was bad, but clearly not

as

bad as John Locke switching alignments."

Uh...the only way the consequence could possibly be bad is if they're both lying scum. That seems so unlikely to me at this point, I'm not really sure why you're even considering it.

[elmosaurian]

OK, so I've botched things up pretty royally.

When I was agreeing with Valentine Wiggin driving, I was using some extra information. In my attempts to be more productive, I've been reviewing all my information, and have found, to my chagrin, I was mixing up my information.

You may recall an earlier post where I stated ckd will have to be lynched. That was from my initial read with this extra information fresh in my brain. My initial plan was to jump in and correct everything after I'd given my share of scumhunting, which I also noted in that post.

Somehow, in the shuffle of me feeling pressure to post every day, this information got shuffled as well.

I HAVE to get onstage in time to relay this information and help the town On Camera vote correctly.

...what?

That dosn't really make any sense at all.

We don't have that much time left before deadline...I really wonder if this was a scum-KY's attempt to just dodge the lynch bullet for a day.

In any case, he sent Talilan back to us. Talilan was one of my main suspects, and I guess he still is, but if KY is scum, I doubt he'd send us a scum buddy of his to lynch.

Talilan, I hope to hear your opinion soon.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

So, I guess you're just not going to respond to the reasons I suspect you then? And instead just accuse me of being scum just because I'm...attacking someone you claim to suspect? And that somehow makes you think I must be his buddy? And of course it has nothing to do with the fact I've been attacking you, right?

Yeah, I think I was right the first time, Talilan is scum. Shouldn't have let myself get all WIFOMy about it.

Vote:Talilan, Gasper, Begel, Zwet, [everyone], Goofballs, Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, Elmosaurian.

-Yos

Tags removed. Only votes at the end of the post are counted. - Mod

[elmosaurian]

Who are you attacking whom I suspect? Gaspar? Yes, that's busing(/distancing, whichever lingo you prefer), as I already explained.

The only reason you gave for suspecting me was a vauge claim that my attack on Gasper was "distancing" for vauge reasons, and that's just an incredibly weak and scummy reason to vote someone. It's especally bad since you're apparently rating me and Gasper at the same level of scumminess, which dosn't make any sense at all; if your only reason for suspecting me is based on you thinking I'm linked with him, then it would be absurd for you to want to lynch me for that before him.

Neah, I'm pretty sure that the only reason you're accusing me and Gasper of being scum together is that we were both attacking you.

What reasons you suspect me have I failed to respond to?

...all of them?

Have you read this thread?

It started here:

And, on that note, Talian's on camera stuff looks pretty scummy to me. He really seems to be trying to confuse what should be a simple decision, with posts like this:

follows John Locke onto the bus to have a quiet word

The decision, Mr Locke, is whether to have you drive knowing that either you are lying now or you will defect to the enemy, then dispose of you at the next opportunity.

Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one who

knows

but has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.

You act the martyr but wouldn't the truly noble action be to drive, knowing that we

will

have to kill you?
WWWSD? What would Will Smith do?

That post dosn't really make any sense to me at all; I'm pretty sure if Panzer drives he's not going to turn scum, that's probably just part of the cost to the town of picking the wrong decision. Plus it sounds like he's trying to make it sound like we're going to "eventually need to lynch CKD" which dosn't make any sense at all; if he's telling the truth, which I suspect he is, then he dosn't turn scum if he dosn't drive.

It's possible that Tallion just dosn't know what's going on, or that he's just trying to gather information or something, but it really just sounds to me like random BS thown around by a scum to try to muddy the issue and trick the town.

-Yos

Then here:

I thought they already established that there's one good and one bad choice.

Well, that does seem to be obvious from the rules, but in the other thread Talilan and Hewitt seem to either not understand that, or else seem to be delibartly trying to confuse the issue.

Yos

And here

I also didn't like Talilan's suggestion of "well we could have Locke drive, then just kill Locke." While the argument of "we will lynch known scum" is technically true, it is far better to keep a town than to turn him into a scumbag and kill him. In that discussion (especially this post), Talilan posits that both Valentine and Locke have been given equal choices... which is stupid, because we are explicitly told that one choice is Good, while the other choices is Bad. The outcomes of the decision must necessarily be different, yet Talilan posits them as being the same.

This, though, I agree with. Plus, Talilan also seems to be ignoring the fact that making the wrong choice on thread now will not only turn someone scum, it also would do something that will hurt town in endgame. At least, that's my reading of the rules; I really don't think the alignment of one player is the only thing riding on this decision.

-Yos

Why was the OMGUS so unashamedly swift?

I don't know; why was your OMGUS vote of me so unashamedly swift?

[elmosaurian]

- We never announced any intention of going through with a vote for Locke to drive.

I never said you did. As I said, it seemed like you were doing your best to confuse the issue, when it seemed fairly steightfoward.

- We had no access to the off-camera thread to see e.g. Thok's opinion that mith would never directly lie to players.

That's not really a defense here.

All the information that you needed was in the rules, which was in your thread. There were only two paragraphs located under the "on camera" thing, in the rules that were in your thread, and it very clearly states in there that some choices are good and that some are bad; you kept saying stuff to try to make everyone else think that both choices were bad, and you should have known better.

It also makes the same thing clear in the "endgame" section of the rule, where it makes clear that the kind of endgame we get is based on how many "good" and "bad" choices the town makes.

Plus, we had already started to discuss this in thread while you were here, before the scene started.

- We asked for a spot poll of those outside the thread on whether we should trust Locke, which defers our decision to other people. It really is astonishing that you can still pretend to find us scummy after actions such as this. But you're welcome to try and explain how this fits in with your Talilan-as-scum theory.

? So, you are trying to claim that you "asking for a spot poll" somehow proves you town, to the degree that anyone who doubts you must be scum?

- There was the additional point made in the thread from memory which seemed generally agreed with that the advocates would be stupid to lie as scum, because afterwards it would be transparent and they would get lynched. If so it seems equally bad if not worse play as scum, to, if one is not an advocate oneself, single-handedly argue against both what the advocates advocate

Nope. If an advocate lies, then we know he's scum. Someone who's not an advocate, though; well, it does look scummy when they argue the wrong way, obviously (that's why you look scummy here), but it gives you a little more wiggle room (like you're trying to use here.) This is such an absurd WIFOM argument, it's basically "I wouldn't do something scummy if I was scum because then I'd look scummy"

And you are welcome to explain why you weren't attempting to distance from Gaspar in post 305.

(nods) Yeah, you're scum, lol.

Person X: "I think person Y is scummy"

Person Z: "YOU ARE DISTANCING FROM PERSON Y! NOW PROVE THAT YOU'RE NOT!"

I mean, seriously, wtf?

Tag fixed. - Mod

[elmosaurian]

Yos' vague pre-emptive asserion that Glork's play was off (when it was obvious at least to us coming back in the thread),

I'm pretty sure I was the only person attacking Glork for that at the time. Baiscally, I was the first one to point out that his play looks off. If you agree with me, then you sure as hell shouldn't be voting me for saying that, unless you're scum and don't really care.

his failure to finish a crucial line in Post 315 which looks like he was trying to think of a valid reason to post rather than giving an honest response

That's really, really silly.

I was jumping up and down when writing that post, and then I didn't preview it before I submitted it, so there was an editing error, a half-sentence that either shouldn't have been there or was left unfinished by mistake. I can't believe you're seriously trying to use such an obvious editing error as proof that "I was distancing from Glork"..

and the fact Yos was in this game when I posted 415 but failed to respond to it having simply laid down a scummy vote for us with no reasoning

I've been explaining all day why I suspected you. I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself before I voted you, as I made clear in my earlier post. You failed to do so, so I voted you. I don't like not voting for someone when the day could suddenly end at any moment, so I wasn't planning on waiting long.

; posted in other games; then came back and posted in other games but still didn't respond to us are all scummy.

...wait...I'm scummy for...posting in other games?

Are you scum, or are you stupid?

[elmosaurian]

I concur with you in that it doesn't seem bad play to just take ckd at his word, allow him to drive the bus then lynch him. At least we guarantee the lynch of scum- because either he's become scum or he already was scum and was lying.

This is why you are scum.

No town would ever be ok with taking a pro-town person and then turning them into scum just so we could lynch them. Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.

[elmosaurian]

Pretty sure I have never articulated this to ortolan, but when I made the suggestion to Locke that he drive and we lynch him as a matyr - it was as much about getting a reaction/read on him as anything, because I didn't quite trust his matyr act (he was saying that choosing not to lead would get him killed by scum, but that he had to do it anyway).

Uh, when did he say that?

Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

Quick post: Gaspar, do you believe the Advocates were truly chosen at random? If so, what would you say if a [Something Else] received John Locke's offer to turn scum?

This is one of the things that makes me think there is a strong chance that John Locke is lying. For the record, though, I have already asked Mr. Grey if "random" means

truly

random, and he refused to give me an answer. But I don't see how a Something Else "turning" into a Non-Innocent is really a

bad

thing if it is also

announced to the Town

; all that would really do is tell us somebody who was already scum to begin with.

Put another way: I think that if there is an On Screen that is only bad on the contingency that the offer is made to a Townsperson, then that does not seem to be something that Mr. Grey can call

objectively "bad"

.

PJ: I doubt that is the *only* consequence of making the wrong choice.

For one thing, the rules pretty clearly state that making the wrong choice hurts the town in endgame; and one could argue that having a pro-town person turn scum now dosn't actually (numerically) change the endgame situation, since the endgame will be 5 town 2 scum no matter what. It's obviously bad for other reasons, but I don't think it fufuls the requirements for the "bad outcome".

No, I think there is some other negative effect of making the wrong choice; something that changes the endgame in a way that makes it worse for town (which could be any number of things). It also sounds like, if they're telling the truth, that neither advocate was actually told what this effect is, only what the right and wrong choices were.

If 25% of the people in the game are town, then the odds of both advocate being scum are only 1/16, if they're chosen at random. mith could easily have set it up so if only one was town, he would have the 'option' to turn scum by getting the town to make the wrong choice; probably with a contingency for what would happen if they were both scum. Frankly, it makes sense to me; since the odds of both advocates being scum on day 1 are so small, and since any advocate who lies will get caught, there would normally be very little drama about the day 1 choice; giving a pro-town advocate the option to convince the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum actually makes it a lot more interesting. Plus, it's not really something I see a scum faking.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Ah, that's why I'm not voting; I typed my vote in and then did my sig, so it didn't count.

Vote:Talilan,

Gasper, Begel, Zwet, [everyone], Goofballs, Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, Elmosaurian.

[elmosaurian]

Uh, when did he say that?

Yikes, were you actually reading the other thread at all?

I was given a choice. I do not take it lightly. For this choice, dooms me I am sure. I am sure this choice will make the guilty angry and the innocent stronger. My time with you will probably be short, but know that what I do, I believe is right and just.

probably will be my doom.
If a petal dies, does the flower not live on?

If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.

I am chosing a harder road...to stay innocent. Not the biggest sacrfice I have ever made, but a hard one to be sure.

I assume They know this. I also think I will pay for it.

If I drive, the sun will indeed grow hotter, if I dont, most likely I will just fall off the flower.

As you see, the easier road, would have been to except the offer and try to coerce you to let me drive….to lead…or to not say anything at all and let the pieces fall as they may.

As I have said before, I chose a different…harder road.

Um...none of that actually said that him not driving kills him. It's a little hard to tell because of all the flowery language, but I thought he was just assuming the scum will NK him now.

Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.

The only people who have given reasons are you and Gaspar. If your case is so strong and logical, why is no-one else buying what you're selling? (I cannot for the life of me figure out what reasoning you've given that hasn't been explained more than adequately).

Tal

(shrug) If there are 2 options, one good and one bad, and scum have a strong inherent advantage from getting the town to pick the bad option, then when I see someone who seems to be trying to manipulate the town into taking what pretty clearly seems to be the bad options for reasons that make no sense to me and seem just factually wrong, it makes me think they're more likely to be scum.

I think that's pretty obvious, and whatever your alignment is, I'm not sure why you would have trouble understanding why that makes you look more suspicious.

It's even worse when it sounds like you're ok with CKD turning scum so long as we lynch him afterwords; that just seems really scummy to me.

Now, you did later change your mind in thread and start pushing toward the other (I'm assuming "good") option instead, but by that point, it was arguably pretty clear that the town was going that way no matter what you said.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

If both advocates are lying or one or both has misleading information, then we have the worst possible outcome. We still don't know if ckd is scum or town. We still don't know if Panzerjager is scum or town.

The odds of both advocates being scum is tiny. Like I said, if 1/4 of the people in the game are scum (about normal), and both advocates were chosen at random, then there's only a 1 in 16 chance they're both scum.

The odds that both advocates are scum and lying is even lower, since if they were both scum they still might want to give the town the correct advice anyway in order to avoid being caught lying.

Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.

Source for this?

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i)

why

I think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii)

why

Valentine is being so vague.

Currently, I am going to be On Screen tomorrow so I won't be around to shout about this tomorrow. I would be monstrously unhappy if nobody at least talked about this tomorrow because nobody bothers to think about it.

Valentine's latest post was the following:

I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, but I think the one thing you fail to take into account is that

I could have not, and did not, received as much information as Locke

. This why

I have chosen to stay quiet

because

I believe in what I was told

and I believe that Locke is telling the truth.

If he isn't, than it was truly brilliant play to get what he wanted

, but that doesn't help the rest of us and

I KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself.

Seriously.

1. Valentine 'believes what [she] was told,' but 'did not receive as much information as Locke'. However, Valentine still hasn't bothered to

tell us

what she was told. This unequivocally asserts that Valentine was told

something

.

Valentine did claim to have tell us what she was told:

My recommendation would be that I should drive, for I was meant to lead. I didn't receive any information about "Locke" or what would happen if he would drive. I was concerned because he so willingly want me to drive.

It's possible that he knows more then that, but I also think it's entirely possible that that's all the information he got from the mod.

3. Valentine "believes that John Locke is telling the truth" but also concedes that his play is "brilliant" if he is lying to 'get what he wants' (i.e. Valentine to drive). By the way, this directly shoots down elmosaurian's theory that Valentine was simply told "John Locke's choice is the [bad] choice," or something to that effect. In fact, Valentine continually leaves open the possibility that

her

choice is, in fact, the [bad] choice by saying "I KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself."

Hmm...that's true.

I'm not sure how much of that is roleplaying or whatever; there's a possible bonus for good roleplaying, so that makes it hard to tell. But it could be he knows something else; it sounds like he's implying that he's at risk of being killed if he drives; which is interesting, since CKD might have been saying that there's a risk of him dying if he dosn't drive, or something.

elmosaurian, technical discussion are only

necessary

to a certain extent; they are not inherently pro-town.

I fail to see the distinction. A pro-town action is an action that helps the town, and technical discussions help the town a great deal here, I think.

Focusing on discussion of mechanics is just a way to contribute without actually giving opinions on the players.

Well, that would be valid, if I had not given opinions on players. That's just not true though.

Your complaint about being called an active lurker while spending "so much time on this damned game" also did not feel genuine to me; it did not have the 'ring' of being sincere.

Well, you need to re-calibrate your "sincere ring" then, lol. I posted like 27 times in 3 days, wasted way too much of my last few summer vacation days on this thread, and to be called a lurker (or an "active lurker") after that pissed me off.

Also, I agree with Talilan on at least one point: finish your sentence about Gaspar.

Everything that I was originality going to say there ended up in the next paragraph instead.

Yeah, well, that last game we played together I had a gut feeling you were scum there as well, and didn't follow up on it as much as I should have. We all know how that turned out, heh. My suspicions on you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your

Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.

