Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[EmpTyger]

massive:

I'd prefer going later if no one has any objections; my role is immediately provable.
<snip>

I designed the order so that players who hadn’t made partial revelations went before those who had. Since KingPin wants to see Fonz higher anyhow, flip it so you go after him? Then you’ll go last among those who haven’t claimed anything yet.

The WIFOM answer to Stoofer's claim is definitely that it's an easy-to-fake claim, now knowing that not only is the serial "killer" dead (so a fake claim won't randomly turn up dead) but also nicely ties in to the known information. But it's even more WIFOM to assume that the Mafia, working in conjunction, came up with fake claims for all of them that including ONE townie.

I don’t understand this- are you just playing WIFOM with yourself there? Because… don’t do that.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
You know there is one way to sort this out, lynch him. On the other hand, suppose he is telling the truth. I agree that Stoofer has played badly, very badly. I do not know whether to doubt his claim or believe it. It would seem to fit with certain other game aspects. And, if lynching him proves that all other players have roles, it is a small plus for the town.

The reason for the town to be lynching Stoofer is *not* to modconfirmed roleknowledge. The reason would be because we believe him to be guilty.

However, if we lynch him, assuming a 3 person mafia, the town is then thrown into a very tight place.

What alternative would you propose? I mean, if we’re talking absolute worst cases, is there any plan in which not lynching Stoofer leaves the town in a less tight place?

<snip>
I don't care about the order, I'll go first if you'd like. I would like to see Fonz and Mathcam nearer to the top, though.

Okay about mathcam, but why Fonz nearer to the top, but not Johoohno?

---

Stoofer:
Your distortion is the exact inverse of what I actually said.
What I said: If Stoofer is innocent, then his claim is false.
What you’ve twisted my words into: If Stoofer is guilty, then his claim is true.

Nail in Stoofer’s coffin:

if he were genuinely innocent,

why would he blurt out that the mafia can’t claim vanilla safely, when we’re discussing doing a massclaim or a targetclaim today? Seriously, talk about waving a fakeclaim decided on overnight, rather than genuinely helping the town.

There is something wrong with you.

If I am Scum,

how would I know that "the mafia can't claim vanilla safely"?

Furthermore, your whole post is premised on the basis that it is indeed true that "mafia can't claim vanilla safely" -- i.e. I am telling the truth.
<snip>

My post is premised on the basis of reducing to absurdity the *explicitly stated assumption* that you could be innocent (which I just highlighted in blue, along with your distortion). Do I need to get even more Logic 101 about this for anyone (other than Stoofer)? We’re waiting on Johoohno anyway, so I won’t mind.

[Mr Stoofer]

What I said: If Stoofer is innocent, then his claim is false.

It's this sort of thing which makes me think that there is something wrong with you.

[mathcam]

I'm still not totally convinced about the target claim, but my vote's weight probably diminishes given the pseduo-evidence against me. Nonetheless, I'm game. I have no objections to Kingpin going early if Johoonho doesn't respond before he leaves -- no sense dragging this process out for more than a weekend.

Cam

[massive]

What I'm trying to say, Emp, is that making the assumption that Stoofer made up his role based on suggested information about mneme's role and death is more WIFOM than provable. And the assumption that a mafia would coordinate fake claims such that ONE of them would be a vanilla townie seems even MORE WIFOMmy. I think again that we're faced with a situation where you have to ignore (at least partially) the roleclaim when trying to figure out Stoofer's scumminess or innocence, because the path to interpreting all role claims seems paved with, um, wine?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Regarding stoofer's claim: Why are, after agreeing that we couldn't trust role information to relate to alignment, immediately trying to tie stoofer's alignment to his role claim?

[KingPin]

Regarding stoofer's claim: Why are, after agreeing that we couldn't trust role information to relate to alignment, immediately trying to tie stoofer's alignment to his role claim?

I think the difference here is that if you claim townie, it can be directly tied to alignment. townie=town=good. I am not saying that you should believe his claim. I am merely pointing out that in this unusual circumstance, having multiple people with roles, we have to evaluate this particular claim in that context. Though, OTOH, I doubt that scum would come out and claim vanilla mafia member.

