Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mykonian]

I thought I reacted on ecto there. Ecto saw no other way of lynching vollkan, then with a counterclaim. That was not exactly what I wanted. I tried to push a lynch of vollkan through without having to counterclaim.

Ecto would accept every claim witout a counterclaim, seen from that post. That is too easy. I shouldn't always work like that. I had the small chance of moving ecto's vote this way, and I have token that chance.

[TDC]

On breadcrumbing: If you can breadcrumb in a way that can only be seen in hindsight, then I don't see any problem with doing it, even if you're a doc.

Yes but isn't useful as evidence that he is not fakeclaiming, because it came at a time when he would have had equal motivation for putting it in as a fakeclaim as he would have for putting it in as a real claim.

It's not useful as evidence that he

is

fake claiming either.

[vollkan]

i will have to defer to more experienced players on this, but what stands out to me as "scummy" about volkan's claim is the breadcrumbing. why would a doctor breadcrumb at all? especially admitting that he would do it as scum or town(i believe volkan referenced another game where he did it as scum)? i get why an investigative role would breadcrumb(to get doc protection), but even then i don't think this is common or necessary on day 1. so why breadcrumb as a doc? can some of you who have more time in this forum please chime in.

Depends on the type of crumbing.

Some investigative roles might theoreticaly crumb in the hope of getting a protective role's (or a watcher's, etc.) attention. The trouble with that, of course, is that if a power role will spot the crumb, there are strong chances scum will also.

The type of breadcrumbing I do and have done in the past is just designed as a means of adding something to a claim. Crumbing can, of course, be faked by scum very easily - including "first post crumbing" (where the crumbing occurs early on). It doesn't and shouldn't be taken as a means of confirming a claim or anything, but it is worth doing because, at the very least, it shows a claim wasn't a "spur of the moment" thing.

breadcrumbing can be usefull for a doctor. It makes your claim stronger, as it proves you knew you were the doctor before you claimed. However, it also works for a fakeclaim. If you plan to fake a certain claim, you can breadcrumb before it, to make people believe you.

the problem with my breadcrumbing, is that I didn't do it. You'll have to determine my allignment on my play.

the problem with vollkan's breadcrumbing, is that it has no use. He breadcrumbed when he got too close to a lynch for his comfort, and then it can't prove he knew he was a doctor there. He just faked it then, when it was needed. Later, vollkan wants to "prove" his doctorship by providing his "breadcrumbs". Not that there is any use for it, he just wants to push his claim through there. His breadcrumbs tell nothing. His claim is not stronger then a claim without breadcrumbs.

Yet again you repeat this bullshit. I have said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of here. I have in no way at all said that my crumbing "proves" my claim. I even made it clear that my claim is only really as strong as if I hadn't crumbed at all. Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Well, for starters,

unvote

Secondly, This is a bit of a predicament. I am CERTAIN that we don't have two docs. On one hand, vollkan has a reputation for fake claiming doc, as even he admits. On the other hand, he breadcrumbed nicely and mykonian's claim reeks of last minute indecision. Neither has looked particularly protown to me, as I've had my vote on both. However, this is also because it's not in a power role's best interests to lead town.

I'm leaning towards vollkan right now just because of his meta, but I want more discussion before I attack him.

I don't have a "reputation for fake claiming doc". I have done it once before.

I didn't counterclaim, for this simple reason: I have to give up a powerrole.

I can take three ways from the point vollkan claimed.

1. no counterclaim: I make a mess of it, and we are going to loose.
2. counterclaim right away: town gets a fifty-fifty between vollkan and me: I am going to be nightkilled
3. take my chance and try to lynch vollkan without outing my role. If it happens, I have the chance that scum kills a mason, and I have a chance to save a mason. If it doesn't happen, I claim before I get lynched, and we go to way 2.

Now I ask you, would you really want me to play 2? I make the best choice here by taking three, it is just taking an extra chance, thereby increasing the chance. So I try to get you to vote vollkan, and if that doesn't work, I'm going to claim.

Your reasoning here just doesn't stack up.

