Mini 579 - The Plagues of Egypt Mafia - Over

[hasdgfas]

the lack of consequence if his alignment isn't revealed. Lynching lurkers isn't a great strategy in normal games, but becomes much better when the lynchees' alignment may not be revealed.

This makes no sense at all. Why is alignment possibly not getting revealed a reason to lynch "lurkers"?

[Mr Stoofer]

Come on people, can't you come up with two or three names of people you'd be fine with getting lynched ?

This is an astonishing thing to say! You have been one of the most "backseat" players in this game, by which I mean that you have not contributed to moving this game forward ("moving the game forward" = "lynching people", by the way).

If you want us to consider lynching someone else, then

you

come up with a case on someone else.

Right now I'd be content to lynch lord_hur:

• Trying to get other people to come up with cases, while not doing so himself, is a classic Scum tactic.
  
• And if he is Town, he is useless.
  
• The only person lord_hur has really cast suspicion on is me. That's scummy for two reasons: (a) I am the easiest person to attack since I am by far the most vocal player here; and (b) even when attacking me he has never given proper reasons.

I'm not unvoting (in case a no-lynch results) but I'll switch to lord_hur if there is enough support.

[lord_hur]

Lord_Hur - would you rather that I restate (and restate) my position on you and SpringLullaby? I've even recently mentioned that I would switch back to either of you if I cannot get the lynch on Musher.

Yes, I overreacted and globalized too much. You did give some names (even if they weren't well justified in my opinion).

[lord_hur]

Come on people, can't you come up with two or three names of people you'd be fine with getting lynched ?

This is an astonishing thing to say! You have been one of the most "backseat" players in this game, by which I mean that you have not contributed to moving this game forward ("moving the game forward" = "lynching people", by the way).

BACKSEAT ? Lord, I feel I have taken more risks in this game than every other games I played put together. Just with this post you criticized, I could have stayed low, but did not.

I was sure I was going to get this kind of reaction from someone, and was expecting it from either springlullaby, HackerHuck or Mr Stoofer.

Yes, I know you're expecting people to follow everything you say, just like for Guardian's lynch. Sorry for not going with the flock and agreeing with you on those lynches, but you see, I have an opinion too.

I am well willing to lynch people, and have voted. But yes I know, not for the person YOU want.

You are not the most vocal in my opinion, but somehow most of the people seem to follow you, to the point that you are leading the game. I feel like all of the most important decisions in the game (pressing on Guardian to get a claim, Guardian's lynch, pressing on Musher333 to get a claim, Musher333's pending lynch) have been ignited by you. And, except Guardian's claim, which was necessary, I disagree with each of them.

When you think a bus is going to crash into a wall, you question the driver. This is why I'm suspecting you.

Also, I know you are a much better player than me, so I don't expect to get you lynched, at least this day. But I stated what I thought nevertheless, knowing what I would get from you. And you say I'm a backseat player ? Hahahaha

[Mr Stoofer]

And once again lord_hur fails to post a detailed case, but just loudly shouts at the most vocal player without giving proper reasons.

[lord_hur]

And once again lord_hur fails to post a detailed case, but just loudly shouts at the most vocal player without giving proper reasons.

Okay. I suspect 3 people, so :

Hypothesis n° 1 : "proper reasons" is refering to Mr Stoofer :

I gave my main reason for suspecting you. The second is because you seems to be way too sure about people's scumminess. I tried to metagame you, and couldn't find another game in which you appear to be as sure as in this one. But of course, it wasn't a complete reading.

However, I did come across two interesting things you said :

434 Communiqué Scum

Two things I didn't like about it:
When I'm scum (and I know why the nightkill happened) I find it hard to resist the urge to tell the town why the victim was killed -- especially when it is A WIFOM kill. Post 26 sounded like Miztef might have failed to reist such an urge.

And who commented right after Guardian's lynch ? Hmm...


421 Smalltown 2

Yeah, that is classic scum -- i.e. don't antagonise anyone else, focus on the guy you think you can get lynched today.

It could be seen as what you were doing till I attacked you.


Hypothesis n° 2 : "proper reasons" is refering to HackerHuck :

Yes, Mr Stoofer is right, I *never* gave my reasons for voting him (and I left a few out) :

I agree with tvod. There is no way we can work out why some roles were revealed and some weren't. And even if we did work it out, how would that catch scum?

You asked for ideas, I gave one.

I know you are SO sure of Guardian's being scum, but I am not. Knowing it for sure would greatly influence the way I see the game.

I personally do not think Musher333 is behaving scummy ; to me he is being pretty consistent with the way he played in last game.