My night targets:
N-1
1st - No choice
2nd - No choice
N-2
1st - Mr. Stoofer
2nd - Emptyger

Okay about mathcam, but why Fonz nearer to the top, but not Johoohno?

Because he was already at the top of the list. I don't think I said that I wanted a certain order, just that I wanted both of those two nearer to the top of the list.

The reason for the town to be lynching Stoofer is *not* to modconfirmed roleknowledge. The reason would be because we believe him to be guilty.

This should go without saying, but we all know that. The point I was making is that if we believe him to be scum, based solely on his game play fine, lynch him. If he happens to be telling the truth and turns up town, then we the town have some good information but are in a tight position.

Additionally, I understand why you think "claiming townie" and then stating that he was the only one, is a bit scummy. However, what choice did he have? And would you have believed the role claim without the additional information? I would guess probably not. The point is, if he were to say, I am a townie NO BODY would have believed him without any additional information. By providing some sort of additional information, he is giving the town the best chance to evaluate his claim. True that scum get a benefit as well, but as you said yesterday "is there anything he could have done to not look scummy" with his claim?

What alternative would you propose? I mean, if we’re talking absolute worst cases, is there any plan in which not lynching Stoofer leaves the town in a less tight place?

Short answer, lynch the player who turned up scum in night results. I know that this assumes that scum can mess with results and won't give that information to the town. But, by providing night targets, we would have some idea of how those results should be interpreted.

I don’t understand this- are you just playing WIFOM with yourself there? Because… don’t do that.

Why not? Providing possible theories is an excellent way to play the game, which is how I read that post.

[massive]

KingPin

: So do you think that Stoofer's added information (namely that his role PM indicated that he was the only vanilla initially but not permanently) -- do you think that information makes it more likely that he is telling the truth about his role?

[KingPin]

massive

: I don't know that it makes it more likely that he is telling the truth about his role, just that we as a town need to evaluate that information as well as the claim.

Again, I have Stoof as scum based on his play from D-1. I would not have believed his claim of just townie without additional information. I would think that scum would not want to give any more information than absolutely necessary when making a claim.

If he were scum, why would he throw in additional information? It just doesn't make sense to put all that information out there as scum. Which is why I think we need to evaluate why he claimed like he did.

I am out for the weekend. Beers for me!

[mathcam]

Okay about mathcam, but why Fonz nearer to the top, but not Johoohno?

Because he was already at the top of the list. I don't think I said that I wanted a certain order, just that I wanted both of those two nearer to the top of the list.

I think you just caught yourself in a Stoofer-lie. I initially interpreted "nearer to the top" as in "fairly close to the top," not as in "nearer to the top than they currently are." The latter interpretation doesn't make any sense with your most recent post, since I was already second on the original list.

Also,

Unvote: Mr. Stoofer.

for now.

Cam

[EmpTyger]

KingPin:

<snip>
If he were scum, why would he throw in additional information? It just doesn't make sense to put all that information out there as scum. Which is why I think we need to evaluate why he claimed like he did.
<snip>

Case 1: Stoofer lied about his claim.

Case 2: Stoofer told the truth about his claim. Then vanilla is not a safeclaim for mafia. Either the mafia knew this, or they didn’t.

Case 2A: The mafia didn’t know that they can’t safeclaim vanilla.
Then Stoofer, right when we’re agreeing to do a targetclaim, unpromptedly tells the mafia what not to claim.

Case 2B: The mafia knew that they can’t safeclaim vanilla
Then at the very least Stoofer’s claim does nothing to establish his innocence, and there’s all the preclaim suspicious behavior suggesting just how Stoofer knew this. And, unless he is guilty, he has no way of knowing that it is this case, and not 2A.

So, in which case in Stoofer behaving protown?

<snip>

What alternative would you propose? I mean, if we’re talking absolute worst cases, is there any plan in which not lynching Stoofer leaves the town in a less tight place?

Short answer, lynch the player who turned up scum in night results. I know that this assumes that scum can mess with results and won't give that information to the town. But, by providing night targets, we would have some idea of how those results should be interpreted.

If you’re going to assume that Stoofer’s telling the truth, then that means that there are at least 7 protown powerroles. Which means that there have to be either antitown powerroles or inaccurate protown powerroles to balance. How would lynching based on nightactions instead of suspicions account for this?