Delaying a CC only makes it less and less believable, with good reason - increases odds of the CCer being desperate scum. If you had immediately CCed me, there is no way in hell the odds would have been "fifty-fifty" - I would have been lynched asap. In other words, option 2) carried a near-certain chance of me being lynched; the cost being your NK (I am speaking in hypothetical here, obviously).

In contrast, the chance of a claimed doc being lynched D1 without a CC is tiny. Unless a player was absolute obvscum, town would be crazy to go down that path. In other words, option 3) carried little prospect of my lynch. But, moreover, a delayed counterclaim is inherently less believable and, moreover, as it became clearer and clearer that you were at risk of lynch yourself, the believability declined even more. Thus, option 3) carried little hope of achieving my lynch, and the strongest likelihood of your own lynch.

Your actions make no sense coming from town.

In contrast, they are perfectly consistent with doomed scum making a last-ditch effort to achieve my lynch, after a plan of jumping on people's scepticism about my claim went balls-up for you.

I know vollkan is a better player then I am, but don't make him move your vote that easily.

Emotional pull - you're relying on the fear factor here.

what should I have done different then attack vollkan hard after he claimed doc? Why would I do it as scum. Everybody got a feeling I must be scum, because the case on vollkan was weak on its best. Off course it was, I didn't need more evidence, I just didn't want to give all the evidence I had.

But everybody has a feeling that I must be scum, for that action, while it actually was the most protown way of doing things.

Speaking in the hypothetical, an immediate counterclaim was the only sensible protown option.

Lets go to a slightly wifom based argument: Why would I, if I was scum, attack a un-cc'ed doc with some murmuring about weak breadcrumbs? The only reason would be to be lynched fast.

No, that isn't the only reason.

As you've conveniently ignored, at the time you launched those arguments my claim was being subjected to serious scrutiny by Orto and, given the way I had been treated up to that point, opportunistic scum would have leaped onto the chance of getting a claimed doc lynched and being unaccountable for it, by virtue of the meatshield of a claimed mason.

[TDC]

Too much simulposting going on.

I thought I reacted on ecto there. Ecto saw no other way of lynching vollkan, then with a counterclaim. That was not exactly what I wanted. I tried to push a lynch of vollkan through without having to counterclaim.

Ecto would accept every claim witout a counterclaim, seen from that post. That is too easy. I shouldn't always work like that. I had the small chance of moving ecto's vote this way, and I have token that chance.

How does "We'll have a lot fun in this game if there is no doctor... " serve to sway Ecto towards voting vollkan?
I can't fathom how this kind of statement could form in the head of a doctor that has just seen scum claim his role.

[mykonian]

How could ecto vote vollkan if I didn't want counterclaim and ecto needed a counterclaim.

well simple, to try to get ecto of his believe that he needed a counterclaim, or to counterclaim.

[ortolan]

It's really unlikely that we have two doctors. So one of them must be scum.
You two are claimed masons and hence are either both town or both scum together.
So for you to be scum there would need to be three scum in total, which in a 10 player game is very unlikely. A 3 player mafia team I would rule out. If whoever of the two "docs" is scum turns out to be a SK that would leave a small chance of you being the mafia, but I doubt there actually is an SK in this.
Hence, you're "pretty much confirmed".

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

It's not useful as evidence that he is fake claiming either.

That's true, but it makes me wonder why he even bothered as it doesn't help his claim one bit.

Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Not true actually, because while you did ultimately refer back to the claim, you could equally have simply not done so, and we would have been none the wiser. One could easily, as scum, just leave slight grammatical anomalies which one then has the discretion of referring back to to support a claim later in the game.

[vollkan]

Why? Just cause of the two doc claims? Doesn't that just prove it's not mountainous?

No. It confirms the masons.

In a ten player game, more than two scum is extremely unlikely.

Thus, one of Mykonian and myself is scum. That also means that neither of the masons can be scum, since both state that they are confirmed as town to each other.

I don't see why people assume myk's claim has no credibility.

mykonian did clearly alter his behaviour as soon as vollkan claimed, consistent with him being the doctor. It was in a way that, as TDC said, has no obvious scum explanation. mykonian could probably have ridden the dj wagon to a lynch then simply nk'ed vollkan. It's a big stretch for vollkan to say:

Textbook scum last-ditch counterclaim. Please lynch him now.