It was going to be something like "my suspicious of you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your attacks on mafiajin seem really weak and less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started...", ect, or something. I ended up breaking that off and putting that into a separate paragraph instead, and then didn't go back and delete the original sentence like I should have.

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

elmosaurian, I don't

care

that the odds of both Advocates being scum are theoretically "tiny." That's like me listing two people I think are scum, and being rebutted with "but the odds of

both

of them being scum are tiny."

I basically started off the day assuming that if both advocates say the same thing on day 1, we can assume they're telling the truth and that that choices is the correct choice. If something has more then a 90% chance of being true in a mafia game, I generally will just assume it's true.

And, anyway, if they're both lying, then we lynch them both; probably a good trade for the town anyway.

I don't care about statistics. I care about whether I think somebody is scummy, and I think both John Locke and Valentine fit that bill. Period.

I'm pretty sure CKD is town and telling the truth; he's making sense to me, and it's not the kind of lie I would expect a scum to tell, especially for no obvious gain. I'm not convinced of Panzer's alignment; no real read on him at the moment. I'm pretty sure that the option they're both pointing to is the correct one, though.

However, there clearly needs to be a new definition in mafia.

We have, in some rank:
Scummy
Anti-Town
Neutral/Null
Pro-Town
[Townish?]

I think mechanics discussion is necessary and generally ‘helps’ the town, but I do not think it makes a person who discusses mechanics any more

likely

to be town. So I suppose I would agree in a sense that it is neutral to “pro-town” in that it is necessary (as I said before) and needs to be done in order to avoid confusion at a critical moment.

Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.

I never claimed you did not eventually get to scum-hunting; I just very much did not like your implication that because you were discussing mechanics that you (and others who may have been acting similarly) were likely to be town. I guess you might have meant to only mean “pro-town” in the “necessary” sense and not in the “townish” sense, but that is certainly not how I read your post, and reading your post again it still seems like you meant “Townish.”

I'm still not sure why there needs to be a distinction; if an action is pro-town (IE: it's an action that helps the town and increases the town's chances of winning; the opposite of anti-town), then I don't think it can be scummy, because it's something a pro-town player should be doing.

I guess it's theoretically possible for a pro-town action to also be a scumtell, but that would only happen with a really screwed up meta and consistent bad play on the part of pro-town players

[elmosaurian]

Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.

Certain types of emotional response are townish but not pro-town, I would argue.

But this is slightly tangential.

- Shanba

Townish but not pro-town, I can see. But pro-town but not (at least slightly) townish, I can't.

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.

Well, then this adds a new layer. John Locke's choice, even if it does flip his alignment, might still be the "good" choice in that it helps the town in endgame.

Well, they're both claiming that the "correct" choice is that Panzer drive. Panzer is "supposed to lead". I assume that means they're both claiming role information that says panzer driving is the "good" choice.

From my point of view, it's basically like 2 people both claiming at the same time that they both have role information that says person X is scum; they COULD be lying, but it's pretty damn unlikely.

As for your theory...umm. I guess it's possible that he was given the choice "either stay pro-town and hurt the town, or turn scum and help the town", but I doubt it. That would be kind of an icky choice; I'm not sure how you could "play to your win condition" in a situation like that. Neah; what he's claiming, that he could either help the town make the right choice and stay pro-town, or get the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum, makes more sense to me then the alternative you're suggesting.

[elmosaurian]

On a side note, I wonder if scum can daytalk.

If they can, then there is a risk that the scum on camera could suddenly decide to end the day at a time when the voting in this thread helps their interests.

Considering we have little time left, and considering that the on camera thread is only 2 vcotes away from a lynch, I'd really rather we do a "real" lynch very soon, since there's less chance of scum manipulation there.

[elmosaurian]

How do the scums know which decision is correct? Did I miss something in the rules that state that the scums have knowledge of Good/Bad decisions? I thought only the advocates (regardless of alignment) were given information on the decisions.

No, the scum know. They actually have full knowledge of what all the choices mean. It's in the on-camera rules.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

Ok that is all true but for God's sake what is at issue is whether Gaspar/elmo's attacks on us were ever justified. It is not a matter of whether the scenario that both advocates are lying scum is likely, it is whether Gaspar/elmo were justified in attacking us for even countenancing the possibility in the first place.

If you had said "I think there's a good chance that both advocates are lying scum" that wouldn't have been as scummy. But that's not what I attacked you for. What I attacked you for was the way you seemed to believe everything CKD was saying,

but wanted to make him drive anyway

. That, I can't think of any possible town motivation for.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Exactly.

KY Krew ended the day before anyone could change their Condorcet, and perhaps lower zwet and raise Gaspar.

Could be. To be sure, caught-scum-KY Krew had pleanty of reason to end the day early so long as long as Zwet was #1, no matter what Glork's alignment is.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

What I attacked you for was the way you seemed to believe everything CKD was saying,

but wanted to make him drive anyway

. That, I can't think of any possible town motivation for.

As I said, for a start, point me to some evidence that we, at any point, "wanted to make him drive anyway". We didn't, we didn't vote as such, we never gave any indication that we leaned that way over the alternative. We considered it as a good town player should do, and incited more discussion in the process. You are still being opportunistic.

This was what you said in the on camera thread.

The decision, Mr Locke, is whether to have you drive knowing that either you are lying now or you will defect to the enemy, then dispose of you at the next opportunity.

Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one who knows but has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.

You act the martyr but wouldn't the truly noble action be to drive, knowing that we will have to kill you?
WWWSD? What would Will Smith do?

This was just...well, garbage. It sounded to me like you were scum who knew CKD was telling the truth, but was trying to use logical errors, confusions, and false dilemmas in order to see if you could trick people to have him drive anyway. When it didn't work, you gave up and voted the correct way, true, but that's still scummy.

The fact that you keep attacking me just because I attacked you for something perfectly logical like this for this probably means you're scum. And the way you keep trying to link me to Glork for really terrible reasons might mean you're scum with Glork, although that would imply a lot of distancing.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

but in light of the fact scum can obviously day-talk (assuming there is only one at least major mafia faction as implied by "primary non-innocent alignment"; and going off e.g. mith's mod-meta of only having one scum group in his invitational setup with no other anti-town alignments) I think his buddies would have cautioned him not to be too blatant fighting for a lost cause.

That's a fact now?

And whenever I read the totality of our posts on-stage I think "Yep, Yos and Glork and Thok" are obv-scum for attacking us for them".

Scummy.

Really terrible reasons? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you

still haven't

explained your unfinished sentence to Gaspar.

You're wrong. And not reading the thread.

[elmosaurian]

Your explanation is plausible as you did go on to give a non-meta based reason in the next paragraph but it still strikes me as a really weak attack which just "gets you on record for suspecting Gaspar" even if it doesn't actively start attacking/undermining him.

If you don't think my reason for suspecting Glork was good (which was basically a combination of gut, and that the focus from him on mafiajin seemed odd), then explain to me why you think Glork is scum.

Becuase it seems like the only reason you keep giving for anything is "Glork and Yos must be scum together because their reason for suspecting me is obvious bunk", and considering that I think my reason for suspecting you was pretty obviously reasonable and logical, when you keep repeating that over and over again it pretty much just forced me to assume you're scum.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

No, the thing about MafiaJin IS a good reason for suspecting him. I just saw your post as obligatory distancing. Gaspar was acting extremely OOC at that point and I think you as his scumbuddy and acknowledged as a good player would gamble too much if you didn't draw attention to his scumminess at that point.

That's...really, really illogical. No one else had commented on it yet when I did. Do you think everyone else is scum for not commenting on it? You really think someone really have suspected me for NOT attacking Glork there?

You're not making any sense. You're attacking me because I attacked him on a point YOU AGREE WITH, in a situation where no one else had brought it up, at all. And then you voted me EQUALLY WITH HIM in your concordant vote, which is just completely illogical if your only reason for suspecting me (other then OMGUS, which you admitted later) was a hypothetical link to Glork.

I'm really having trouble seeing how any of this could possibly make sense from a pro-town point of view. The only think I can think is that you're scum trying to attack everyone who was attacking you, or else that you're scum with Glork and wanted to link me to him. Nothing else makes sense to me.

The only possibility I can think of is that there's a chance you're a townie who's just flipping out because he got attacked; that's terrible play, but it happens sometimes. I really had a higher opinion of your play then that, though, so for the moment I'm going to assume you are scum.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

elmosaurian - I didn't like this hydra at all at the start, and I don't like how most of its content now only comes on defense

That's pretty clearly false. I have been pretty consistanly on the offense in many of my posts for most of the game. Of course if someone attacks me I'll defend myself, that's the correct pro-town way to act, but "most of my content only comes on defense"? I'm not sure what else to say here, other then, wtf.

You really think someone really have suspected me for NOT attacking Glork there?

Yes, I would have suspected you anyway at that point from memory. It's mostly from you just buying his terrible arguments for us being scummy off the bat and showing none of the intelligent skepticism I would expect when faced with obviously poor arguments.

Actually, no, I believe I brought up the point against you first. Glork only mentioned it later. Glork followed me there, not the other way around.

The other thing perhaps I haven't been explicit on, elmo. Your behaviour in relation to Gaspar and myself doesn't make sense. IIRC you agreed with him that we were scummy, but then said he's scummy also. As far as I'm aware it looks exceedingly improbable that both Gaspar and us are scum together. As such I view it as scummy to have us both as scummy, which you seemed to be doing; rather than one as scummy or the other town, or even possibly both town. That's why I think you were distancing from him. That's why instead of examining yourself when we called you both scummy, you dug your heels in harder to us and really seemed to push for our lynch; which makes little sense if you supposedly find Gaspar scummy.

(shrug) If you look scummy, and he looks scummy, I'll say I suspect both of you. Was I supposed to wait and not mention my problems with his mafiajin play and my gut feeling on him, just because he was agreeing with me on one point? I mean, I might have if I was 100% sure of my read on him or 100% sure of my read on you, but obviously that's not going to happen on day 1.

If you read my day 1 posts, I actually mentioned that his attacks on you were the one thing he was doing day 1 that made me doubt my scum read on him, since his attacks.


Anyway, you do realize that I kept Glork about Zwet on my concordent list all day, and that dramatically increased his chances of being lynched yesterday, right?

The only possibility I can think of is that there's a chance you're a townie who's just flipping out because he got attacked

There is legitimate motive to attack people who have attacked us in this game. As I've said, we have not behaved scummily.

You can SAY that as often as you want, it does not make it true.

It has only been yourself, Gaspar and Thok who've attacked us.

And CKD. That's now 4 of the most experenced players in the game, all who have legitimate problems with your day 1 play. Do you think we're all scum?

On a side note, a comment like this:

There will be no more explaining of this. If anyone brings it up again, if better be accompanied by a vote with an intent to lynch me dead.

Which basically sounds like "YOU'D BETTER STOP ATTACKING ME FOR THE SCUMMY STUFF WE DID YESTERDAY OR ELSE" just really, really makes me want to lynch you.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

If you read my day 1 posts, I actually mentioned that his attacks on you were the one thing he was doing day 1 that made me doubt my scum read on him, since his attacks.

There you go again. How come you put a full stop when the sentence wasn't actually finished yet?

Lol. "Since his attacks made sense" or something like that.

And CKD. That's now 4 of the most experenced players in the game, all who have legitimate problems with your day 1 play. Do you think we're all scum?

ckd has not said we're scummy. And I don't care if he does, he's simply wrong. I wouldn't change anything about the way we behaved on camera, if other people's (genuine) read of us is deficient then that's their problem. I could also make the argument that you must be legitimately scummy because 3 experienced players are attacking you, our hydra, troll's hydra and DGB's hydra; off the top of my head.

That's not relevent to what I was saying. What I'm saying is your entire argument seems to be "X and Y have said that this specific act was scummy, and it's clearly not, so X and Y must both be scum". And that argument is pretty clearly bunk. Even if YOU don't understand why other people think thoses posts of yours are scummy, declaring that everyone who thinks that must be scum is absurd and scummy, especally since 4 people have said they have a problem with it.

(shrug) If you look scummy, and he looks scummy, I'll say I suspect both of you.

This is silly. This game is pretty much guaranteed to only have one major scum faction, with the possibility of neutrals more likely than multiple killing factions (assuming the scum has a kill, which is reasonable enough). Gaspar and ourselves both being scum looks pretty darn unlikely to me. Having us both high without ever acknowledging the seeming mutual exclusivity of us both being scum is still scummy.

Why is it "mutually exclusive", exactly? Just because you were attacking Glork and he was attacking you?

Anyway, even if it was, that still wouldn't stop me from pointing out scum tells of both of you. Now, if I lynch you and you flip scum, it might make me feel a little better about Glork, but for now I just have to take the information I currenlty have.

It's not a good idea to say "Person A looks scummy", then to assume person A is scum, and then to take that assumption and try to deduce other things from it before actually finding out person A's alignment; the odds of being wrong about anything on day 1 are always fairly high. So, no, I'm not going to assume Glork is town just because he's attacking someone I find scummy.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

OK Yos, I guess I was a little combative earlier. My bad. I would back down and say that I will discuss the "scummy" thing I did yesterday, but it's only worthwhile if you would give due consideration to my explanation that I have made at least twice, and ortolan has also expanded on. You don't seem to have anything to say about the explanation, just keep going back to the "scummy thing".

(shrug) Oh, I am considering what you guys say.

And I do think your explanation (which was basically that you didn't fully understand the rules, and didn't realize there was one good choice and one bad choice) is possible; I actually mentioned that in thread as a possibility when first attacked you guys (when you weren't here yet).

ortolan's explination (that it was basically for information gathering purposes) I find less likely.

And I still thing that the most obvious explanation for your action is still that you could have been scum trying to confuse the town and see if it might be possible to get them to make the wrong choice.

(shrug) All in all, I do have to consider it a net scum tell, because I still think scum would be somewhat more likely to make those posts then a town would; a scum would just have more to gain from doing so. And your (and especially ortolan) reactions to being attacked since coming back into the thread seem even worse; that's actually a bigger scumtell, in my mind, is the way you guys reacted to pressure.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Right back at ya, champ

the odds of being wrong about anything on day 1 are always fairly high.

It's day one and a half now, soon to be day 2. I do appreciate your point about having Gaspar higher than zwet in your condorcet. If that is the case then I thank you for your attempted bus.

Right. Because if I was scum with Glork, of all people, my first instinct would be to attack him out of nowhere, pressure him, very nearly lynch him, and do this all in a way that wouldn't even get me that much town cred in the process by making him my #2 vote in a situation where the #1 vote, you, was not in any real danger of being lynched.

Honestly, I really can't believe that you could actually believe most of what you're saying here.

is the way you guys reacted to pressure.

Do you think it is inconsistent with my town meta (and it is largely me we're talking about in this instance, not Talitha) to counter-attack people when I feel they're attacking me for scummy reasons?

- ortolan

I don't know. If you're trying to make a meta defense for your scummy OMGUS behavior here, then go for it. Show me some links where you acted in the same way as town, I'd be interested to see them.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Well, I still strongly suspect you and Glork are scum together. You trying to convince of how "obviously ridiculous" this idea is doesn't make me believe it less.

Well, if you're scum, which is looking increasingly likely, then I wouldn't expect logic to change your mind on your "suspicions", no matter how little sense they make. If you're town, then I'd expect you to be willing to listen to what I have to say.

