Normal investigation roles shouldn't claim anything at the moment. And if there is a special case that would benefit us so much if someone claimed, I'm sure it would be self evident to that player.As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?
These kinds of bandwagoning are what starts a game off. Not cop claims.Wombat wrote: Woah! Let's all calm down a second. That's exactly the kind of bandwagoning I was talking about.
Does this equate to "I suggest no lynch"?Wombat wrote: I'm just saying that, lacking any information, we should hold off on lynching anyone today, there's too much chance of us helping out the scum by lynching an innocent townie.
What? You think you have a read on his role rather than alignment?Rage wrote: Right now, you sound a lot like one of those ambiguous-alignment roles listed in one of the first posts by the mod. What I'm trying to say is, you sound like a scum version of one of those roles acting Too Townie.
I don't want one. Not yet.Rage wrote: I want a role claim.
Statistically, we're always more likely to lynch town than scum unless scum outnumber us at which point we lose. And your point is?Wombat wrote: I'm saying we should be careful not to lynch town because statistically, that's more likely - there's more of us than there are of them.
When he's just stating the obvious, it is not necessary to attack him quote for quote...Rage wrote:How do you expect us to believe you are town if townies usually are the only ones who know who they are?Brain of Wombat wrote:I say it ever more earnestly now, because if this wagon keeps on rolling you actually will lynch a townie.
And, the fact that you say this, taken out of context:Means to me that you are trying to say you know who town is but don't want to give away that you do.. but I don't think any scum is dumb enough to say that, which leaves me confused. If, in fact, you do not want to lynch a townie, why aren't you providing who you think is most likely to be scum?Brain of Wombat wrote:I'm saying we should be careful not to lynch town
Well if you follow Wombat's logic here, assuming he is town then this would apply regardless of any power his role may have since he believes it is town's best chance. And if he's scum, he doesn't have to have a special power (by that I mean something other than the standard scum night kill) to try to fish out a role.Rage wrote:If the random voting stage is indeed over, which I firmly believe it is, then why can't I push for a role claim? Votes should no longer be useless pressure, and I am the only one pointing out what I am trying to achieve with my vote. I really don't think that warrants four quick votes on me, but I'll defend your accusations nonetheless.
Yes. I don't see a strong enough reason to make me thing otherwise about why he is trying to:darkdude wrote:What? You think you have a read on his role rather than alignment?Rage wrote: Right now, you sound a lot like one of those ambiguous-alignment roles listed in one of the first posts by the mod. What I'm trying to say is, you sound like a scum version of one of those roles acting Too Townie.
a) get a cop/investigative role to claim
b) ask for a No Lynch
Well, the simple answer is that we're not just looking at the faults in Wombat that you pointed out, but also looking at how you do it, so to get a read on you. And I expect others to not only see the literal meaning in my posts criticizing you but also attempt to analyze my alignment which may be revealed by this critique. Of course, you (and most other mafia players, I hope) realize this. So your sentence which basically says "why are you asking me what I mean when I was talking about someone else" is very odd.Rage wrote:Why would you focus on me taking the words out of context? You yourself read them, and I was reminding viewers of what happened. This amounts up to a very weak reason for a vote.
Page # is a convenient way to express how long or at what stage a game is. Granted, this should not be taken with much emphasis on its accuracy, but it is accurate to some degree. So I think what they mean here is that it's too early in the game to jump to conclusions.Rage wrote:It being on page one should have no effect on what was said. At some point in the game we go back and review random votes, and they are on page one. Problem?
Well I think I explained my reasons for the most part. But in addition to that, it was mainly just an opening move early in the game to get some more reactions from everyone. I do agree with ThAdmiral and Ectomancer that Tarballs didn't really seem to have a good reason to wagon on Rage, and acted overcautiously without apparent reason; I don't think hoping to avoid accidental hammer is a valid reason as it was quite obvious to me that there were only 3 votes on Rage, and at any rate there was no way he had 6 votes on him already.Rage wrote: @Darkdude, MacavityLock, Tarballs, Korts, do you have a purpose for your votes? If so, what is it? If not, please say so.
Please explain how it is possible to do this. As aforementioned, it seems to me his behaviour could be attributed to any type of role, vanilla or power. And even if you could, I see no reason to put this above alignment in priority, because you don't need to figure out what the scum's powers are to lynch the scum himself.Rage wrote: I am trying to relate his behavior to a section of the roles given
Uh, so which one is it?Rage wrote: This is more likely than the second option.