The fact myk didn't immediately counter-claim is a slight point against his case but I think his explanation is reasonably plausible- and once he'd already posted without counter-claiming he'd look suspicious doing so unprompted.

See my previous post. Myk's claim is completely inconsistent with any reasonable assessment of the risks of his options 2 and 3 (I agree with him that option 1 is ridiculous)

If you're the doctor, why would you even play with the thought that there might not actually be a doctor?

This is a really good point.

At the time when he said it, there was no reason at all why he would want to make it seem less likely that he was the doc, which is the natural effect of what he said. Again, makes no sense from doc-myk.

Can I also say that vollkan has stated he's previously used a "claim the doctor" gambit in another game. The odds in any game of him being scum are greater than him being the doctor, so I think this points to him being fakeclaiming. The fact he deliberately cited another game seems more to me to be an assurance in case someone calls him up on his previous usage of this tactic.

The reason I cited the other game is that it would be scummy of me not to have done so (ie. it would suggest I was trying to avoid mentioning it)

[vollkan]

Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Not true actually, because while you did ultimately refer back to the claim, you could equally have simply not done so, and we would have been none the wiser. One could easily, as scum, just leave slight grammatical anomalies which one then has the discretion of referring back to to support a claim later in the game.

Grammatical anomalies are how I have crumbed in the past.

I've been clear that they don't prove anything other than a committment to a doc claim from the time of my posting them. That doesn't prove my claim or anything, but it stops it being said that I only claimed on the spur of the moment.

[TDC]

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

If you are scum, then the setup is not power-role heavy at all, for all we know so far.

[mykonian]

@vollkan

Of course you are going to say my way wouldn't make sense.

You tell us: It could have been so easy, just counterclaim you, and you would have been lynched at once. Nobody would have been sceptical, noooo, they would just have lynched you.

I didn't think that. I think it makes little difference when I would have counterclaimed, when it was at least today. Both times, town would have to decide who they thought towniest, whos claim was the best. I only tried with an attack on you to take the chance of lynching you without a counterclaim. It would be a shame not to have tried it.

[ortolan]

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

If you are scum, then the setup is not power-role heavy at all, for all we know so far.

That argument is self-contradictory. If we are scum, then the town is not power-role heavy. But you already said if the town is not power-role heavy then we are likely to only have 2 scum, which is impossible if we are both scum along with the two claimed doctors.

[mykonian]

so orto, what do you want? you are confirmed, and that was exactly the point you were trying to discuss. You got the prove above.

[vollkan]

You tell us: It could have been so easy, just counterclaim you, and you would have been lynched at once. Nobody would have been sceptical, noooo, they would just have lynched you.

I didn't think that. I think it makes little difference when I would have counterclaimed, when it was at least today. Both times, town would have to decide who they thought towniest, whos claim was the best. I only tried with an attack on you to take the chance of lynching you without a counterclaim. It would be a shame not to have tried it.

Mykonian, you're a smart guy. It stretches credulity to breaking point to suppose that you aren't smart enough to figure out that an immediate counterclaim of me, under the circumstances which I was in (ie. being under suspicion), would result in my immediate lynch.

Also, it makes an enormous difference when a counterclaim occurs. The mere fact you CCed D1 is hardly the point. A CC immediately would have left little doubt in the minds of the others about the virtue of lynching me. By CCing later on, and when you yourself were under peril, your CC was far FAR weaker than it would have been.

Yes, town would have had to decide both times. But an early CC was very clearly going to have much better prospects of success than a later one.

[ortolan]

@mykonian: Well, I am just saying I don't think, especially assuming you believe our mason claim, you should assume there are only 2 scum in the setup.

Also, mykonian, would you please respond to the question about your "we'll have a lot of fun if there's no doc" comment?

I've been clear that they don't prove anything other than a committment to a doc claim from the time of my posting them.

They don't even prove that, because nothing about your breadcrumb tied you to actually making a doctor claim later.

[vollkan]

They don't even prove that, because nothing about your breadcrumb tied you to actually making a doctor claim later.