Anyway, my point was that if I was scum with a player like Glork, there's no way my first instinct would be "Hey, let me bus Glork on day 1 and try to kill him in a situation we he's under absolutely no pressure before I attack him". My first instinct would be "Kickass, I'm scum with Glork, now we're going to dominate this game"; I've actually been scum with Glork before, and it was awesome. Call it WIFOM if you want, but it's also true; I dare you to find one game, out of all the hundreds of games I've played on this site, where as scum I decided to try and bus a highly skilled scum partner on day 1 when he wasn't even under any pressure, like you're trying to suggest I'm doing here; I don't believe I've ever done that.

I don't know. If you're trying to make a meta defense for your scummy OMGUS behavior here, then go for it. Show me some links where you acted in the same way as town, I'd be interested to see them.

Election Mafia was a game where the vast majority of the people who attacked me day two were all scum, which I suspected at the time. Mushrom Kingdom 2 saw someone voting me in very scummy where circumstances where they thought I would be an easy mislynch at the time, which I and other players called them out on and got them lynched.

I'll go take a look. I stopped reading election mafia after I died on day 1, so let me look at that.

..Ok, I see Vi attacking you for a reasonable reason and I see you OMGUSing him because of that. Of course, Vi was town that game, but it does support your meta.

And then Yaw attacks you, and your response is to OMGUS attack him as well. (Yaw was also town).

Yeah, it does look like you might have a meta of making bad OMGUS attacks like this when town. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. You might want to, you know, fix that, though, since it's quite anti-town.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

-Shanba

That's a silly notionn. Even if a protown advocate uses the Monty Hall problem and switches, there's still a 33% chance that the outcome will be Bad. [/quote]

Only if the advocate has no information at all. However, I think the rules are pretty clear that he does, so he should do significantly better then a 66% chance correct.

So, yeah, if we end the day with a bad outcome, I think there's a pretty high chance the advocate is scum.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Also, Glork, can you point me to where mith said that this would be a "monty hall" choice, where we would get to choose, then the mod would tell the advocate if it was good or bad, and then the advocate would get to switch? I'm having trouble finding that.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

It's certainly the case that you shouldn't ignore scummy attacks on people simply because they happen to be on you.

...When I see people's attacks on me/us when we're town as being explicable as poor play, then I'll accommodate that. In this instance your attacks are genuinely scummy.

That would make sense, if there is anything illogical or "scummy" about my attack on you. In this case, though, there is not, which is what makes your behavior a bad WIFOM attack; no matter if you admit it or not, some of those posts you made on camera are posts that would benefit (Talilan-scum) more then (Talilan-town), so they make you more suspicious looking. It's getting really frustrating that, no matter how many times I explain that, you keep saying stuff like "You're too good a player to believe that as town" or you keep trying to claim that any attack on you must be either "scummy" or "poor play". It is neither; I may be right or wrong, but it certainly isn't "bad play" to suspect you when you make posts that look like an attempt to help the scum.

You're basically just doing the "people are attacking me so they must be scum" defense, and I have no intention of letting you get away with that.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

The flavor makes it sound like Tom Cruise wasn't supposed to be there. Does that mean he was scum of some kind?

[elmosaurian]

[PJ Posting]

Uh...

Gosh, the flavor makes it seem like there might be

scum

in this game!

For a game with a focus on acting, this is pretty terrible. I can hardly imagine anybody of

any

alignment posting this, quite frankly.

Um...that's not what I said.

I'm not trying to figure out "gee, are there scum in the game". I'm trying to figure out if the guy we lynched was scum, or was cult, or was town, because it's not entirely clear from the role name.

First, I simply have a hard time believing somebody could honestly doubt KY Krew was scum to a significant degree. I usually do not put people above a 60% chance of being scum, but with KY Krew, I was

seriously

at 99% certainty.

Meh. I really had a strong gut feeling that I was going to come back here and see that he had been lynched and that he had been town. He just seemed so...fuzzy, like he didn't know what was going on, like he didn't really have a plan. If the scum picked one of their own to send out, and especally one that we were all already suspicious of...I donno. It just didn't fit, especally since two of my other main suspects for possible scum are and have been you and Glork; I can't imagine either of you as scum not having a carefully detaled plan for exactally what would happen when town saw their main suspect show up in thread as the advocate.

Second, we were told that roles are either going to be Innocent or [Something Else]. zwetschenwasser came up "Innocent." KY Krew came up "Scientologist." I think it is pretty clear that KY Krew is scum.

Yeah. The rules also do say that there might or might not be other groups. But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if "scientologist" is the main scum group; the reason I mentioned the flavor is that if he "wasn't supposed to be here" that might imply he was scum rather then cult.

[elmosaurian]

But then CKD said that the mafia was the Mafia Actors Guild or some such, so eh.

Ah, that's right, I forgot about that.

[elmosaurian]

Basically, the biggest reason I doubted that KY was scum was just because I didn't see scum making the most suspicious looking guy in the entire game the advocate if he was one of their own; it just dosn't make sense as a scum play. So, if the scum who are picking the advocate are the "screen actor's guild", and KY was a "scientologist", perhaps a member of a different scum group of some type, then that fits.

[elmosaurian]

I don't really buy your explanation about KY Krew being town because you suspect Gaspar and myself.

That's not directly related; it's just that I didn't see scum nominating one of their own to be the advocate if he was the scummiest person in the game. And, if the scum were the screen writers guild, I was right.

I think if I

were

scum with KY Krew (WIFOM, I know, but shut your trap), I would have told him to act like a complete dunce in order to make sure the town gets zero information -- which is precisely what KY Krew did. The most KY Krew could do to hurt the town was to make the decision On Screen a coinflip, which I think KY Krew effectively did. What would be the purpose of KY Krew being "coordinated" / acting with a "detailed plan"?

No, actually, KY Krew picked one door, after Glork had specifically said in this thread "whichever door the advocate picks, we pick the other door". So if he was paying attention (which I doubt), then why would he pick door #1?

My current guess is that, I was right, and that KY Krew, while anti-town, was not in the "screen actor's guild" scum group that is both picking the advocates and that is deciding what the effects of picking the right and wrong choice are. I guess we'll see for sure once we catch more scum.

Question: How often has Elmo (as opposed to Yosarian2) posted under your account?

Never. Not once. Every post thus far has been from me.

He did tell me before the game started that he wanted to double head because he'd have limited time and wouldn't be able to do it on his own, but I was hoping for more then this from him. I was talking to him on AIM last night, and he told me he'd try to post after the day scene ended; I hope he does.

I will mention that it was actually him who was first suspicious of you, PJ; he thought your focus on me toward the end of the day yesterday seemed like it might be a way for you to avoid commenting on any of the relevent wagons (which were mostly Zwet, Talilion, and Gasper).

[elmosaurian]

I'm not trying to figure out "gee, are there scum in the game". I'm trying to figure out if the guy we lynched was scum, or was cult, or was town, because it's not entirely clear from the role name.

He's obviously not Innocent, because the alignment of Innocent players is explicitly defined as "Innocent" per the rules.

Yes, PJ mentioned that a while ago.

That was just my first response to the scene, trying to absorb it and figure out what it meant. I hadn't gone back and checked the rules at that point.

I can't imagine either of you as scum not having a carefully detaled plan for exactally what would happen when town saw their main suspect show up in thread as the advocate.

Wait, what? "If Gaspar/MrJellyLee were scum, they would have a plan if the suspect showed up as advocate" is evidence that we are scum?
Run that one by me one more time, because I'm not getting it.

No, of course not.

Meh. The whole thing yesterday felt too easy, too obvious. It wasn't that "PJ/Glork is scum BECAUSE...". It was I took a whole collection of facts, including:

1. KY was the primary suspect of everyone, for a number of very good reasons.
2. The scum decided to make him the advocate
3. KY picked door #1
4. When I demanded he choose which door, he again said door #1, which made no sense
5. He didn't seem to understand the monty hall thing, or why we would be inclined to go door #2 if he went door #1, which dosn't make sense if he was being daytalked to by competent
6. It's especally odd since the person who first pointed out the whole Monty Hall thing in thread was Glork, who has long been one of my main suspects.

Basically, I just didn't see a scum group that included both you and KY making KY the advocate and having him pick door #1 in the hopes that the town would then pick door #2, after you had been the one to point out the monty hall thing in the first place. It's just way too obvious, and dosn't really make sense. So, one of the results of that was for me to doubt that KY was in the scum group. Another result was for me to doubt that he actually wanted us to pick door #2.

I never said that "I suspect Glork BECAUSE of this." It was "I suspect Glork, but this dosn't make sense if Glork and KY are both scum together and in the scum group that picks the advocate."

I donno. Perhaps i just drank the WIFOM too deeply there, but I don't think it's that simple.

It's been explained already, but it's worth reiterating:
KY Krew was made Advocate because he had already been outed as scum, and it reduced the Scene Two decision to complete WIFOM.

Eh. Yeah, that would be the simplest solution. Which is why I didn't buy it, it seemed too obvious.

If you can reason out why KY Krew's behavior was protown, I'm willing to listen.

Not that his behavior was pro-town; oh, hell no. But his posts in the scene did not sound like a scum who had been sent in to do a job with a specific plan, and who was being coached by competent partners. Not at all. When I told him "pick a door, and if you pick the wrong door, we will kill you", I would have expected a scum who actually knew what the right door was to equivocate, hesitate, and generally try to muddy the waters. Instead, he just calmly responded and picked a door, in a way that made no sense if he was paying attention; it just wasn't what I was expecting from a "KY is scum" point of view.

And, if the whole thing about the screen actor's guild is right, then I may have been correct; he may not have been in that scum group, and he may have been acting semi-randomly like he appeared to be.

If you want to explain why you thought he was scum, you have to do so by showing how a significant portion of his posts/actions/behaviors were protown.

They weren't. I made that damn clear when I tried to lynch him on day 1.

The fact that you tried to use "well if he's trustworthy, we should switch to Door #2" as reasoning to vote for Door #2 (and the fact that Door #1 was the right choice) strongly make me feel that you were looking for an excuse to push people towards the wrong choice. You've overstepped your bounds, and now you're at the top of my list.

Bullshit. I thought he probably wasn't in the scum group pulling the strings, and unless you have some other explanation for the whole "screen actor's guild" thing, it looks like I was right. So don't pull that "oh how could you possibly think that" stuff with me; I used deductive logic to come to what was probably correct conclusion.

[elmosaurian]

Bullshit. I thought he probably wasn't in the scum group pulling the strings, and unless you have some other explanation for the whole "screen actor's guild" thing, it looks like I was right. So don't pull that "oh how could you possibly think that" stuff with me; I used deductive logic to come to what was probably correct conclusion.

It seems to me that you're changing your tune. In your Post 244 of the other thread, you said (italic emphasis mine):
"Door #1 would be preferable

if we were confident that KY Krew was not a trustworthy chap and that he had planned all this out

, but I don't really know if I believe that right now. It just seems too obvious, like a setup. I'm leaning towards door #2. "

But, by post 294, after I had thought this through some more and discussed it with Elmo, I had changed my stance on this.

If I did think old-carrie was scum and this was all part of some master plan planned by the scum group as a whole, I would still choose door #2, because if they know we don't trust her, and if we think carrie-scum "wants" us to go for door #2 by monty-hall logic we would be expected to go door #1. But that kind of attempt to outguess those who know we are trying to outguess them isn't especially reliable, or even all that helpful, in my experience.

Basically, I didn't think KY was part of the scum group, AND I thought that if he was, door #2 would still be the correct choice.

In clarification, you said:
"I am...conflicted.

Not long ago, I was quite confident she was not trustworthy. But when those who are not good people pick, as their advocate, the one who we all distrusted the most, it makes me wonder if perhaps we were not SUPPOSED to trust her. Perhaps I should just drink the wine in front of me, but...I am not confident of any train of logic that start by assuming those who are working against us made the most obvious choice possible."



BOTH of these posts indicate that you were starting to believe Krew was

trustworthy

. If that doesn't mean "protown," please enlighten me.

I did. I thought that was pretty clear; I did think Krew was probably pro-town. Not so much because of his actions, but because I thought that the scum wouldn't make him the advocate if he was one of their own.

If we're assuming "Scientology" was not the "something else" group, like you apparently think now, then he probably didn't actually know which was the right door and which was the wrong door. If so, then that means there was only a 33% chance door 1 was right, and we just got really, really lucky there.

Furthermore, your current tune is

I thought he probably wasn't in the scum group pulling the string

IF YOU THOUGHT KREW MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF A THIRD PARTY, YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID SO AT THE TIME.

After the fact, you are saying "no, I just thought he wasn't part of the same scumgroup that made him an Advocate." But your posts at the time you "leaned towards Door #2" say "I think he might be trustworthy." There is an OCEAN of difference between these two. You're trying to cover, and I'm not buying it.

I thought he wasn't scum, BECAUSE I thought he wasn't part of the scum group pulling the strings. At the time, I was assuming there was probably only scum and town, so I was assuming that meant he was likely town.

I will admit that the thought of a third party scum group did cross my mind, considering how anti-town he had been acting, but I didn't really think it was that likely.

[elmosaurian]

*cough-Elmo-post-cough*

(nods) Forgot about that. I stand corrected.

I would like to see some substantiation behind your claim that I was avoiding commentary on the leading wagons, when my

second post in the game

upon replacing made it clear what I thought about pretty much everybody, seeing as I made a full concordet vote list. Not only that, but I explained myself more fully in my

fourth

post of the game when GoofballsandBaloons directly asked me about my list.

I will fully admit: I wanted the town to focus more than they were on curiouskarmadog and Panzerjagger, because I honestly thought both Advocates were probably lying and I was flabbergasted that nobody was really talking about them Off Screen (where the focus was instead MafiaJin, Talilan and Hewitt).

I will also mention that Talilan was not "a relevant wagon” that required commentary for most of Day One since she was

On Screen

for most of Day One. But even then, I made it clear that I did not really suspect Talilan for questioning curiouskarmadog – which seemed to the main case against her – since

my

initial reaction was

also

to question curiouskarmadog.

Talilan was a relevent wagon, because there was a real chance they might have been lynched day 1.

And for the most part, with a deadline coming up, you really seemed to avoid commenting on the people we might actually lynch. Let me make a summery of all of your posts, as I read them in isolation. I apologize to everyone for this very dense paragraph, but I think it's important.

Post zero: You comment on on camera people; mafiajin, the two advocates. Post 1, you vote me for "talking about mechanics", but I was never in any danger of being lynched day 1, and I'm sure you know that; otherwise, you mostly comment about on-screen people. Post 2, you comment on voting Mr. Gray. Post 3, you don't really do any real scumhunting, except for a vauge threat to "bump DGB up your list" because of what looks like a weak theory disagreement with her involving scum being on vs. off the bandwagon (frankly, I would think you would be MORE surprised if you agreed with everything DGB said about mafia theory, lol.) You also have made some comments about KY being scummy, but have him oddly far down your concordant list. Post 4, you talk about the advocates some more. Post 5, you complain about KY, after he leaves the thread. Post 6, you comment on a misunderstanding of SL and say hi to thok. Post 7, you talk more about the advocates. Post 8, you talk more about the advocates, and take a brief break to argue theory with me involving mechanics discussion. Post 9, you use bad math in discussing the advocates (which honestly kind of already jars me, considering I wouldn't expect that from you) and then argue theory some more. Post 10, more about on camera. Post 11, you attack me for leaving a sentance unfinished. Post 12, more about the advocates and the on camera stuff, and an odd comment to gasper about how he should be willing to attack you. Post 13, with only 24 hours left before deadline, you still don't say anything about the fact Zwet is about to be lynched, except for a quick comment about posting pictures to the on-camera thread.

I don't have any specific problem with any of that stuff. What I have a problem with is what you NEVER did.