Okay, first of all usual practices in face-to-face mafia is different to practices here in online mafia. For example, it's much easier to simply jump on someone and ask for a role claim when playing face-to-face; if they're scum they'll stutter or make some awkward play that will give it away. In online mafia though players have a much greater control over things. So most of the time we're looking for subconscious slips, and pressure does not workRage wrote: I play RL every day with darkdude, and, yes, we generally end up massclaiming when we know it's lynch or lose. However, usually anyone who asks for massclaim "too early" gets a heck of a lot of suspicion on them and then ends up being the lynch for the day. I'm not saying Brain of Wombat should be today's lynch, I'm saying I'm suspicious of him because it's behavior that I've seen scum try to pull. Along with the inclusion of roles that have an ambiguous alignment, I think Wombat's behavior, as I mentioned earlier, matches what I presume a scum's version of one of them to be. I want to hear from him to be certain of his intentions, instead of other players jetting in to say that he's just a newb and not to take his actions seriously, as though they want to defend him merely to put suspicion on me. Which is precisely what you are doing.
Now, what I mean by him being a newb not being too much of a factor about his actions so far is that would it not be easier to tell if he's a newbie scum than a newbie townie if he's asking for things a townie shouldn't be, first thing in the game? You can blame it on newbiness and say that he might have heard it done somewhere before and, thus, tried it out here, but how can you be so sure about this if 1) he hasn't said a word about it himself, and 2) He's town, and therefore has less of a chance of players sticking up for him (and if he's a mason setting up someone for starting a case on him, there's the possibility of a scum Neighbour).
Of course, bad play cannot be brushed aside but must be remembered for later. I think it is interesting that Wombat has not posted since post #24 two days ago...Rage wrote: Now, what I mean by him being a newb not being too much of a factor about his actions so far is that would it not be easier to tell if he's a newbie scum than a newbie townie if he's asking for things a townie shouldn't be, first thing in the game? You can blame it on newbiness and say that he might have heard it done somewhere before and, thus, tried it out here, but how can you be so sure about this if 1) he hasn't said a word about it himself, and 2) He's town, and therefore has less of a chance of players sticking up for him (and if he's a mason setting up someone for starting a case on him, there's the possibility of a scum Neighbour)
Remember this, don't claim until asked to. That includes dropping hints like you just did. All it does is give scum more information to work with. Town, on the other hand, rarely benefits from it.I've watched a couple of games, but this is my first time playing and I didn't properly think through my first post. I'll hopefully get better as this thing goes along.
I don't want to condemn Rage for his reaction, he could have the towns best interests at heart. You were talking about me being scum, or a mason, or a scum neighbour (?) or whatever. Quite simply, I have no interaction or connection with any other players. I'm just an average townie, that's it.
Only scum and bad town players would do something obviously anti-town...so I do not see why this is not a valid reason for a Lynch.Faking a PR isn't scummy, it's anti-town. Those two are not the same and anti-town shouldn't be a premise for a lynch.
And I could say that you and Puta are scumbuddies as well. Connections between players are hardly evidence until one of their alignments are revealed.Ecto started pushing Puta's wagon not when it was valid, but when more and more people expressed suspicion of Tarballs. Deflecting attention much?
If there is a jester in closed setup then it is bastard modding. Not much can be done about that, so we shouldn't worry about it.Also I think you are lying. And the likelihood of you being jester is minimal since you passed on what (you thought) was a chance to self-lynch, so I'm definitely happy with you dying.
I can't believe how stupid I wasPeople: Have you actually read post #2? That tells us all the possible roles that may exist in this game, and I certainly can't find a Jester from that list. Even thinking about the possibility of a Jester is totally useless.
. Didn't think of that while I was criticizing ThAdmiral. No use. He was amnesiac cop. Which reminds me...Rage wrote: I'm also going to do a reread of all of Puta's posts to see if he left any hints/clues as to who he investigated and it's result.
Yes, after checking again Ecto did direct some fire against him. Not the case for ThAdmiral though.darkdude, I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one who raised points against Macavity. Ecto and ThAdmiral spring to mind.
The presence of vigs do not suggest that it was a vig kill. We also know that we have scum in the game. Why would it be more likely the scum failed to kill and the vig did?Ecto wrote: We had a gun inventor. It seems plausible to me that he would have given his gun away n0 and also (by my mod list of actions), he would have given another on n1 if he could give one away every night.
When "this looks like a vig kill" was raised, two things came to mind immediately:I dont think stifling conversation about it is useful
I was commenting on what ecto was referring to, which was originally yourself saying that it is likely a vig kill. Anyways, if there is use for discussion, on whether this was or was not vig kill, then go for it, but 1) I think it is 90% chance of being a scum NK and 2) I don't think this discussion will be particularly useful.plausible=/=most likely
I don't get it. It seemed pretty clear to me that you guys were implying it was likely a vig kill since you're so eager to discuss it. What is the use of discussion if a vig kill is only plausible but not likely? Perhaps in this case I have made an incorrect assumption, but I do not think that it is unreasonable. Are you saying that you hoped to discuss whether or not it was a vig kill knowing that it was unlikely to be one?Ectomancer wrote:Ectomancer wrote:A couple possibilities for what happened last night. My questions would be, does a player have to use what the inventor gave them that night, orcanthey wait or do theyhaveto wait until the following night to use it?