(Not to imply that something like DotS’s on mathcam should be ignored forever. But, I think it is foolish to think that a nightaction is more reliable, especially prior to a fullclaim.)

<snip>

I don’t understand this- are you just playing WIFOM with yourself there? Because… don’t do that.

Why not? Providing possible theories is an excellent way to play the game, which is how I read that post.

If it’s just brainstorming, okay. But I couldn’t tell how far massive was going when he was calling it “WIFOM”.

---

TSN:

Regarding stoofer's claim: Why are, after agreeing that we couldn't trust role information to relate to alignment, immediately trying to tie stoofer's alignment to his role claim?

My argument against Stoofer is not based on night information, but his actions during the day. It’s not what he claimed- it’s how he claimed it. See above.

(And, also, almost everything else he has done D1 and D2.)

[DestroyeroftheSky]

So, if we’re waiting for rolereveals, what’s the point of voting mathcam based on a mightresult?

I think there's been a certain consistency about my night action that warrants me taking some actions based on it. On top of that, I'd rather act on what info I have now. I don't see a whole lot of use in submitting night actions at all if we're not going to try to do

something

with them. (And, I'm not sure if that was intentional or a typo, but I lol'd at mightresults )

If we did a masstargetclaim first, immediately followed by a massroleclaim, would that be acceptable to you?

Only if there was a reason to do so that had an immediate and direct benefit to the town.

The target claims for me are more useful in getting a clearer picture of what happens at night without giving too much away to scum. I don't see how scum will gain an advantage with target claims as opposed to role claims in terms of info.

Hasn’t said but at this point opinion doesn’t matter: Stoofer

Why doesn't it matter? I'd still like to know what Stoofer thinks about mass-/target-claiming.

I'm fine with the order Emp posted for target claims, except that I'd prefer Fonz to go before massive and mathcam before Johoohno.
So, my list would go:
mathcam
Johoohno
The Fonz
massive
me
TSN

I don't feel confident enough to make a call on Stoofer's claim. My biggest gripe with it is that he just claimed without bothering to respond to the votes against him.

[Mr Stoofer]

EmpTyger, there rally is something wrong with you. I wasn't unprompted. I am the lynch leader, effectively at L-2, and two people asked me to claim.

[The Fonz]

If he were scum, why would he throw in additional information? It just doesn't make sense to put all that information out there as scum. Which is why I think we need to evaluate why he claimed like he did.

!

Why would he put it in if he's town? In the scenario where Stoofer is telling the truth, it only helps the scum.

Incidentally, I don't object to going before massive, but I would like to see Joh go first.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>

Hasn’t said but at this point opinion doesn’t matter: Stoofer

Why doesn't it matter? I'd still like to know what Stoofer thinks about mass-/target-claiming.
<snip>

It doesn’t matter because
1) He’s had plenty of opportunity to weigh in today on massclaims, and hasn’t even pretended to have any interest in doing so. (Seriously, if you read his posts in isolation, you’d have no idea that a massclaim was being discussed.)
2) He himself has already claimed, so we don’t need to wait on him.
3) There’s already a supermajority who wanted a targetclaim.
4) I (and others) think he’s antitown.

This does raise a good point against Stoofer, though.
Temporarily assuming he was innocent: why didn’t he support a massclaim, especially D1? Because, he should have known that mafia would have either had to (a) claim honestly (which is good for the town), (b) fakeclaim a role (which especially with the mafia uncoordinated D1, would have greatly risked discovery), or (c) fakeclaim vanilla (which he would have been able to expose as a lie).
Instead, he has only commented on a massclaim once, in [247], in which he takes a weak stand against massclaim. That doesn’t fit with his “sole vanilla” claim.

(There’s some other stuff in your post that I’m not sure is prudent for me to respond to, at least not before the targetclaim is finished.)

---

Stoofer:
I know that your pure ad hominem is just you trying to dismiss the arguments against you by casting this all as just something personal, but, seriously, what response do you expect to “It's this sort of thing which makes me think that there is something wrong with you.”?

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:

<snip>
Who do you think are Stoofer's cronies?
<snip>

I'd also like to hear your answer to this.