You never really talked about the Zwet wagon, the one that ended in a lynch, even though you had time to be active and post 14 very long posts in those last few days before deadline, probably hundereds of words.

You never talked about the other two wagons that looked like they might go to a lynch, the Gasper one and the Talilan wagon.

You kept your vote on me, but you never really attacked me that much; you mostly just argued with me on vauge, theoretical issues, like "the difference between pro-town and townie". You never really discussed the rest of my play, or my votes, or all the more important things I did, and you never really tried to make the kind of specific "Yos is scummy because..." argument that might have gotten more people voting me.

Basically, a deadline was coming up, it was a concordent voting thing, a situation where your vote could easily make the difference, and if not your vote, then your vote plus one or two others you could convince, and yet you avoided commenting on the most important issues of the time, instead discussing the on-camera stuff and keeping your vote on a place it was almost sure to be irrelevant to the final outcome (on me.)

I really do suspect that you may have been deliberately avoiding making commentary on the leading wagons, yes. For example, I have absolutely no idea if you suspected Zwet or not; you never even mentioned him, you left him tied with almost everyone else in your concordant vote basically the whole time, and even as it became increasingly likely he was about to get lynched you never really discussed that at all. You never said anything that even makes me think you were trying to figure out if Zwet was scummy or not, or if he if you thought he was more or less scummy then Gasper or Talilan, and I find that really odd.

[elmosaurian]

I did. I thought that was pretty clear; I did think Krew was probably pro-town. Not so much because of his actions, but because I thought that the scum wouldn't make him the advocate if he was one of their own.

So what you're saying is that you speculated on Scums' behavior rather than using a player's own verified anti-town behavior to make a decision on his alignment?

This sounds very unlike you, Yos. Can you see why I'm suspicious of you?

(shrug) I use whatever information I have available to me, including the actions of the scum. I always do.

Now, I do like to lynch people acting in a really anti-town way, on the theory that they're either scum or else they're a townie VI who's doing more harm then good. If I was off stage, I very likely would have ended up voting to lynch him, for just that reason. That wasn't the choice I had to make here, though.

Not true, considering he still got partial information as an Advocate. You're assuming he did pick randomly, when I believe that was defintiely not the case.

Hmm. You're right, he might have gotten information as an advocate. All day yesterday, I was assuming he was either scum who knew everything or town who was telling the truth and knew nothing, but you're right, if he's a third party, it is possible he got some information as an advocate and then lied about it.

I thought he wasn't scum, BECAUSE I thought he wasn't part of the scum group pulling the strings. At the time, I was assuming there was probably only scum and town, so I was assuming that meant he was likely town.

Again, see my above point. I would never expect you to actually flip-flop on your stance based on trying to outguess what you think the Scums are doing.

Are you kidding? I flip flop more often then John Kerry at the pancake-cook-off.

This is especally true when I've been convinced someone is scum, then some new evidence comes to light that makes me re-consider.

Seriously, this sounds completely contrived to me. ALL in-thread evidence suggests that Krew was not protown, yet you are telling us that you WIFOM'd yourself into thinking he was protown.

No, not at all; I thought I had a lot of evidence he was not scum.

1. The fact that scum picked him seemed to be to be very strong evidence he was not in their group.
2. The fact that he seemed completely uninformed was very strong evidence he was not communicating with the scum; I assume the scum can talk at some point, either by day-talking or between scenes, and either way, if they sent one of their own into a high-risk gambit like that, I would expect them to prepare him better then he was. And don't give me that "Oh, scum would play dumb". Go back and read his posts, carefully, and then tell me if you think he was "playing dumb" or if he actually had no idea what was going on. I got a very, very strong vibe it was the second one.
3. A lot of people have commented on how everyone else picked door #1. I noticed the same thing; everyone seemed to be just assuming door #1 was the correct choice, for reasons that made little sense to me, and, because I was assuming that at least some people on camera were scum, it freaked me the hell out.

And everything that happened on camera was a matter of WIFOM, Glork. Of course I was thinking in a WIFOM type of way.

Now, I kept going back and fourth, mostly because I was having trouble seeing the whole thing where he used the stuntman ability to dodge a lynch at the end of day 1, and then claimed some kind of vague rumor that was wrong anyway, could possibly be pro-town. But I also couldn't see how he could possibly be scum.

I will admit that the thought of a third party scum group did cross my mind, considering how anti-town he had been acting, but I didn't really think it was that likely.

I'll bite. Three questions:
1) How likely (rough percentage) did you think of the existence of a Third Party?

Pretty small. Mith mentioned in the rules that it was possible for there to be a third party, but I usually don't assume there is a third party until I have reason to, and I'm still not really sure how a third party would work under the endgame rules anyway. I donno. 5%? Less?

2) Why didn't you bring it up regardless how how "unlikely" you thought it was?

Why? He was probably either town or scum, and the only effect talking about unlikely possibilities like third parties would be to muddy the issue farther in ways that are unlikely to be fruitful.

3) Did you consider Krew's actions/motivations if he

was

of a third alignment? If so, what were those actions/motivations?

Not really, because I didn't (and don't) have enough information to even speculate without knowing what any third party win conditions are.

KY implied that there was one specific door that would have helped the mafia, one that would have helped the town, and one that would have helped the third party (well, he said "the cult"). It's possible that that was true.

But, no; I was having enough trouble dealing with what to do when I thought there was a 55% chance he was town vs the 40% chance he was scum; I wasn't going to even think about what it might mean in the 5% chance he was third party.

[elmosaurian]

If the Scientologists are a Cult, then why would Mr. Grey also allow the "Screen Mafia Guild" to get a recruit on Day One as well?

Interesting question, and it gives credence to the idea that Scientology is the only scumgroup, and that CKD is lying scum.

...

Is this really what you think? You really can read day 1 and come to the conclusion that CKD is lying scum?

That makes no sense to me at all. I can't imagine in a million years a scum CKD randomly inventing the whole "I could turn scum" thing if he was scum. And to top that off, you're suggesting that not only did he lie about that, but he lied about that and then used the WRONG SCUM ROLE NAME in his claim, even though you think he HAD that scum role name, and even though he would basically be caught lying as soon as we lynched a scum?

This is why I have a hard time believing you are town, Gasper. You're suggesting the most absurdly improbable ideas here, and why? To try and discredit CKD, who I consider to be almost confirmed town?

Yeah, I'm definitely starting to buy into the idea that Scientology is the only scumgroup, and that CKD is a Scientologist and was lying.

Yeah, I can't imagine pro-town Glork "buying into" that idea, at all. Not in a million years.

[elmosaurian]

2.) As I explained a number of times, I wanted to make sure people had my opinions of the players On Screen precisely because

I was going to be On Screen for Scene Two

, and I was not aware that the thread would not be locked in between Scenes. As such, I thought that would be my only real opportunity to say anything about them until Scene Three, assuming (i) I even lived that long and (ii) was not stuck back On Screen for Scene Three, etc.

I have no problem with you talking about on-screen people. What I have a problem with is what you DIDN'T say, not with what you did.

3.)

Again

, while many people were discussing 1/3 of the players On Screen (MafiaJin, Talilan, and Hewitt), practically nobody was discussing CKD or Panzerjagger. I found this a rather appalling omission and wanted to make sure there was commentary on that matter. Obviously discussion of On Screen players was not taboo.

Nope, not at all.

4.) I think I commented on the Off Screen events about as much as I would expect any replacement in the game could. I did talk about zwet (see: my fourth post in response to GoofballsandBaloons),

This is what you said about Zwet in that post.

I do not know enough about zwetschenwasser’s meta to really say if his play here is inconsistent with his play as town. Here, I have found his posts unimpressive, and not helpful or of maximum utility (see: his picture post On Screen), but so far I have not gotten a feeling his posts are more likely to have been written by scum than by town.

Basically, in what is a statment that looks incredibly "on the fence" to me, you basically said "I don't like his play, he's not been helpful, but I'm not really sure he's more likely scum then town".

And that's it. That's all you said about the guy that was lynched. And like I said, you set up your concordent vote in such a way as to basically avoid commenting on him at all, by putting him and everyone else who was likely to be lynched on exactly the same level.

Simply because I don’t denote a giant heading of “I Hereby Proclaim My Thoughts On X” does not mean I am ignoring them or not talking about them. It just is not necessary to devote detailed analyses to everybody.

No, but if you were town, with a deadline coming up (and you did realize eventually it was coming up), and you had enough time to make 14 long posts, to type out hundreds of words, I would have expected you to make the time to pick which of the main bandwagons you wanted to support heading into a lynch. You really never did, at all.

Furthermore, I very much

disagree

that you were not likely to be lynched. Gaspar was never a lynch target

at all

until after Talilan replaced in the game; at that point I think he had

zero

(or at most one) votes while you constantly had

one

that was from me. The fact that you did not

end up

acquiring a larger wagon means nothing.

Right. THe only vote I had on me was the one from you. I never, at any point, had more then that. And you didn't even really seem to be trying hard to drum up support for more votes on me.

I mean, I could see you deciding I was scum, focusing on me, and really trying to get me lynched even to the point of ignoring all other wagons; I could see a pro-town person doing that. But I don't get that vibe from your posts, either.

5.) My argument about you on “vague theoretical issues” was precisely because all of your posting seemed to

centered

on theoretical issues.

That was certainly not true. I had posted a great deal about my off-camera suspects, which were KY, Gasper, and Talilan. You even acknowledged that in one of your posts, but you never attacked me for my scumhunting at all, or even commented on it really; just for my early game theoretical discussions.

I did not find things really

wrong

with your “logic,” but I felt you were trying to make logical assertions about the set-up whilst ignoring making commentary on players. How am I really supposed to present a case about that?

That's...actually almost exactly why I suspect you, interestingly enough. Except, I did make commentary on players.

I am personally not convinced there are two scum groups to begin with. I think all that matters is that I think both Elmosaurian and CKD have a good chance of being scum. I don’t see why it matters what type of scum they are if our job is simply to lynch down to 2 [Something Else]’s.

I can't really imagine why either you or Glork seem to think that there's any real chance of CKD being scum here.

[elmosaurian]

Since you are apparently so fond of outguessing the scums, consider this scenario.

CKD and KY Krew are both Scientologists, which is the only Non-Innocent alignment. During Scene One, CKD proposes the whole "recruit me to their team" idea, knowing full well that a cult-like recruitment fits in with the flavor, and gives his fake "Parital Information" credibility.

Krew bungles up Scene One by stunting when asked for a role claim, and tries to get everyone to follow the wrong decision. Basically, he outs himself as scum, and everyone knows it.

AFTER this happens, CKD makes up a different Scumgroup called the Screen Mafia Guild, knowing that KY Krew is likely to be lynched as "Scientologist" during Scene Two. Meanwhile, his scumbuddy Krew says "I think there's a cult" knowing full well he will be lynched as a Scientologist.

During Scene Two, KY Krew is lynched as a Scientologist while the town goes "what about the Screen Mafia Guild"?

Expected Outcome: General confusion with the seeds of a cult firmly planted in the general town's minds. I think that the Scientologists expected us to buy into the three-party system much more than we actually have.

Lol. Is this really the theory you're going with?

That is so unnecessarily complicated, I'm not even sure where to start.

Let me just start with this, then:

1. I can't imagine a scum lying about the whole "recruit" thing to start with. It dosn't "give him credibility" or whatever; at least, not obviously so. Most likely it just spreads doubt and confusion about the person who claimed that. Especially since if CKD making that claim did anything, it just made sure the town picked the right door.
2. After he did, I can't imagine he would then suddenly invent a different scum group that "tried to recruit him", because that would have to screw him in the end.
3. If nothing else, if in your theory we get to a 3 man or 5 man endgame and have a bunch of dead scientologists and no dead "screen actors guild" people, there would come a time when it was 100% obvious that CKD was lying and there were none.

IMHO, the "Expected result" from doing that would be "CKD gets lynched in endgame, very likely losing the game for his scum team in the process." No small amount of short-term confusion it could cause in the early game would be worth that. And the fact that that WOULD be the expected result would become more and more obvious over time.

Especally since he, in your hypothises, he could have just said "Yeah, the scinetologists tried to recruit me" and still got that "fake partial information credibility" you're talking about; if anything, it would be that much more convicing once we had a dead scientologist.

Neah, that scenario you've created is nothing but smoke and mirrors; the more you think about it, the less sense it makes, especially for a highly competent player like CKD.

I'd bet my left foot that not one single townsperson can say for sure that they know:
A) How many alignments there are
B) Whether "Scientologist" is the [Something Else]/"Primary Non-Innocent Alignment"

I'm sure you're right (with the probable exception of CKD, of course). And I'm also sure that, if you're scum, that lack of certain information what you're counting on.

I've seen you do this as scum, Glork. I've seen you do a lot of hand waving, create convincing sounding scenerios, all directed at creating a logical sounding reason to start mislynching people. You have it set up so you can use this as a reason to either go after me (which dosn't actually make any sense; I'm sure you know that I wouldn't act like that if I was scum with KY in any case; but of course it dosn't have to) or to go after CKD, depending on which looks like the easier target.

I knew people, and probably you, were going to go after me today no matter what; I realized that my posting in the other thread looked strange, even though it was probably right.

But I can't believe that you, as town, would really consider any of this as the most likely scenario.

I'll be interested to hear what CKD has to say about all this.

[elmosaurian]

Elaborate on what you mean by "no matter what." What scenarios are you referring to, and why would each one lead players to go after you specifically? Why did you specifically feel that

I

would attack you?

Because I was saying things that everyone else in the game completely disagreed with, it was largely based on reasoning I was convinced was correct but was a combination of gut and WIFOM, and that always gets you attacked. IF KY flipped town, I expected to get attacked for "knowing too much", and if KY flipped scum, I expected to get attacked for "defending scum".

Basically, whenever I do stuff that dosn't seem to make obvious logical sense, I expect to get attacked for it by people who think they know my meta, even if I end up being right.

This isn't really relevant to anything, though.

[elmosaurian]

If you are going to complain about my lack of a leaning on zwetschenwasser, then why aren't you complaining about my lack of a leaning on BEC, KY Krew, Mighty Orbots, Rawr Hydra, and ShadowLurker?

Actually, I am; I'm complaining that you didn't really say much about almost anyone off camera, except for me.

But the reason it's especially bad was because Zwet was lynched, and because he was pretty clearly heading for a lynch a few days beforehand; it wasn't a surprise. And you didn't seem to care. Nothing in any of your posts makes me think you really cared about who got lynched at the end of day 1, and that's deeply troubling to me.

Town people tend to care about the alignment of who gets lynched.

(anyway, I'm going to bed now. I'm sure I could keep arguing forever, considering I just managed to pick a fight with PJ/MBL and Glork at the exact same time, lol, but I have to go.)

[elmosaurian]

One last thing before I go. Glork, what do you think about my analysis of PJ's play at the end of day 1? I find it pretty odd you never even commented on it.

Do you think he was really trying to figure out who the town should lynch before deadline there? Did it seem like standard pro-town PJ play to you?

[elmosaurian]

Elmosaurian, a question: Given what the rules describe about Good/Bad Decisions impacting Endgame, and given what CKD claimed about the outcome of the "Bad" decision, how do you feel about "becoming an SMG" reconciles with "altering endgame"?

I mentioned this before; that can't have been the only effect of choosing the wrong choice there, since one town person becoming scum wouldn't actually change the endgame at all (it's still be 5 town 2 scum). On the other hand, it could very well have been a little bonus thrown in.

Honestly, it makes sense to me; day 1 seems like such an obvious town choice there, with 2 advocates and all that; it makes sense to me that the mod would throw a curveball like that in to possibly make it a little more complicated; if someone in CKD's position had decided they WANTED to turn scum, the day would have been a lot more interesting.