If that was a 1 shot vig, then scum was either role or doc blocked.
If there is someone hanging out with a gun, then that was scum's target last night.
I also think we dont know whether town or scum was the recipient of the gun inventor.vote Darkdude
As Korts pointed out, his response to my statement did not equate to what I said. He even went as far as to ask why it would be more likely that last night's kill was a vig kill. Well, I didn't say that. It looks to me in that paragraph quoted above that I listed the possibilities with pretty much equal weight.
Darkdude then goes on and attempts to stifle conversation about the event. Why?
If he was the Vig, his kill is used, he is back to whatever he was, and he has a bit of an alibi of what he was doing that night.
If he is one of the roles that performed an action that could incriminate or validate someone involved with the death, you would want people talking about the event, hoping for that "ahah! I got you!" moment.
But if he is scum, there are a number of reasons he might not want us to talk about it. There are yet roles available that could have thrown in a wrench somewhere.
Funny thing is, I'm not as concerned about discussing it so much today anymore. Let anyone with a gun do what they will, so scum has no idea. They could have scum roleblockers, etc.
No, I'm much more concerned about motivations today. I think Darkdude's actions usually come from bad guys. Bad guys need to be lynched...or shot...but better lynched. We dont want a mafia doc to get the chance at blocking those one shot guns.
Still dont believe that Darkdude is scum?
Then tell me why he would discourage discussion about one of our discoveries (the gun inventor), yet encourage discussion about our amnesiac cop. He even goes so far as toask the recipient of the message to breadcrumb!So you can kill him tonight before he reveals the only result we might have? (assuming puta puta even sent in a name) If he is going to breadcrumb, just come out with the result now, and at least we get something. Someone will be forced to declare another player either town or scum, and if that other player dies, and it turns up wrong, it incriminates the first player.
I trust that this means my reply to it did not satisfy you?ThAdmiral wrote:This is the best bit.
I'm going to vote: darkdude as well.
I don't know what to do about him. I still get newbie vibe, but bringing up a "joke" without making himself obvious was not a smart thing to do.Rage wrote:what do you guys think? I've noticed neither of you have said anything about this and chose to discuss, about not discussing, the "vig kill". 'Sup with that?
Regarding darkdude, you said you would post your thoughts later. Have you had time to gather 'em up?
I just said, I thought scum might try to set up a vig claim or try to fish out the vig. That's what's harmful about it.Korts wrote:I don't see how it's harmful in any way to discuss our possibilities.
Funny. Do you not recall Ecto falsely accusing me of asking for breadcrumbs? That was me trying to discuss what a player should do if they have the investigation result from our amnesiac cop. Please read my posts again.Korts wrote:Then how come I don't see you pushing another line of discussion? You seem eager to explain how discussing a vigkill is unproductive, but you don't offer any alternative. How is that consistent with the thoughts you are trying to get through?
Obviously if I believe I am correct I will try to talk others into believing it too. What are you implying?Stop right there. Just because you have a differentiating opinion, you say that we should stop assuming anything else than you are?
Point: Discussion will hardly reveal anything new and the power roles should already know what to do anyways.And we have never imlied that we want hard evidence. Your point with this comment?
Fair enough. I don't know if that outweighs the risks but why would you not explain the pros of this discussion first before saying that my actions are anti-town?The majority of discussions that implicate players and lead to town forming an opinion to their alignments are inconclusive. There (almost) never is hard evidence through discussion only. Also, scum may indeed peek at the intentions of players, but they also would need to take a stance that they can be held to later on.
Didn't Wombat claim already?ROLEFISHING ALERT
MAN YOUR STATIONS
THIS IS NOT A DRILL
See bolded below.Ecto wrote: Yeah, you did. See bolded below.
Clearly the "maybe breadcrumb" part is my thoughts on what may be best. I was looking for what other players thought. I merely suggested that breadcrumbing could be a way to deal with this. You claimed that I ASKED for the person to breadcrumb, which is not the case here.I wrote: It seems like we should have someone here with his Night 0 result, unless it was Macavity. Needless to say, if it is scum, the person should come out immediately.But what is optimal move if result is town?I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched", but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it... so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?
This is just being nonsensical...Ecto wrote:When player numbers lower? Like when the guy who breadcrumbed is dead?
Makes it look exactly like a case of tunnel vision.Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.