[massive]

EmpTyger makes a good point about Stoofer's position on the roleclaim. With a role that supposedly ensures that no scum can safely claim "vanilla townie," the easiest role EVAR to claim, why wouldn't Stoofer be on board with the massclaim?

I actually think there's a third possibility for Stoofer's roleclaim / action today: He was mneme's target overnight. He may not have found out that his role had been taken away in time to warn his cronies ... and with mneme dead, he may have wanted to ensure that no one else in his group claimed "vanilla."

[mathcam]

Well, so much for getting through the claims this weekend. I don't care about my own placement in the order, other than I'd prefer that Jo go next.

Cam

[DestroyeroftheSky]

I'm okay with Johoohno going first if for no other reason than allowing the game to move on.

Mod:

Can Johoohno be prodded?

[KingPin]

I think it is funny that I posted my choices early enough on Friday so that the rest of you could get it done this weekend, but NO OTHERS HAVE GONE.

On Stoofer:

So, in which case in Stoofer behaving protown?

None of them. I cannot explain his actions. I am not attempting to. Instead I wanted a good discussion regarding his claim, rather than, accepting or dismissing it entirely. Though, I do really like massive's point on his claim.

How would lynching based on nightactions instead of suspicions account for this?

(just playing devils advocate) I found Primate's actions yesterday to be anti-town. I was wrong about his alignment, however I still believe his actions were anti-town. Do you think it is possible to interpret day actions incorrectly? If the actions of an individual is interpreted by another player, that interpretation is subject to our own player biases and prejudices. Right now, I don't think we can completely ignore results from a player who is confident enough to vote his results.

I think you just caught yourself in a Stoofer-lie. I initially interpreted "nearer to the top" as in "fairly close to the top," not as in "nearer to the top than they currently are." The latter interpretation doesn't make any sense with your most recent post, since I was already second on the original list.

Then don't interpret the post as you have and instead read the post for what it is. I requested that you and Fonz go nearer the top. No more, no less. I did not feel the need to post an alternative list, just my request for you and Fonz to go nearer the top of whatever final order was decided upon.

[mathcam]

I think it is funny that I posted my choices early enough on Friday so that the rest of you could get it done this weekend, but NO OTHERS HAVE GONE.

I admit that there's some irony in this, especially since I supported your going early explicitly for the purpose of speeding up the process. It would be a little silly, however, for those of us who find Jo particularly scummy to let his absence play to his advantage by letting him go later in the list than we had all agreed upon.

Then don't interpret the post as you have and instead read the post for what it is. I requested that you and Fonz go nearer the top. No more, no less. I did not feel the need to post an alternative list, just my request for you and Fonz to go nearer the top of whatever final order was decided upon.

My whole point was that I was already second on the list. There's not much nearer to the top that I can be, and you clearly weren't obsessed about me going first since you yourself volunteered to go first to speed up the process. This can be explained away if you meant this as I interpreted it (note I was doing you a favor with that interpretation, since the literal one doesn't make any sense, so no need to get hissy), but you later say that you specifically didn't mention Johoonho since he was already at the top of the list. Why wouldn't you have specifically not mentioned me for exactly the same reason?

Cam

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I admit that there's some irony in this, especially since I supported your going early explicitly for the purpose of speeding up the process. It would be a little silly, however, for those of us who find Jo particularly scummy to let his absence play to his advantage by letting him go later in the list than we had all agreed upon.

Exactly. Can we get some

Prod: johoohno

action?

[KingPin]

Cam: I get it now. I didn't read that as an attack rather a question of interpretation. I mentioned your name specifically just in case it were to drop from the top of the list. I knew that most of the people were on board with Jooooooooo being the first to go, but I wanted to ensure that everyone knew that I wanted you and Fonz up there as well. Rather than just mentioning Fonz, and then the town moves you to the bottom.

I did not intend the tone of that post to sound "hissy". I apologize if it did. Sometimes my smartass nature gets the best of me.

[The Fonz]

Fonz:

<snip>
Who do you think are Stoofer's cronies?
<snip>

I'd also like to hear your answer to this.

Well, I'm not nearly as sure of anyone being stoofer's crony as I am of Stoofer being scum. But I'd say, my inclination as of right now is- of those on the wagon, mathcam and KingPin; of those off, johoohno.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno did indicate V/LA until today.

[the silent speaker]

This is not a post.