If

Scientology = [Something Else], then CKD is definitely a Scientologist, and Elmosaurian is very probably a Scientologist.

Oh? Based on what, exactally? Just because I thought KY was town, and argued that in a situation where he was obviously going to get lynched no matter what? Or because I voted for the wrong door?

Right now, I defintiely want to see either Yosarian or CKD lynched tomorrow, with a fairly strong preference towards Yos.

As scum, you would prefer mislynching me first. You lynch me and I flip town, you can still claim you think CKD is scum and go after him the next day. You lynch CKD and he flips town, your whole case on me falls apart.

I can't imagine why you would want to lynch me first if you were town, though, since your whole theory about me being scum seems to be based on your (unlikely) theory that CKD is a lying scientologist.

[elmosaurian]

And now I really will go to bed. You guys keep me up way too late, lol.

[elmosaurian]

Hi, I'll probably get back into this game in the next couple days. I didn't do much more than occasionally skim day 1, I was busier than I thought. Then I didn't think I could help much on day 2, since most of what happened on camera seemed dependent on off-stage reads, so I left it to Yos. Imma read up.

If you've got anything specific to ask me or so, please do?

Elmo

[elmosaurian]

Not true. Like I just said, I think you're scum regardless of the setup.
If CKD were lynched and flipped town, I'd say "Yep, Elmosaurian is DEFINITELY a Screen Mafia Guild member."
If CKD were lynched first and flipped up SMG, I'd say "Yep. Elmosaurain is DEFINITELY a Screen Mafia Guild member."
If CKD were lynched first and flipped up Scientologist, I'd say "Yep. Elmosaurian is probably a Scientologist.".

Right. You don't actually care if I was right or wrong, you just want me dead, am I right? You even changed your theory about what happened yesterday in order to invent one that makes it easier for you to try to lynch me.

Glork is scum. I'm about 90% sure of that. He needs to die, and he needs to die as soon as we can possibly make that happen, even if it involves using the stuntman to pull him back out of the scene tomorrow.

I agree, that seems to be the only even remotely plausible explanation- that he is different scum to elmosaurian, elmo was expecting him to therefore flip town and wanted to gain cred.

Or else, you know, there's the truth, that I am town and was following a gut instinct.



I realize what I was saying was going to sound bizarre, but I don't care, I'm always going to say what I think when I believe it helps the town to do so.

Anyway, I am less suspicious of Talilian now, after they were right on stage yesterday and were basically the first ones to really push the door #1 option. Their logic for doing so was bad, IMHO, but that actually makes it MORE likely they are town, since they could just as easily have used bad logic to push the wrong option.

He is still quite frustrating to play with, more so now that I think they're more likely town then I did yesterday.

Not really. I don't think anybody suspects CKD for saying "There is a Screen Mafia Guild."

...didn't you, like, just say that you did?

And if CKD is a Scientologist, claiming the existence of a Screen Mafia Guild has already spread misinformation among the town, which is :goodposting: for the scumbags.

No, glork. It would not be. Not even a little bit.

Guys, when you say "X wouldn't do this, because it would get themselves killed," STOP AND THINK ABOUT ENDGAME SELECTION AND MECHANICS. No matter how many [Something Else]s are alive when Endgame hits, ONLY TWO OF THEM CAN BE ALIVE IN ENDGAME.

Fact 1: From the rules, it sounds like it's quite possible we might trigger endgame early by lynching all but two scum. There might only BE two scum left when we get to endgame, no way in hell would a smart scum set up a situation that would be 100% guaranteed to screw him over if he gets that far.

Fact 2: If CKD was pulling a gambit to "get partially confirmed" like you were claiming, then he would have been trying to make himself look townie. The whole reason for a scum doing that would be to set himself up for a endgame.


So saying "This person wouldn't do this as scum because it would get themselves killed" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if they would have to die because their scumbuddies are the ones headed into endgame.

Glork is quite clearly scum here trying to set up multiple mislynches. There is just no other way I can explain his bizarre logic involving CKD here, and it's even scummier that he then takes that bizzare and unlikely assumption CKD is lying and the conclusion he draws from it is "we should lynch Yos first".

So saying "This person wouldn't do this as scum because it would get themselves killed" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if they would have to die because their scumbuddies are the ones headed into endgame.

You've just added another reason as to why the scum was outnumbered on camera in the previous scene. You'd expect them to go in there and sacrifice themselves. But they turned over and let us have the point without saying a word. Oh wait. I forgot about Elmosaurian.

He's the scumikaze.

-DGB

Lol.

I am inclined to believe that a large portion of the players On Camera for Scene Two are Innocent, though I'm very hesitant to say that Elmosaurian is the only scumbag who was On Camera based on this issue.

By the way, everyone, keep in mind where this logic is coming from, when we lynch Glork and he flips scum.

I do think that the people who led the move towards door #1 are likely town, which was especally Might Orbits and Talilion, but for the people who joined the wagon late when it was already pretty clear door #1 was going to win, it's pretty null.

...and I see that a disturbingly high number of people I'm pretty sure are town seem to be convinced I'm scum now. Well, crap, that's probably going to screw us over here. Anyone have any, like, cases they want me to respond to, or questions for me, or anything? Especially since I'm probably about to get pulled back on stage soon, which really sucks.

[elmosaurian]

2) The fact I think elmo and Gaspar are busing is hardly paranoid or unfounded.

Well, then, if that's what you think, then help me lynch Glork ffs.

Glork is scum. I'm about 90% sure of that. He needs to die, and he needs to die as soon as we can possibly make that happen, even if it involves using the stuntman to pull him back out of the scene tomorrow.

C'mon. Irrespective of whether all you other guys see this as busing or not (which I do), it's obviously not something a pro-town elmosaurian would say, because it feasibly has absolutely no chance of happening.

What? Why the hell would you say that? You don't think town Yos would try to lynch someoen who looks like scum?

If you are town, if you really aren't Glork's scumbuddy, then you need to help me lynch Glork. I don't really give a shit what happens after that, you can go back to attacking me if you want.

[elmosaurian]

elmosaurian was simply trying to look "too scummy to be scum"- why defend someone who's obv-scum?

And didn't he say earlier that he lynches players who are anti-town regardless of alignment because they are hurting the town?

I do. Like I said, I would have voted to lynch KY if I was off stage yesterday. What's you're point?

[elmosaurian]

Right. You don't actually care if I was right or wrong, you just want me dead, am I right? You even changed your theory about what happened yesterday in order to invent one that makes it easier for you to try to lynch me.

What theory are you referring to, and how did I change it? Also, the point of what you just quoted is to say, "I think that based on Elmosaurian's play -- not any given setup speculation -- that he is scum." I see nothing wrong with this. Your behavior towards Krew yesterday was unnacceptable.

It's "unnacceptable" to have doubts about someone's alignment? It's "unacceptable" to have a gut feeling, based on stuff that's happened in the thread, that I might have been wrong yesterday and that the guy I was trying to lynch yesterday might actually be town?

Or is it unacceptable for me to say things you don't agree with, no matter if they're right or not? Because you don't seem to care if my logic came to the right conclusion or not, you just want to use it as an excuse to lynch me.

Not really. I don't think anybody suspects CKD for saying "There is a Screen Mafia Guild."

...didn't you, like, just say that you did?

Not exactly. The nature of CKD's claimed information doesn't jive with Panzer's, it references a "Bad Outcome" which only makes sense if the Advocate is of Innocent alignment (which wasn't necessarily going to be the case), and it doesn't lead to a tangible "Worse Endgame" for the Innocents if chosen.

CKD's information jives with Panzer's just fine. ANd no, of course him turning scum wouldn't be the "bad outcome", he never said it was. Nothing in the rules says the "good outcome/bad outcome" is the ONLY effect of the choice we make.

And if CKD is a Scientologist, claiming the existence of a Screen Mafia Guild has already spread misinformation among the town, which is :goodposting: for the scumbags.

No, glork. It would not be. Not even a little bit.

Elaborate. How would spreading misinformation not be a good thing for the scums?

How would saying a stupid lie that will probably lose your team the game in endgame for little gain be a good idea for the scum?

How does any of the stuff you're saying change anything at all?

1) You're missing my point here. Let me try to explain a general case.
---Suppose [Something Else] chooses Player X to do something which will probably eventually get Player X lynched, but will mislead the town before then, leading to one or more mislynches. Player X will be lynched before Endgame, and will not be alive during Endgame.

Ah, but that dosn't fit your theory. If CKD was lying, we likely wouldn't know that for sure until there's about 7 or 5 people left. But at that point, we would, and we would lynch him in endgame, and probably win.

It really feels like you're just making stuff up here to try to discredit an obv-town person. Which is what I would expect you to do, since it's starting to look like your scum team dosn't seem to have nightkills.

---Suppose [Something Else] chooses to have all fo their players (including Player X) play for survival. After a bunch of mislynches, there are only 5 townies and (for argument's sake) 3 [Something Else]s left. We hit endgame, and the [Something Else]s can only put two of them into endgame, so they decide to exclude Player X. Player X will not be alive during Endgame.

You're assuming a lot here. For one, you're assming it's going to come down to that, which it won't if we lynch all but 2 of the scum before that. Secondly, what if there's 3 scum left and one of them looks pretty scummy?

NEah, everything you're suggesting here would be a terrible idea for scum, all the way around, and I really don't believe you don't understand that.

To address Fact 2: I never implied that CKD claimed to "get himself partially confirmed."

Bah?

During Scene One, CKD proposes the whole "recruit me to their team" idea, knowing full well that a cult-like recruitment fits in with the flavor, and gives his fake "Parital Information" credibility.

Ok, so you said "partial information credibility" instead of "partially confirmed", but it means the same thing.

[elmosaurian]

[PJ Posting]

Yossy, I am just plain having trouble thinking about your numbers.

You say you are 90% sure that Gaspar is scum.
How sure were you that KY Krew was scum?

Day 1, when I started the KY wagon and almost managed to lynch him out before he ducked out, I was pretty sure; say about 80% sure.

Day 2, after the scum picked him for advocate and after his postings in the thread, I had second thoughts; it became more of a 50/50 60/40 thing.

And yeah, I'm at least 90% sure Glork is scum. His play here reminds me so much of his play last time I saw him as scum. He's not looking at things in a pro-town way; everything he's doing is an attempt to manipulate the lynch here, he's not honestly looking for scum, and I don't really think he has been all game.

But, yeah, I am 90% sure. If this was a betting game, i'd be willing to bet on him being scum at anything up to 10:1 odds.

I personally cannot off-hand think of a single game I have ever played (forum or otherwise) where I was

so

sure somebody was scum without the help of investigation / logic from public information (i.e. set-up has a Cop, two people claim, one dies as Town) as I have been about KY Krew. Without external help, I rarely can bump anything in my mind beyond 60% on a given player. So what makes you 90% sure that Gaspar is scum?

Town glork does not play like this. Generally when I play with town Glork, he goes on the offensive against scummy people bascially from the start of day 1, and I tend to agree with almost everything he says. Something is badly off kilter with his play this game, and I'm pretty sure it's his alignment.

I was suspicious of Glork this game from day 1, when he was focused on mafiajin almost to the exclusion of everything that was going on in the game. Elmo also told me he had a strong gut read on Glork being scum, and I trust his judgement. His responses today have completly convinced me; I really can not imagine Glork being town here.

[elmosaurian]

It is unacceptable to me to believe that you, as a protown player, would use another player's general mood to trump their obvious and repeated anti-town actions.

"Another player's general mood?"

I'm going to continue to try to figure out people's alignments based on their posts, I'm not going to let you claim that us "unacceptable".

The fact that you're using this as an attack on me is especially absurd, considering I had no say over his lynch or anything, and that I was just trying to assess if there was any chance he was town based on a handful of posts he made in that thread so I could use that to help me make my decision about which door to open.

It's a stance that I cannot and will not get over. It has me convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you are scum. I'm not even sure why we keep going in circles about this, but you seem to want to rhetoric me into some kind of submission.

No, I don't want you in "some sort of submission". I want you dead, because you're scum. There's no way you'd be slinging this kind of handwringing "I don't understand how you could possibly have doubted KY's alignment" horseshit as town; you know it, and I know it.

There are two possible cases for the size of the [Something Else] group when we reach Endgame. Either there are two [Something Else]s left, or there are more than two [Something Else]s left.

Let Player X be an arbitrary member of [Something Else].

If Player X plays "sacrificial lamb" for group [Something Else] -- for ANY reason (to lead a mislynch, confuse the town, because they made a terrible move by stunting themselves onstage rather then claiming during Scene One, etc.) -- then they will very probably be lynched before Endgame. Thus, when Endgame hits, Player X will not participate in Endgame.

Yeah, this is the first part where your theory makes no sense, is why you think the scum would sacrifice a very skilled player just to make the town think for a very brief period that there might or might not be two scum groups, especally when the confusion could not possibly last long (especally if you're assuming "player X" is not going to live long).

I could see the scum possibly deciding to sacrifice a player to make the town make a wrong choice on a day (although I doubt that as well; if the scum team started out with 5 or 6 people, then town only needed 3 or 4 lynches out of 7 to get the absolute best possible situation; giving up a lynch without a damn good reason would be a bad move no matter what.) But just to, what, make the town briefly think that there might be two scum groups or something? Why? That'd be like sacrificing your queen in chess to double the other guy's pawns; it makes absolutely no sense as a move.

My point is this:
[Something Else] has ZERO REASON to play to have ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS SURVIVE, because they will have to exclude all but two of them anyway. Like I said in my last post, if I'm scum, I would totally use at least one of those extra players to confuse the town for several days, even if it meant they would eventually get lynched.

Thus, the idea that "Player X wouldn't make a play because it would get them lynched" falls through. If Player X will not participate in Endgame even if they play to survive, why not use them in a manner which will confuse and mislead the town?

Yeah, that's still absurd. You've been the one who's been saying all game how important it for the town to lynch the right people, becuase if we do, we get the best possible ending. How can you reconcile that with a claim that scum would sac one of their guys for a useless, short-term minor misunderstanding?

Now, read that all at once, as one point, and stop and think about it, Yos. Then read it again and stop and think about it some more. I hate having to baby somebody who's been around as long as you have, but you're completely missing what I'm saying, and thus making arguments that don't make sense due to lack of proper context.

Glork; you are just wrong here. For one thing, if CKD is scum, he's one of the ones I would expect to normally make it to endgame; the only possible way there could be two more proficient scum then him on the team is if both you and PJ/MBL are scum (which is looking pretty likely at the moment, but still.) For another, enough correct lynches means the scum get a horrible endgame. For a third thing, the more scum survive, the more influence they have; we're already at a point where if we don't lynch scum tomorrow, town could be getting close to being screwed for the rest of the pre-endgame setup. For a fourth, the more scum survive, the higher chances there are that there'll be 2 scum who everyone thinks look really, really townie going into endgame, so the scum could send those guys in and win. And for a fifth, the more scum we lynch now, the easier it will be to make connections and figure out who their partners are in endgame.

All that, balanced against...what? What gain could the scum realistically get from having a short period of time where some people of the town might think there might be two different scum groups?

No. Your suggestion makes no sense as a scum gambit, Glork. If you don't get that, then you go back and re-read what I just said and think about it for a while. I don't know why you're talking down to me here, or why you think it'll help your case, but I am not some newb you can easily intimidate like that.

[elmosaurian]

Let me say this, because town has to understand this.

Town HAS to lynch right tommorow, if we possibly can.