Right now I suspect :

- Mr Stoofer (mainly for trying to establish Guardian as known scum while we still have no certainty about it)
- hasdgfas (lack of agressiveness and low actual content posted)
- HackerHuck (low content, in post 427 he attacks hasdgfas for appearing too convinced about Guardian's scumminess, but no word on Mr Stoofer who claims to be absolutely sure, and lastly the second part of his last post is exactly what I picture scum would say to appear townish)

These are not decisive arguments though.

Lord_hur - how have I been non-commital? I believe I locked onto Guardian and stuck with him almost all of day one.

Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.

But here, I was talking about day 2 :
- your only attack this day (springlullaby bussing me) is pretty weak and hard to give credit to in my opinion - though I might be biased, so if someone else could comment on this...
- your Musher333 vote was only following Mr Stoofer with no additional argument -> weak vote
- you basically voted me just because someone else was voting me (and someone you're apparently suspecting of being scum, at that), while implying that you voted just to get the game going -> weak vote

Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.

Quote please.

These are the two post you did after your actual vote :

I'm not sure if I need to repeat any of the things that everyone else has said about you Guardian. It should be obvious to you why Millers are bad news to the town. It's a crappy claim because the only way to prove it is by lynching you. Scum would never kill a miller, which means that the town has to do it at some point. The only good news is that cops won't bother wasting an investigation on you, but you pretty much blew that by crumbing cop to begin with.

Like the others, I think you forgot that I was already voting you, so my vote was more of a confirmation than anything else - hence the context.

If you're town, then I guess you did us a favor by claiming miller so we can kill you sooner rather than later, but that's small comfort.

In this one, you're only considering Guardian being town.

Jesters are pretty darn rare and I sure would hope that self-voting invalidates their win condition.

Guardian, I don't like how you keep trying to portray my vote on you as one that is based on your supposed millership. I had voted you prior to that and your claim has only cemented my vote. My comments were all related to how millers are bad news for the town. If you can tell me one good thing the miller does for the town, then I will admit I'm wrong (but I still won't pull my vote).

I've seen scum claim miller as often as I've seen town do it. It's not going to get you off the hook in my eyes.


I don't like how TVOD reacted by pushing the jester angle, but I'm not sure if it should be chalked up to newbishness.

In this one, Guardian was right (in my opinion) to believe you voted him for being a miller. We don't know what's in your head, but that's actually the way it appeared to me too. And you nail the "vote for townie" further by saying you won't unvote, even if he proves you you're wrong.

And to conclude this, you say metagaming couldn't tell you whether he had a greated chance to be scum or town...

EBWOP : I posted all the reasons I voted him, and attack him when possible, and there are not many opportunities, as he's next to non-existent in my opinion - and the few attacks he does are really uninspiring and worthless to me, as I've already said.

Hypothesis n° 3 : "other reasons" is refering to springlullaby :

Hell I'm tired of copying and pasting, so go and check the stuff yourself. BUT I must say my suspicion of her has seriously dropped. One of the stronger reasons for this is she metagamed for Musher333, and I think scum wouldn't get to such length, as they know whether Musher's scum or not.

That is all.

[lord_hur]

EBWOF : And who commented right after Guardian's lynch ? Hmm... Additionally, I can say I myself couldn't resist this urge to comment (and nearly got nailed for it by Cicero) in the only game I have been scum in so far.

[Mr Stoofer]

I was Scum on both those games you quoted. So you can hardly take that as valid evidence of my true opinions. I was making stuff up to try to get innocent people lynched.

[lord_hur]

I was Scum on both those games you quoted. So you can hardly take that as valid evidence of my true opinions. I was making stuff up to try to get innocent people lynched.

I can only judge regarding my own play, but when I play scum myself, I try to play as close as I would if I were town. This includes fake-scumhunting using scumtells I really believe in.

[strife220]

I'd take a Hur lynch over a HackerHuck lynch no problem. Still prefer Hasdgfas though.

the lack of consequence if his alignment isn't revealed. Lynching lurkers isn't a great strategy in normal games, but becomes much better when the lynchees' alignment may not be revealed.

This makes no sense at all. Why is alignment possibly not getting revealed a reason to lynch "lurkers"?

Why do we lynch lurkers? To eliminate the chance of scum 'slipping through,' getting to end game, and having no content to look through for tells. And even if they aren't scum, they weren't helping town much.

Why do we lynch players who contribute? Because we think they might be scum. And even if they aren't scum, we get lots of information upon uncovering their alignment to guide is in future lynches. It's a common mistake in newbie games for first-time townies to Vote: No Lynch because they realize that the probability of hitting scum D1 is very low. It's the IC's job to say "You're right, however, we lynch so that we can get information and look for tells."

With no card-flip, the reason for lynching players with lots of contribution drops down, because their lynch doesn't give town any information. If we knew his alignment, we'd have a lot more to go off of today because we'd no who supported and who avoided his lynch.