I answered that already.Korts wrote: Alright, fair enough. So there was another line of discussion that you tried to start. Tell me, how is discussion about what the person with an investigation result from Puta should do any more constructive than a discussion about the likely cause of death for Macavity?
I wrote: About the amnesiac cop, it would seem that you are the one who has misread this time. I was hoping to discuss what the optimal play would be since I was not sure what it was. I did not ask anyone to breadcrumb, as I was not sure if it would work. This discussion IMHO is much more useful because we are sure that unless it was Macavity or the scum, one of us would have to do something about this result.
But there is something wrong with me trying to make them believe me? I think the discussion is not worth it, and if you think the otherwise you tell me why. What I don't see is why you guys are saying that I'm scummy for saying that. I mafia we have discussions ABOUT discussions all the time, why is this different?Korts wrote:I am saying that you stating that the Macavity kill wasn't a vig and giving supportive evidence won't necessarily cause everyone to believe you, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see how disagreement on that would be such a big problem that you'd feel the need to push it so hard as to state "we should assume it is scum NK unless there is greater evidence for the vig theory."
How many is this exactly? I counted only ecto and yourself. In any case, when I said it was only you, it was a simple mistake of not reading properly. That's not a case of manipulating discussion or whatever you're accusing me of.Korts wrote:refusing to admit that there were multiple people suspicious of Macavity.
Okay, I don't know how you fucking read but that's not a request, it's a statement about what I thought was optimal, and yes, asking the rest of you if that really were the case. Point: There's no intention of REQUEST in there.Ecto wrote: We get to our request for breadcrumb, phrased with hope for town's approval.
I know what you mean, but suggesting that my "When player numbers are lower" is a scummy statement is nonsense. It's a classic case of tunnel vision; you simply slap scumminess on a neutral statement.A Pshaw argument. As scum you get a guy to breadcrumb that he has information so you can kill him for it! In your request for the breadcrumb, you specifically asked that the player give the breadcrumb and then wait until we have lower player numbers to reveal it!
Oh, I think I refuted it quite well. It's just you who don't think so. I'm providing an explanation so that maybe you can see where you're wrong. But it obviously failed, as you've labeled that as scummy as well. It's nothing more than an observation from me; I am not relying on discrediting you to defend myself.Really cant refute the case, so tries an ad hominem attack against me, suggesting that I have a personality flaw that causes me to overly fixate on my own case.
ORLY?Asking someone to expose themselves with a breadcrumb, and then following it up with a request to not actually share the information until later (when player numbers are lower), gives both an identifying post somewhere and time for scum to off the bearer. There is no neutral there, that's a scummy move.
I don't get this. What I meant by that paragraph was that I was trying to think about what a player with the result should do, but realized that I didn't know. Therefore I posted my suggestions and then asked the rest of town for what is best. It doesn't have anything to do with whether it was scum who received the result, as scum would lie or simply not do anything...I can only hope to help town if a town player received the result.Rage wrote: There are a couple meanings for this quote. Let's see if I'm getting this correct so far:
If the Investigation Result was given to Scum or Town and Darkdude is Town:
1) Nobody will claim the information today because Darkdude said that scum would claim it immediately, and nobody has argued this.
If the Investigation Result was given to Scum or Town and Darkdude is Scum:
1) Darkdude appearing pro-town, but may be fairly confident that Puta Puta received a guilty result if none of his scumbuddies have received the result, so he's playing it safe and backing himself up for calling whoever has received the result scum.
Code: Select all
if town possess guilty result, then claim result
if town possess innocent result, then ?I'm 90% sure there is a result. Puta is a bad player in terms of getting his points across and working for town during the day, but he is not inactive. I do not think he would skip his Night 0 action.My guess (99%) is that there is no investigation result. Puta made no effort to play this game or any other that I know of. You can meta that. So, no, I dont think DarkDude or anyone else has a result to reveal (not a real one anyhow)
Because like I said, this was night start, so everyone who signed up and not away should have been motivated enough not to miss a night action. Puta may not be productive, but he's certainly not inactive. Unless he really wanted to disrupt games, he would have sent in his first night action.Darkdude, how can you be 90% sure that an investigation result exists in the game? How does Ectomancer saying he's 99% sure you are wrong influence your thinking of the possibility of an investigation result?
Those two actions of mine were unrelated. They each had their own independent reasons, if you read my posts properly.The problem arises when he is encouraging discussion on one topic, and then flat out asking "Why are we even talking about it?" on a parallel topic.
Don't think he is scum? I don't recall saying that. There's just nothing to suggest him being more likely to be scum than other players. Right now I'm most suspicious of Korts, but even that is mostly gut feeling and guess.Adel wrote: @darkdude: why don't you think Ecto is scum. Please provide specific information. The more quickly you answer and the more information you provide, the less scummy you will appear, and the less likely you will to be lynched today.