There might be 4 or 5 or 6 scum left here. If there's 9 people on stage and 9 people off stage, then depending on how the numbers fall, it's already possible scum might end up having a majority either on stage or off stage. If there's 5 scum offstage, then there is zero chance the town lynches right tommorow; and if there's 5 scum onstage, then there's zero chance the town picks the right option tommorow.

Now, that's a worst case scenerio, and it's probably not all that likely. But each mislynch, it's going to become more likely, and the fact that there may be some days when it won't even be theoretically possible for town to lynch right means town needs to lynch every chance they can.

[elmosaurian]

Did we mislynch, Elmosaurian?

Well, obviously we didn't lynch a townie. I don't know if we lynched someone from the main scum group or not.

[elmosaurian]

I mean, really Yos? Fearmongering? The bolded is especially bad... you're suggesting we may have started with 7 scum, plus a traitor? Out of 20 players? Seriously?

If it's effectively a nightless game with no scum kills, which this is currently looking like, then a scum group of 6 people out of 20 is quite possible; nightless games tend to have a lot of scum to make them balanced.

When I said "4 or 5 or 6", that depends on a lot of things; one of them is that we don't actually know what KY's win condition was; if he was seperate from the "something else" group, then it's pretty likely that there are still 5 or 6 "something else" people left.

Also...there's a scum traitor? Do you know something I don't?

This whole posts smacks of "if you lynch me then scum will take over everything LOOKOUT!" which just simply can't be true because then we'd be playing in a broken game.

Huh? Do you disagree with my math here?

I'm not saying "SCUM WILL TAKE OVER EVERYTHING LOOK OUT!" I was pointing out that the way this game is set up, it is entirely possible for us to end up in a situation where at one point or another, one day during this game, scum may up completely dominating either the off stage group or the on stage group for a day, they may have either a true majority or close to it, depending on where the end up. If we lynch a scum tomorrow, and bring the scum group down a person, the odds of that drop significantly.

Also note that this gets a LOT worse if scum manage to take over the Director position, so if CKD is town (which I think he is), I would expect the scum to be working hard to get him lynched right now, especially if they can't nightkill. Which is another reason I currently suspect Glork and PJ here.

I was pointing that out because it seems like Glork is trying to convince the town now that the lynch dosn't really matter here, and that's a dangerous idea.

[elmosaurian]

Damnit, you guys were supposed to switch out the obvscum glork and lynch him. What the hell?

[elmosaurian]

Ok, I'll respond to all the stuff that's hapened since I've been on stage. Shame Glork isn't here to respond, but I'll respond anyway.

If there's 5 scum offstage, then there is zero chance the town lynches right tommorow; and if there's 5 scum onstage, then there's zero chance the town picks the right option tommorow.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean here?

If there's 4 or 5 scum offstage, then a majority of the people offstage are scum, and scum control the lynch for that day. If there's 5 scum onstage, then a majority of people onstage are scum, and the scum control the decision for that day.

(By the way, the reason PJ asked whether you thought Krew was a mislynch is this: You are insinuating that a mislynch tomorrow puts us in a practially unwinnable situation.

No, of course not, I never said that. It's not unwinnable, becuase at least some of the time there will be some scum on stage and some scum off stage; and even if town does screw up the lynch or the on-stage stuff or whatever every single day, the town could still win in endgame.

However, what it does mean is that actually lynching scum when we can is vital. Unless we lynch scum now, there may be at least some days when we simply can't, at all. Because the thread is split in half, on any given day, the scum may have far more influence on half of the thread then you would normally expect, and so if we want to do well in the pre-endgame part of the game, we need to reduce their numbers ASAP.

I believe PJ is going to contest that if that is true, then the nature of the setup means that

two total mislynches puts us in a near-unwinnable situation

, which is horrendously unbalanced setup.

Again, that's not what I said.

What I did say should be completly obvious, and unless the game was designed with less then 4 or 5 scum (which makes no sense), a completly inevitable mathmatical fact. The fact that Glork was trying to attack me for that is further proof that he's scum.

Did this thought ever cross your mind when you claimed that a mislynch tomorrow screws us over?)

And finally:

I was pointing that out because it seems like Glork is trying to convince the town now that the lynch dosn't really matter here, and that's a dangerous idea.

Absurd. Have you EVER known me to think of any lynch as unimportant? For that matter, have you ever seen me try to convince anybody else that a lynch is unimportant?

That was exactingly what he was arguing in reference to CKD; he was trying to convince us that one lynch dosn't matter at all, and so scum would sacrifice a lynch for an absurdly small gain.

[elmosaurian]

t;]Also...there's a scum traitor? Do you know something I don't?

Just paying attention to the thread. CKD was given a choice in scene 1 to betray the town but didn't. I'd call that a traitor.

Ah. I thought you were talking about the role "scum traitor", and I was confused by where you got that from. Gotcha.

I was pointing out that the way this game is set up, it is entirely possible for us to end up in a situation where

at one point or another, one day during this game,

scum may up completely dominating either the off stage group or the on stage group for a day, they may have either a true majority or close to it, depending on where the end up.

Italicized the middle bit for emphasis. This isn't what you were insinuating at all. You were saying if we mislynched

tomorrow

then we'd be in position to hand the scum to game. Since the town seems to be leaning towards lynching you, what this boils down to is that an elmo-lynch = a town loss. And there's absolutely no way I can buy this argument because that would mean the setup was broken.

Well, frankly, I do think if town lynches me today, town is probably going to lose, because that's how it usually seems to happen.

But, no, that's not what I was saying; my point was that the lynch is way more important then Glork was trying to make it sound. The only way my logic could possibly be wrong is if there are only 3 scum in the entire game, or else if Mith deliberately set up the people required to be on stage in such a way as to make sure there were always some scum on-stage and some off-stage, and I find that unlikely.

[elmosaurian]

There are many many things I find scummy about elmo:

On-stage yesterday, he inexplicably insisted KY Crew wouldn't flip scum despite behaviour which was only consistent with KY Crew being scum

Heh. "only consistint" is way to strong; I've scene people act scummier then that and then flip town pleanty of times. I certanly agree that KY looked bad, and I was trying to lynch him on day 1, but I had some doubts day 2 for reasons I've explained way too many times.

I'm also not sure what you think I would have expected to gain from that as scum.

On-stage yesterday, he voted door 2 apparently only because we voted door 1, and we explicitly asked him to address our argument for door 2 which he failed to do.

And that is just completly false, on like 4 different levels. I had a lot of reasons I voted door #2, and I explained all of them in great detail. I was wrong, but I don't know why you would claim "I only voted door 2 because you voted door 1." That is pretty obviously a false statement.

He failed to respond to my point yesterday (1033) that if nothing else, it should have been obvious to him that KY Crew was scum based on the way KY Crew hammered in the stage choice day one to set zwet as the lynch. The timing of this is

only

consistent with him day-talking with other people in the thread.

Did you forget that I who first suggested that possibility?

Also, I can't imagine why you would think that makes me scum, when you've defending Glork so hard here; if that theory is true, then it would obviously make one of the two people who might have been at risk of being lynched instead of Zwet scum; so, if you're right, then either Glork, or you, or both, MUST be scum. So why were you defending Glork so hard when I wanted to lynch him?

He failed to respond to my query (1033) as to whether he'd played with inHim or raj previously,

Of course I have played with them both, many times. I was trying to respond to multiple people dropping a constant stream of walls of text on me last night, I physically could not respond to every irrelevent comment everyone made.

having made the comment he thought their hydra was flailing like someone clueless or something similar. Again we should have been more proactive in ensuring he responded, but when Gaspar again brought it up in 1131 he seemingly wilfully ignores it in 1133. Gaspar again brings it up on the second last page, and elmo has never answered it. I have to conclude he was not even trying to look town anymore.

Glork's argument was dumb. THe fact that I've played with them both before is part of the reason I thought I had a read on them. Anyway, unless scientologists are the something else scum group, which seems unlikely at the moment, then it seems like i was right about all of that, so I can't imagine how you or GLork think you guys can really use that as a way to attack me.

If anyone has a good response to all four of these points and as to why they think elmosaurian isn't obv-scum, please go ahead.

Of course I'm not scum.

Tell me; why were you trying so hard to get me off stage instead of Glork? I suggested we lynch Glork today, and your only response was to defend Glork with an "obviously THAT'S not going to happen" response. Why are you so opposed to the idea?

Because you always seem to say "Yos and Glork are scum together", but you only seem interested in lynching me, you don't seem interested in lynching Glork at all. The way you do that really is making me wonder if you're trying to distance from your Glork-scumbuddy; I really suspect that your plan is to lynch me, then when I come up town, to drop your attacks on Glork; you've set it up so you would be able to do that, by making sure that every single time you attack Glork, you attack him as "Yos's scumbuddy".

[elmosaurian]

We're lynching the obvscum elmosaurian instead.

You know, if a majority of you guys are scum, you can just tell me and I'll stop trying so hard.

[elmosaurian]

Hey! So perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks like Yos quite clearly examined both options for KY's alignment on camera; that if KY was scum, then it's basically a game of WIFOM. It's similar to: we're given two options, option A and option B, KY is 100% confirmed scum, and KY states that the best option is A. So obviously, we should pick B, because he's lying, but he'll think that we'll think that, so we should pick A... et cetera. I think that's pretty straightforward. Note that, if they had correctly predicted how the on-camera group picked, they would in fact have made #2 the correct door. But it's difficult to predict what a group of people will do, so if I were mafia I would be very liable just to choose randomly, and I'd expect most scumgroups here to do the same. Trying to outguess them is a bad idea, I think; we know much less than they do, so it's already an uphill struggle. By deduction, unless anyone is claiming WIFOM skills, #1 being correct was basically luck, even if you correctly deduce that KY was scum.

The problem is that this is being framed in terms of "Yos wasn't suspicious enough of KY" or even "Yos thought KY was town" when it's really more like "Yos thinks Door #2 is good even if KY is 99% sure to be scum". I don't believe I've seen a counter-argument. And as to "omfg how could you possibly not be 100% sure KY was scum" - well, we're having a thread in mafia disscusison about cognitive bias. For those of you keeping track, we're encountering at least hindsight bias (I knew it all along!) & overconfidence effect ("99% certain" turns out to be wrong >40% of the time). I'm pretty sure you've all seen lynches that were ultra-obvious and yet turned out to be wrong - I should have handled DGB's lynch in my last game very differently, for example. Given this information, it is in fact

irrational

to say that you're 100% certain about something and never have any shade of doubt about it. It's unreasonable to suspect someone for not being 100% confidant when that would be irrational - ironically, there is a cognitive bias based around not acknowledging the influence of your own cognitive biases.

I figure that's the main argument, it certainly seems to be the reason a bunch of people are saying "lol obvscum" without going into detail why. I also gotta say, the point that any more than two members of the scum group are superfluous is well made, but it neglects the identities of the two who go to endgame. I think it'd be quite bizarre for Yos2-scum to sacrifice himself from a fairly decent position in exchange for what I imagine is a slim advantage even if it was guaranteed that he'd convince people to choose wrong - and that was fairly obviously not going to happen. In fact, I really doubt he would play it like that if he were attempting to convince others, regardless of his alignment.

I figured I'd weigh in on this first, otherwise "lol deflecting"; I'm going to chew over the game.. I don't share Yos's views on some things, in particular I don't think Talilan is scummy. The people I really want to hear from are Thesp and sotty, actually.

~ Elmo

[elmosaurian]

In your opinion, what were his stated reasons for choosing #2? (And if it isn't obvious, why don't they make sense?)

Elmo

[elmosaurian]

Door #1 would be preferable

if we were confident that KY Krew was not a trustworthy chap

and that he had planned all this out

, but I don't really know if I believe that right now

. It just seems too obvious, like a setup. I'm leaning towards door #2.

Italicized bit is important. He quite clearly states that he doesn't really believe KY to be scum, even after KY's day 1 shenanigans.

I counter your italics with the POWER OF UNDERLINE! I interpret that as he doesn't believe that KY is [scum who specifically planned this all out], which seems reasonable to me.

And then, after saying KY might be town and truthful, he "leans towards" the door that KY WAS NOT ADVOCATING.

I must be missing something.

If the original carrie was trustworthy {..} then there is a 2/3 chance door 2 is the correct option.

If I remember correctly, KY didn't show any understanding of the Monty Hall problem; that is, they selected #1, and then advocated that we stay with #1 after #3 was revealed to be bad, which makes no sense under either alignment. If I am following this through, Yos states correctly that if KY is town, then the correct move is to switch doors (#2), albeit that KY does not understand why. I hope I'm getting this right.

I think the general view of Yos' stance is slightly lopsided. Let's have an aide memoir:

In the last scene, and afterwords, I was completely convinced that the old carrie was evil; if my memory serves me correctly, I believe I was actually one of the people driving the suspicion on her, and I was quite frustrated when she removed herself from our grasp.

Something in her play today makes me doubt; it was not what I would have expected from one who was untrustworthy and who was being coached by other untrustworthy types. I actually, in my heart, have a gut feeling that she's more trustworthy then she appears to be.

I may very well be wrong, much of the logical evidence in fact speaks strongly in favor of that possibility, but you claiming that her being evil is "blatantly obvious" and attacking me for not going along with you on that is not going to change my mind without a more concrete argument on the subject.

I'd point out that he was strongly critical of KY on day 1, and it's not like he ignored or reversed his position on that; I think his idea was simply that with this playerlist, at least one person in the scumgroup should understand Monty Hall, and therefore should be coaching KY about what to do. KY being clueless would indicate a lack of that, a lack of being "informed". It's not something to provoke a complete U-turn, but enough to instill some doubt - which is what happened. And actually, even in retrospect, I'm not sure why that didn't happen. Maybe KY was simply faking it, but I can't see that as a comparatively strong option.

~ Elmo

[elmosaurian]

it's really more like "Yos thinks Door #2 is good even if KY is 99% sure to be scum"

I didn't see that at all. For me it wasn't the fact that he chose Door 2. Any townie could easily have settled on Door 2. The problem was that his reasons for choosing Door 2 (reasons to do with KY Krew) just didn't make any sense.

Sure they made sense.

I was quite clear about it in thread yesterday yesterday; if KY is scum, then trying to outguess him is probably pointless, but if KY is town, then door #2 is the correct choice 2/3 times, because of the monty hall math thing.

I also later explained why I would think that even if KY was scum, I still wouldn't expect him to go door number one if door number two is the correct answer, especially since I'm convinced Glork is scum, and Glork was the one who actually made a big deal of pointing out the Monty Hall thing in thread in the first place; by picking door number #1, it seemed to me that they would have been setting us up to make us think that they wanted us to go for door # 2.

Whatever. I was wrong, and if you want to think I'm suspicious for that, that's fine. My reasons made perfect sense, though.

[elmosaurian]

We got you off stage because you're scum who has been caught. Nearly as caught as you can be without a cop's guilty result on you. And just about everyone can see that.

Except I'm town, and your case against me seems to mostly be based on ignoring everything I've actually said and pretending I've said other things instead.

Heh. "only consistint" is way to strong; I've scene people act scummier then that and then flip town pleanty of times. I certanly agree that KY looked bad, and I was trying to lynch him on day 1, but I had some doubts day 2 for reasons I've explained way too many times.

I'm also not sure what you think I would have expected to gain from that as scum.

The only explanation I can think of right now is that you were setting yourself up for a nice bus from Gaspar.

Lol. You only theory is that I was TRYING to make myself look more scummy?

And you think that's more likely then the more obvious explanation of "Yos is town who was trying to figure out the truth and was unwilling to trust the obvious explanation"?