So as the reason for lynching players who contribute decreases, the motivation to lynch lurkers early-game increases relatively. I'm actually quite suspicious of Stoofer, but if he IS scum, he should be easier to identify late-game from all the content. And if he IS town, then he should be a lot more helpful ... again, from the content. Moreover, if Stoofer was lynched and his alignment didn't show up, it'd drive me nuts because a lot of information died upon his lynch. If you got lynched, Hasdgfas, I wouldn't be nearly as upset if your card didn't get flipped, because the worst case scenario (you were town) isn't as bad, because at least you weren't a particularly useful town player here.

The 'mafia' we're used to playing relies heavily upon alignment revealing upon death. When that changes, the strategy changes a lot. People should be accounting for this in their play.

[hasdgfas]

With no card-flip, the reason for lynching players with lots of contribution drops down, because their lynch doesn't give town any information. If we knew his alignment, we'd have a lot more to go off of today because we'd no who supported and who avoided his lynch.

um, wrong. Getting explicitly told alignment is only one of several ways of getting information. You can get information in many different places from a lynch, whether you get told alignment or not.

strife, I've got a question for you, since it's what I'm getting from your posts.

If we were playing a full no-reveal game, should we just lynch the lurkers because we're not getting any info from our lynches?

[lord_hur]

I'd take a Hur lynch over a HackerHuck lynch no problem.

Surprising. May I know why ?

[strife220]

If we were playing a full no-reveal game, should we just lynch the lurkers because we're not getting any info from our lynches?

No, you're just twisting my words and taking them to the extreme end of the spectrum. I'm saying under the present circumstances, I think your lynch would be the best. These circumstances being: a few days until deadline, (presumably) no card-flip, and the current train being on a claimed doc.

[strife220]

I'd take a Hur lynch over a HackerHuck lynch no problem.

Surprising. May I know why ?

As I've already said, I don't want a Musher-lynch or a no-lynch. When I did my full readthrough on replacing, HackerHuck did not ping my scum-dar. Upon re-reading him, I still didn't see anything that made me think he was likely scum.
When I did my full readthrough on replacing, you did come up nearer the top of my 'potential scum' list. And relative to HackerHuck and Musher, I think you're a good choice. When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.

[hasdgfas]

If we were playing a full no-reveal game, should we just lynch the lurkers because we're not getting any info from our lynches?

No, you're just twisting my words and taking them to the extreme end of the spectrum. I'm saying under the present circumstances, I think your lynch would be the best. These circumstances being: a few days until deadline, (presumably) no card-flip, and the current train being on a claimed doc.

It's what I'm understanding from your posts, because you're not explaining why a "lurker" lynch is good for us at this point.

[strife220]

I'd rather lynch a lurker that might be scum than a more active player that might be scum. I also think you're more likely to be scum than HackerHuck, making two strikes.

Why is a "lurker" lynch bad for us?

[hasdgfas]

I'd rather lynch a lurker that might be scum than a more active player that might be scum. I also think you're more likely to be scum than HackerHuck, making two strikes.

Why is a "lurker" lynch bad for us?

Because we should be lynching scum, not "lurkers"

[strife220]

Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Scum usually have more motivation to lurk than town.

[hasdgfas]

Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Scum usually have more motivation to lurk than town.

Except it rarely works out that way, if you've played any games.

[strife220]

You were lurking, therefore you're probably pro-town, and thus a bad lynch? Your reasoning here is terrible...

However it's close to deadline so I'll drop the argument for today. All the opinions I've stated thus far stand.

[HackerHuck]

Let's be a little more careful in our assumptions here. We cannot yet assume that someone we lynch will not have their role revealed.

Lynching lurkers is always a copout in my opinion and it's often a scumtell.

[strife220]

Let's be a little more careful in our assumptions here. We cannot yet assume that someone we lynch will not have their role revealed.

Lynching lurkers is always a copout in my opinion and it's often a scumtell.

Arguing that the lurkers should be lynched and the day ended early instead of trying to scum-hunt is a copout and scumtell. We have 3 days until deadline, which is barely enough time to ask a question or two, let alone do in-depth, high-pressure scumhunting.


You're right about the assumption that there will be no role-reveal though. 2/3 no-flips is a very strange ratio; no telling what will happen.



What are your thoughts on LordHur, Hacker?

[lord_hur]

When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.

I hope it is a good one. Given how you played till now, I have very high expectations.

[Singing Librarian]

We can have no idea whether or not the alignment of anyone lynched or nightkilled will be revealed, so can neither assume they will be nor assume they won't. Any decisions made by each individual should be completely independent of the role reveal. I am voting for the person I find scummiest. Although obviously it would be best if his role was revealed upon death, I think it's more important to vote where you see scum than to form a strategy based on presence or absence of reveals.

[lord_hur]

Wednesday's gone, no news from SM, and no one's playing. Great