Also, I can't imagine why you would think that makes me scum, when you've defending Glork so hard here; if that theory is true, then it would obviously make one of the two people who might have been at risk of being lynched instead of Zwet scum; so, if you're right, then either Glork, or you, or both, MUST be scum. So why were you defending Glork so hard when I wanted to lynch him?

Me? Defending Glork? Pfft.

Oh, you're going to deny it?

What do you call this?

C'mon. Irrespective of whether all you other guys see this as busing or not (which I do), it's obviously not something a pro-town elmosaurian would say, because it feasibly has absolutely no chance of happening. At the very least we can all agree that elmosaurian is scum, even if you're too scared to make the leap to the fact Glork is also.

I was trying to convince the town to lynch Glork today, to pull him off stage and then hang him, and all you could do was declare that "it had no chance of happening", and you actually went as far to say that "no pro-town person" would want to lynch Glork today.

Did you see how many people yesterday had declared that they found Glork scummy? A heck of a lot of people did. And the stuntman, Pooky, has been lurking; if he's town, he probably would have gone with whatever the general consensus was. (Of course, if he's scum, he probably would have found some excuse to not pull his scum partner off stage). Anyway, in general, there's absolutely no reason to think that you couldn't have gotten Glork lynched today, if you had tried. Of course, you didn't.

So, yes, I do think you were defending Glork, by trying to make people think that his wagon didn't have any support and trying to make it sound like he "obviously" wasn't going to be lynched, even though he had almost gotten lynched day 1 and there was more support for a Glork wagon between days then there was then. At the same time as you were defending him, you were still distancing from him in the exact same paragraph. My best guess here is that you were trying to convince everyone to not lynch Glork today (or trying to convince everyone that it "wasn't going to happen", which is really the same thing). And I notice that today, while I was on stage, not ONCE did you show ANY sign of wanting to pull Glork off stage and lynch him. You never even mentioned it as a possibility.

Glork's argument was dumb. THe fact that I've played with them both before is part of the reason I thought I had a read on them.

In your experience do they usually play really, really, really, really scummy when they're town?

That's obviously not what I was talking about. But, since you ask, yes; Raj always looks kind scummy, and InHim lurks a lot. They're both good players, but yeah, they both generally look scummy when town.

Tell me; why were you trying so hard to get me off stage instead of Glork? I suggested we lynch Glork today, and your only response was to defend Glork with an "obviously THAT'S not going to happen" response. Why are you so opposed to the idea?

I'm not but everyone agrees you were scummy and need to be lynched.

So, now you're trying to blame "everyone else"? Nice.

ALso, note that generally, if "everyone agrees" that someone is scummy and needs to be lynched, especially when the case on that person is pretty weak, it means that that person is town and the scum are leaning on the scale.

No-one feasibly could have argued to take Gaspar off when he hadn't been as actively scummy as you have.

How the hell has Glork not been "actively scummy"?

For that matter, how have I been "actively scummy"?

We will push for Glork's lynch irrespective of your (scum) flip anyhow

Yeah, pardon me if I don't trust you on this.

Everyone else, make a note of this post. Put a little post-it note next to your computer screen about it if you have to. When Talilan dosn't follow through with this, when they come up with excuse after excuse to not vote Glork tomorrow, when they express vague suspicion on Glork but then vote somewhere else anyway, note that very carefully, and then after Glork flips scum, lynch them the next day.

I know my partner Elmo is less sure of this; he thinks you might just be tunneling town who's trying to lynch me just because you've devoted so much energy to arguing with me all game. I don't think so, though. I just find your claimed suspicion of Glork to be in such contradiction to how you've actually been acting, I very strongly suspect that you're scum with him.

It's quite obvious that this whole situation is a setup. Scum made me advocate both hoping that town would pull me off stage and lynch me, and because they hoped that that way town would ignore what I was saying on stage. And you, Talilan, seem to be working as hard as you can to make that scum plan a reality.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

And then, after saying KY might be town and truthful, he "leans towards" the door that KY WAS NOT ADVOCATING. Because poor, clueless KY was probably out of his depth and had no idea what was going on.

If KY was town, and was telling the truth about not having any information, then the correct choice 2/3rds of the time would have been door #2, because of the monty hall math thing. Did you miss that discussion yesterday, Talilan?

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Door #1 would be preferable

if we were confident that KY Krew was not a trustworthy chap

and that he had planned all this out

, but I don't really know if I believe that right now

. It just seems too obvious, like a setup. I'm leaning towards door #2.

Italicized bit is important. He quite clearly states that he doesn't really believe KY to be scum, even after KY's day 1 shenanigans.

I counter your italics with the POWER OF UNDERLINE! I interpret that as he doesn't believe that KY is [scum who specifically planned this all out], which seems reasonable to me.

Holy crap you broke out the heavy artillery.

There's an "and" in there. His theory is based on two bits.

A. KY might be a "trustworthy chap"
B. KY probably didn't plan anything

I don't care about the B part. The A part is my problem. And it answers your earlier post about Yos thinking KY might be town.

I thought there was a chance KY was town, yeah. Day 2 felt really, really odd to me; reading it now, it still does. Something is just screwy there, and I wish I could put my finger on it.

As Elmo already explained, if there's any chance at all that KY was town, even just a 1% chance, then door 2 is the mathematically correct choice. I was as convinced about anyone about KY being scum on day 1, and most of the points he was lynched because of were points that I brought up, but none of it was worth being "100% confident" on like Talilan is claiming; almost nothing in mafia is.

I don't really get why you think any of this is a point against me, PZ.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

We're lynching the obvscum elmosaurian instead.

You know, if a majority of you guys are scum, you can just tell me and I'll stop trying so hard.

Do you really think this?

No, I don't.

I've seen you attacking Talilan a lot in your little war of words, but I haven't seen a vote.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure Talilan is scum, but Elmo isn't convinced at the moment. So I'm not ready to vote just yet.

[elmosaurian]

Pooky: please take elmosaurian off-stage. It was pretty much universally determined that he was the scummiest player and needs to die today.

By the way, this post of Talilan is quite scummy. Out of the 7 people offstage, Talilan and one other had attacked me, two people had said they didn't want to lynch me today, and no one else had really commented. So this statement was just wrong. And then, when asked why he wanted to pull me off stage instead of Glork, the only excuse he had was that he thought "everyone believed Yos was scummy", which was just obviously false.

Talilan, if you really want us to believe you're not scum with Glork, you need to explain yourself better here. Why did you go manipulate Pooky into switching me off stage, why did you never even seem to contemplate suggesting switching Glork off stage?

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

I saw no evidence that KY Crew was in any way "clueless". All I saw was them role-playing a crazy person.

You don't think that they evidenced a lack of understanding about Monty Hall? Like, picking door #1 and then advocating door #1 which is clearly incorrect, or even saying "Mr. Odbody, what 'monty hall math thing'?" in 207, when Yos asked him about it?

There's an "and" in there. His theory is based on two bits.

A. KY might be a "trustworthy chap"
B. KY probably didn't plan anything

No, look, let's break it down what he actually said.

Door #1 would be preferable

IF

(we were confident that KY Krew was not a trustworthy chap

AND

that he had planned all this out), but I don't really know if I believe that right now.

I think the added brackets are fairly obviously correct.. this would be clearer if I could colour-code it. What we have is ACTION

IF

(CONDITION A

AND

CONDITION B). You appear to have made the mistake of equating NOT (A AND B) with (NOT A) AND (NOT B) when it is actually (NOT A) OR (NOT B). You can look e.g. here if you don't trust me. That is, I think it's untrue that Elmo is red with green eyes. This doesn't mean I think it's untrue that Elmo is red - I do think that Elmo is red, but I think Elmo doesn't have green eyes, and that is sufficient. There is no chance of KY planning this out if he isn't scum, so we can eliminate one case, and be left with three:

#1 - KY is not scum and did not plan this out (A = False, B = False)
#2 - KY is scum and did not plan this out (A = True, B = False)
#3 - KY is scum and did plan this out (A = True, B = True)

The quoted is Yos saying he doesn't think #3 is correct. You can get there by thinking KY isn't scum, or by thinking KY didn't plan this out if he is scum. The latter is what I got from his post, and is probably true. It's entirely incorrect to take "KY is town so we should pick #2" from what he actually posted; even if KY is 100% scum, #2 is probably the best choice. There

was

obviously some doubt in his mind, as he said in what I quoted, but he specifically talks about being conflicted and acknowledges that a lot of logical evidence points to KY being scum. That is quite different to suggesting we do ___ because, hey, KY

might

be town - he never said that.

Then it's Day 2, you're on stage and suddenly KY may be town. To me it looked like you were trying to save your partner by sowing seeds of doubt, and also trying to win the point by swaying people to Door 2.

It's a little silly to say that Yos was trying to save KY when a) it's obvious that KY was dying and b) he would be lynched off-stage, so there's zero point trying to persuade people on-stage. You've also neglected to actually criticise why Yos started to doubt his read, which seems entirely understandable to me.

I'm having difficulty understanding what people think ScumYos is doing - heavily bus KY, and then do a U-turn when it's obvious he's going down in flames? That seems entirely self-defeating. In any respect, it's just plain wrong to start flaying someone alive for having a measure of doubt about a given read. No-one has asserted he contradicted himself in any way, and no-one has asserted "doubt is scummy". So.. what?

~ Elmo

[elmosaurian]

You can get there by thinking KY isn't scum

Yes, exactly, and this is my interpretation of what he said. And since you decided to go down this road of logic, and since my interpretation is one of the possibilities, I'm having a hard time understanding why you don't see my PoV.

Because 1) your attack is based on one interpretation while acknowledging the other as at least equally likely; 2) the principle of charity; 3) the other interpretation is much more consistent with his stance on KY elsewhere, for example in 291.

Also, I can't help but wonder why something your hydra partner said is "probably true".

Would you dispute that it is probably true? It seems kind of obvious to me, although obviously there's no proof.

And I don't know what scumYos was doing. I've given my best guess - bussing for townie cred and then trying to save his partner? Maybe he saw that KY was stuntman and wanted a repeat performance the next day? I have no idea.

So you are voting for someone whilst acknowledging (I think?) you can see why they'd do it as town, and that you have no idea why they'd do it as scum, and not actually giving a reason (as far as I can see) why one is more likely that the other? Have I got this right?

All I know is that his read inexplicably went from sure-fire scum to possible confused townie in the space of a night.

My problem here is that you're just throwing your hands up and saying "ooh, it's inexplicable" instead of debating the merit of

what he said

, which is not only entirely intelligible but makes perfect sense. And there is this constant weasel-wording of "possible" when even 99% certain still leaves some rational possibility of being wrong. How

likely

did he actually say it was that KY was town?

~ Elmo

[elmosaurian]

Also, I can't help but wonder why something your hydra partner said is "probably true".

Would you dispute that it is probably true? It seems kind of obvious to me, although obviously there's no proof.

Wait. I think I was talking about something totally different here, oops.

As to the on-stage thing, I thought they already solved it?

Elmo

[elmosaurian]

And I don't know what scumYos was doing. I've given my best guess - bussing for townie cred and then trying to save his partner?

That's your best guess? That makes no sense at all.

Of course KY was going to die on day 2; that was a given. You really think anything me expressing some vauge doubts was an attempt to SAVE him? Seriously?

Maybe he saw that KY was stuntman and wanted a repeat performance the next day?

No, of course not; that's part of the reason KY obviously had to be lynched on day 2, and part of the reason I would have voted to lynch him if I was off-stage, because we couldn't take that chance.

I have no idea. All I know is that his read inexplicably went from sure-fire scum to possible confused townie in the space of a night.

"inexplicably"?

I've explained it as best as I can about 5 times now. Elmo apparently understood what I was talking about, and he restated it pretty well, probably better then I ever did. Is there something there you're not understanding, or what?

Anyway, to an extent, it dosn't really matter if you understand my reasons or not; as a pro-town player, when I have doubts about something relevent to an important town decision, I'm going to share them.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

vote: Elmosaurian pending a response and that the response makes sense.

A response to what?

Also- I do not think we should intervene much on camera. I would be quite willing to send a "don't pick mother" response if we are going to lynch elmo. But this is more that we should not be putting all our eggs in one basket rather than me having a strong opinion about the correct on stage choice.

What? That dosn't really make sense.

Elmosaurrian- is CKD scum in your opinion?

Nope. CKD is almost certainly town; he's by far the closest thing to a confirmed town we have in this game.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

Looking back now I think I can see what Yos was trying to do on stage that day. He expected that we (Talilan) would get the advocate information when we stunted in. It probably would have told us to pick Door 1. We would have came out advocating the same course of action as KY Krew did. Confusion would have ensued, KY and Tali BOTH wanted door 1, ending up with a reasonable reason to switch to Door 2 for those who had expressed suspicion of KY & Talilan.

Um...that dosn't make any sense at all. If two different people claimed they had role info that door #1 is the correct choice, then obviously the right thing to do would have been to pick door #1, and then if that information proved wrong to just lynch both of them.

If you had replaced in and claimed you had info saying door #1 was the correct choice, obviously I would have voted door #1, and so would everyone else.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Talilan, if you really want us to believe you're not scum with Glork, you need to explain yourself better here. Why did you go manipulate Pooky into switching me off stage, why did you never even seem to contemplate suggesting switching Glork off stage?

Today is your day for being lynched, tomorrow is Glork's. It's just fate I'm afraid.

Bullshit. You were the one who delibratly manipulated Pooky into switching me out instead of Glork, even though several people off stage had said they didn't want to lynch me today. Ergo, you are probably scum with Glork, and tomorrow you'll find another excuse to not go after him.

Also, today is not "my day for being lynched". You're not going to get me lynched just by repeating crap arguments and saying "yos is obvscum" over and over again in a lame attempt at creating a lynch through bad logic, lies about what I said, pure repetition.

Instead of responding to it, you continued down the baseless tangent of "wondering if KY Crew was scummy" and then voting Door 2 apparently solely because we voted Door 1.

Again, saying I that's a complete misrepresetiation of my reasons, and you KNOW that. I did not vote door 2 "solely because you voted door 1". That was a very minor point, and I made that quite clear.

I don't know what you think you can gain by lying when the thread is right there for all of us to read, but it's not going to work.

Anyway, all this stuff is irrelevant. I realised I've again let elmo get away without something obviously incriminating:

He failed to respond to my point yesterday (1033) that if nothing else, it should have been obvious to him that KY Crew was scum based on the way KY Crew hammered in the stage choice day one to set zwet as the lynch. The timing of this is

only

consistent with him day-talking with other people in the thread.

Did you forget that I who first suggested that possibility?

Also, I can't imagine why you would think that makes me scum, when you've defending Glork so hard here; if that theory is true, then it would obviously make one of the two people who might have been at risk of being lynched instead of Zwet scum; so, if you're right, then either Glork, or you, or both, MUST be scum. So why were you defending Glork so hard when I wanted to lynch him?

Firstly, please point us to where you suggested that possibility.

Right here:

On a side note, I wonder if scum can daytalk.

If they can, then there is a risk that the scum on camera could suddenly decide to end the day at a time when the voting in this thread helps their interests.

Considering we have little time left, and considering that the on camera thread is only 2 vcotes away from a lynch, I'd really rather we do a "real" lynch very soon, since there's less chance of scum manipulation there.

I warned the town about the possibility before day 1 ended, because I was trying to prevent the scum from being able to manipulate the lynch in that way.

Secondly, even if you were the "first to bring it up" this wouldn't explain why you didn't take it as obvious evidence KY Crew was scum. Why did you not think the way KY Crew hammered in the choice was sufficient evidence for him being obviously scum?

I did think that was pretty good evidence for him being scum. I said so, too.

Hey, on day 1 I caught KY Krew, you, AND Glork. I think I'm doing pretty awesome this game.

Anyway, after re-reading day 1 again, I remember why I had such a problem with Talilan's play in the first place. His day 1 play was so scummy, trying to trick the town into not making such an obviously correct choice, and then the absurd OMGUS attacks that followed when I pointed that out. Basically I attacked him day 1, and he's been obsessivly tunnelend on me ever since then. He's clearly not actually reading my posts, or hearing what I have to say; he dosn't seem to care what my alignment is, he just wants to lynch me.

It is possible he's just a town who's playing, really, REALLY poorly here; Elmo pointed out the similarities between his illogical and irrational debating style this game and the similar debating style he used in recent mafia discussion threads, but I just don't think it's at all likely he's town here. I was willing to give him some credit yesterday when he picked the right door, but he's squandered that with unbelievably anti-town play today. For one thing, it was very anti-town play for him to tell Pooky to switch with me before getting some kind of consensus from the off-stage thread first.

Vote:Talilan, everyone else, elmosaurian

I need to re-read to get a better read on the rest of the off-screen thread; most of the people I have a solid read on are on stage right now, and most of the people off-screen have been pretty quiet for much of the game.

Tags removed. Only votes at the end of the post are counted. - Mod

[elmosaurian]

Of course KY was going to die on day 2; that was a given. You really think anything me expressing some vauge doubts was an attempt to SAVE him? Seriously?

No, of course not; that's part of the reason KY obviously had to be lynched on day 2, and part of the reason I would have voted to lynch him if I was off-stage, because we couldn't take that chance.

Jeez Yos you're not making any sense. If it was a given that KY was going to die, what was the point of expressing doubt?

Seriously, Orbots?

I wasn't expressing my doubt because I didn't think he should be lynched; that wasn't a decision I got to make that day. All I was worried about was which door to pick, a completely unrelated decision.

So, what...your theory is that my plan was to wait until after he had been whisked off stage to be lynched, and then I would express some half-formed gut based doubts, and that that would somehow derail a wagon that was obviously going to happen no matter what?

Why would you have been all for lynching someone that you decided might be town?

How many times do I have to explain this?

If there's a 50-60% chance he's scum, which is about what I was thinking, then lynching him is obviously the right move.

On the other hand, if he's scum, and especally if he's scum that everyone in the game suspects, then trying to outguess him is pure OMGUS randomness; might as well flip a coin, like shadowlurker said. So if there's even, say, a 20% or 30% chance he's town, then door #2 would be the (slightly) better option, if only by a few percent.

So, yes, if I was off-stage, I would have voted again to lynch him, just like I did on day 1. I was on stage, though, so I wasn't trying to figure out if he was a better then random lynch or not, I had to figure out if there was any chance at ALL if he was town.

Do you understand the difference here?

Let me ask you this: Why do you think you were the only one to question KY's likely scummitude? Why do you feel other players besides myself expressed surprise by your play on camera Day 2? Why don't you think you got any traction with the feeling when you expressed it in thread?

Because KY looked scummy as hell, obviously. There was a lot of logical evidence pointing in that way, like I said.

Note that, in most cases, "looks scummy as hell" translates into about a 50%-60% chance of a correct lynch, at best.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

On a side note, why would Pooky say in the other thread "Elmo is going to be lynched pretty soon" when no one other then Talilan and Orbots had expressed any interest in lynching me before he left?

Pooky's not looking good here to me; if the scum are doing what it looks like they're doing, then he's likely part of it.

Yos

[elmosaurian]

1. I think the other interpretation is much less likely because of the context of all this.

What context, and why? We've agreed that he was very suspicious of KY day 1. If we're choosing between "I'm starting to doubt KY is scum" and "hay guys we should ___ because KY might be town" then the former seems far more likely in that context.

2. Lawl, no. This is Mafia, not a debate. There are parties who are deliberately lying to us.

The point is that it's not difficult to say someone looks scummy if you willingly misinterpret what they're saying. If you're town, you need to attempt to figure out what someone actually means. Part of that would be assuming they're not just being daft and have some kind of reason for things they do.

3. Or not, for example (iso) 31, 43, 61

I don't know what these are, elmosaur only has 23 posts in isolation on-camera. If this is off-stage, then it's obvious he suspected KY day 1; that doesn't the fact that his stance on-camera was "I'm starting to doubt my read" rather than "hey, let's do __ because maybe KY is town". Every post on-camera is in the context of what I quoted, "I may very well be wrong, much of the logical evidence in fact speaks strongly in favor of that possibility". That is his stance, which he has stated repeatedly, and trying to sell that as Yos coming to KY's aid in any way is simply straw-manning.

Obviously I'm disputing that it's probably true. I just think it's weird that you'd classify something your

hydra partner

said as "probably true".

Why is that weird? He said KY didn't plan it out, and that's probably true. Why do you believe it isn't probably true?

All that happened was that Yos got on camera, looked around, and suddenly started saying "well gee guys, maybe we should rethink all this."

How is it possible that I've pointed out that he stated why he did this multiple times, and you're basically refusing to argue whether his reason was good or bad? You're saying he had no reason for doing while avoiding the fact

he's told you why

. Unless you interact with that, you're basically saying that having any doubts is scummy, as far as I can see. This is when I've essentially shown you that such doubts are rational.

You don't think that they evidenced a lack of understanding about Monty Hall? Like, picking door #1 and then advocating door #1 which is clearly incorrect, or even saying "Mr. Odbody, what 'monty hall math thing'?" in 207, when Yos asked him about it?

No, it reinforced that they were manipulative scum.

What? You previously disputed that they appeared clueless about Monty Hall. You can't just sidestep it and say "well that should have been suspicious", especially when that doesn't answer what I said previously.

I think the right course of action is staying. I think they originally wanted to stick with "stay" being the right option as we're more likely to switch off-hand. But then they tried to double bluff us by saying door 1 is the right option. So I'd say stay.

And this is trying to out-WIFOM the scum. It's great that it worked out, but would you seriously claim that we're scummy for picking the wrong glass, especially when it's probably optimal for them to assign it randomly?

Also if you were town you would realise your actions are clearly very, very, very scummy and it is in no way scummy to attack you for them.

Laying aside the fact that I don't agree his actions were scummy, when have you

ever

seen a townie that agreed they were scummy and should be attacked? This is ridiculous.

I gotta say, the only reason I don't think Talilan/Orbots are necessarily scum is because I've seen people do truly horrible things involving tunneling as town; I'm very lenient on that sort of thing. Talilan is somewhat less surprising because they latched onto us for bizarre reasons (page 3 distancing or so?) earlier.. Orbots seems somewhat sketchier, I can't tell if he's misreading or just avoiding the actual issues of what Yos said; obviously I'm biased. I'll say one thing, it's very difficult to tell where anyone other than those two stands on the particulars against us.

I'm going to try and reread the whole thing tomorrow. At least half of the people here seem very in the background, which is disconcerting.

~ Elmo

[elmosaurian]

Ortolan, can you explain just why you think yos and Glork are both scum and bussing each other?

Large component of the read was them both attacking us for bad reasons when we were on-stage scene 1 (I make no apologies for this).

Yes; you've been attacking me all game because you acted like scum on day 1, and I called you on it.

The fact that literally all you've done, all game, is OMGUS me because I suspected your behavior on day 1 is incredibly damning evidence against you, in my opinion. And the weakness of your other arguments, as you demonstrate in this very post, proves to me that that's what you're doing.

Plus elmo's sentence to Gaspar which he didn't fill out, something like "I find you scummy because...". He then clearly started writing a new paragraph and it looked very much like he was trying to find a reason to suspect Gaspar but had forgotten to fill it out.

I honestly can't believe you're still trying to use this as an argument. "Hey, Yos made a minor editing mistake when writing a post, he must be scum!"

At that stage when I was re-reading I found Gaspar's unfounded attacks very, very scummy and wondered why elmo was just going along with them. Just to the point where his attacks got ridiculous elmo seemed to make the point "aha! there is something scummy about you Gaspar" which is completely nondescript.

I was the first person to attack Glork on day 1. I never "went along" with his attacks on mafiajin, at all, that's simply a false statement.

I feel at that point Gaspar's scumminess was obvious and if elmo didn't get on the record at that point as suspecting Gaspar (even though again, they scummily didn't give any actual reasons) then they risked getting pulled under with Gaspar later.

Again, NO ONE ELSE "got on record" as suspecting Glork until after this point. If "not attacking glork" there is a scumtell, then I would literally everyone in the game is more guilty of it then I am.

I'll often go on a gut read, and at this point, I had a gut read on Glork. After I said that, other people agreed with me, because his behavior did seem off.

True to my predictions, after I suspected them of distancing; elmo managed to act really scummy on-stage and towards KY Crew.

And now you're making even less sense.

Likewise he and Gaspar inexplicably locked onto each other.

I was attacking Glork because I think he's scum. He later attacked me, when he had a chance to do so, probably because he's scum.

How on earth could you suspect Glork, but call my attacks on him "inexplicable"?

It looks exactly like they're just going through with their busing plan.

Or, like I'm town who suspects Glork.

That's it. I do feel pretty strongly about this and it's telling that while no-one was initially convinced by our arguments,

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD ARGUMENTS.

Also, Gaspar automatically trusting elmo's information despite declaring him obv-scum is completely nonsensical.

Well, he's scum, so he knows I'm telling the truth.

There is evidence they are linked

Only in your imagination.

and there is also evidence they are scummy separately (I would remind you three out of three dead townies all said Gaspar was scummy).

The scum saw that I looked suspicious, so they made me the advocate, AND, at the same time, killed one of the people I was suspicious of yesteday. The whole thing feels like a setup.

elmo: I promise I will advocate for Glork's lynch tomorrow regardless of your flip (in the absence of him getting unequivocally, 100% cleared somehow; not that that's viable, or even possible as he's scum).

Well, I promise that after we lynch you today, we'll lynch Glork tomorrow.


I want everyone to read through ortolan's post here. That mess of garbage is the case against me. That's it. I'm getting run up based on that, and none of it makes any sense at all.

I can't imagine there's any way ortolan could believe any of that as town. Am I missing something here? Orbots, you apparently want to follow ortolan here; want to explain to me how any of what he said makes any sense at all?

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Yossy do you think the Crone is the right choice?

I'm pretty sure that Mother is the best choice here; I can't really get anything useful out of CKD's claimed clue, and we know mother is at least a safe choice.

[elmosaurian]

Yossy do you think the Crone is the right choice?

I'm pretty sure that Mother is the best choice here; I can't really get anything useful out of CKD's claimed clue, and we know mother is at least a safe choice.

Which is interesting because

Of the three choices, there is apparently one choice that is good, one choice that is bad, and one choice that is neither good nor bad; that choices is merely indifferent.

I can also tell all of you that I know that The Mother is not the bad choice.

Saying you know is a lot stronger certainty than now saying you are only "pretty sure."

-Zachrulez

Well, I know for a fact that the mother is not the bad choice, obviously. I don't know for a fact that it is the good choice. However, it's probably the right move here, since we know it's either neutral or good.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

My point was that he said he knows it's not the bad choice on camera, but he's since transitioned into weaker language, saying he's pretty sure it's the best choice as opposed to knowing it is.

No, I didn't 'transition it into weaker language". I'm 100% certain that the mother is not the bad choice, and that makes me pretty sure it's the best choice for us to pick today.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Mm. The only way I can see why you could decide the crone is the good choice would be if you used some mod WIFOM, and I don't really want to go there.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Anyone who is still wondering whether ElmYos is scum go back and read KY Krew's performance onstage with the Monty Hall business.

What about it, exactly? His behavior looked to me like someone who didn't didn't understand or didn't know about the monty hall math or whatever. I thought I remembered him not really posting much during the time between scenes, although I couldn't go and check, so that fit with KY-town. It wouldn't make sense if KY was part of the scum team.

I actually was doing my best, during that part of day 2, to trip up KY and to try to trap him, and find out if he was scum. If you look at the back and fourth between me and him there, that should be pretty obvious. I was a little frustrated you switched him out before he responded to my last comment there, when I explained the monty hall thing to him, or I might have gotten a better idea of what he was thinking.

Then add KY's runaway stunt switch and ask yourself how any intelligent townie could think for a second that KY might be town.

Again, after KY did the switch, my first reaction was to suspect him for it.

We don't have that much time left before deadline...I really wonder if this was a scum-KY's attempt to just dodge the lynch bullet for a day.

I was the first person to attack KY on those grounds. It was always part of the reason I thought he looked suspicious. And I always had my doubts about that whole odd "rumor" thing he claimed to have recieved.

Not just town, but also believe he's an advocate who received no useful information.

Did you read the coversation on day 1 about the monty hall math thing?

A lot of people (Glork, especially) seemed to be assuming that the advocate wouldn't assume any information at all, when we were discussing it before scene 2 started. The whole "monty hall" discussion seemed based on that assumption.

I personally questioned that assumption in thread here at the time, but after seeing it, I wouldn't have been surprised if the advocate didn't receive any information, other then the whole "monty hall" thing; it wouldn't surprise me at all if mith set it up so that, if the advocate is town, then town has a 2/3 chance of getting it right by solving a commonly known math problem.

[elmosaurian]

Lots of points for effort, but I simply don't believe you. Any townie of your experience would recognise a scum performance like that from 1000 miles away, while blind-folded, in your sleep.

...

I understand the Monty Hall math thing, but as has been mentioned it only applies if you believed KY was town. That is the issue. Did you REALLY believe KY had a DECENT chance of being town. I say no way.

Yes, I did think there was a decent chance of him being town.

Frankly, I'm getting kind of sick of the "Yos is really good at mafia, and he's not agreeing with me when I'm OBVIOUSLY right, so Yos must be scum" votes I seem to be getting in every single game I play now, no matter what I do or don't do. I seem to be getting lynched when I'm town based on logic like that constantly these days, (either that or the "Yos is good, and the scum haven't killed him, so he must be scum" argument, which is equally bad) to the point where I'm starting to wonder if I need to make an alt just in order to be able to play mafia at all anymore. That's not directly related to any of this, but it's frustrating.

And I think it was more a case of people forgetting about the advocate information and making sure everyone understood the monty hall problem pre-scene 2, rather than assuming we wouldn't get any information.

It actually sounded to me, from the way he was posting, like Glork already knew before the day started that the advocates weren't going to get any information on day 2. Of course, that is only valid if Glork is a scum who slipped and revealed information he didn't mean to, but that was my impression at the time.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Anyway, I'm starting to have some second thoughts about my Talilan vote, again. The whole thing at the start of this page where Talitha unvoted me, did a re-read, and then voted me again, dosn't really look staged to me, and I can't really see a scum doing it at this point, after pushing a wagon on me this long and this hard. I donno, I could be reading too much into OMGUSy stuff the way I apparently did yesterday, but I don't think so.

On the other hand, I'm getting a really, really bad vibe from Sotty. Looking back at him, neither of them have scumhunted at all this game, to any degree, nor have they really contibuted anything useful at any point of the game. Last time they mentioned me before the moment, they called me "neutral". If any of the people leading my wagon here are town, then Scotty is acting exactally the way I would expect a scum to act; slowly, "reluctantly" coming joining a Yos wagon.

My second suspect right now is probably orbits; none of his attacks on me really seem honest, or interested in finding out the truth, or even seem to have any rational basis behind the "I don't understand why Yos said that about KY yesterday so he must be scum" baloney. Talilian has dropped to #3.

I'm also thinking Thesp is probably town here.

-Yos

Vote:Sotty

, Orbits, Talilan, [everyone], Thesp, No Lynch, Elmosaurian