Voll-Scum could quite plausibly have just left the breadcrumbs alone and claimed cop or something. In that sense, it didn't commit me to a doc claim (though, if anybody had bothered to check for punctuation anomalies, voll-scum would be pretty stupid). What I mean is that they show, from that point in time, the contemplation of a doc-claim. That means nothing in terms of proving the claim.

As I keep saying, all the crumbing does is that it prevents me being accused of immediately claiming doc on the spur of the moment.

As in, it doesn't improve the trustowrthiness of my claim. It simply prevents an attack from being made against it.

[TDC]

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

If you are scum, then the setup is not power-role heavy at all, for all we know so far.

That argument is self-contradictory. If we are scum, then the town is not power-role heavy. But you already said if the town is not power-role heavy then we are likely to only have 2 scum, which is impossible if we are both scum along with the two claimed doctors.

.. You said that the town was power-role heavy and because of that you'd think there would be three scum. If that is true, then that still doesn't mean you can be this scum, because if you were the town would not be power-heavy in the first place.
I personally don't think three scum is likely either way. However, even

if

power-heaviness makes three scum more likely, you can not be among those three.

It stretches credulity to breaking point to suppose that you aren't smart enough to figure out that an immediate counterclaim of me, under the circumstances which I was in (ie. being under suspicion), would result in my immediate lynch.

I agree with this. I for one would've believed an immediate counterclaim.

[mykonian]

OK, call me smart (thank you!), but this is the first time I even could counterclaim. The first time I got a powerrole except mason. I thought this was the way.

and orto, the top post here is the answer on that question.

[vollkan]

OK, call me smart (thank you!), but this is the first time I even could counterclaim. The first time I got a powerrole except mason. I thought this was the way.

As I already showed above, your reasoning with the 3 options makes no sense. Now you are playing the newbie card, again in a way that streches credulity - there is no way you could reasonably think that delaying a CC would be better than an immediate claim.

[mykonian]

why not? what would be the big difference between a direct counterclaim, and a delayed one? both times, everybody is going to look at the past to see who must be scum. Nothing has changed.

[vollkan]

I already explained that.

A delayed counterclaim, especially one made under suspicion, is inherently less believable because there are greater odds of it coming from desperate scum. In contrast, whilst scum could theoretically make an immediate counterclaim, their best bet is to delay and try to play for a lynch (either of the claimee or another townie) and then NK the claimer (this is especially true in the case of a doc claim, where there is no chance of protection).

[Ectomancer]

Oh FFS...

Breadcrumb is situational type of evaluation. Unless you really think you have something, treat it as a null tell.

I dont agree with the criticism of Mykonian's play surrounding a CC. His play is consistent with someone trying to get scum lynched without being forced to counterclaim.

However

Overall, reading through I gave the believability to Mykonian. But then my brain turned on and started noticing things and decided to point out to me that while defending, Mykonian was appealing to me? Why me? I feel like with the reason you gave for your moves, you were treating me as confirmed town and it makes me very nervous and suspicious.

[orangepenguin]

unvote

[Ectomancer]

God love you OrangePenguin, please talk about what you are thinking. What made you decide to unvote just then?

[mrfixij]

Vollkan: this is the second game I've played with you. This is the second time you've claimed doctor. The first game you were lying. Naturally, that leads me to be suspicious. The fact that you drew attention to your previous doc fakeclaim seems to be very WIFOMic behavior.

Mykonian didn't breadcrumb in the same way as vollkan did, but he did breadcrumb. Right off the bat, Mykonian was aggressive against the doc claim. Also, the previously mentioned post about "when there is no doc." Common power roles tend to downplay the possibility of them being in the game as a way of taking the spotlight off themselves. As such, suggesting that there is no doc is a massive tell and breadcrumb of BEING the doc to me.

Mykonian's behavior has been erratic, certainly. But I don't think it has been explicitly stupid. Counterclaiming doc is stupid, full stop.

Consider this a vote on vollkan, pending votals. Do not want to hammer.

[orangepenguin]

God love you OrangePenguin, please talk about what you are thinking. What made you decide to unvote just then?

I had second thoughts of mykonian. I thought for sure he was scum because of the delayed counter claim, and just the weirdness of it, but I am not so sure anymore, especially with the way vollkan is acting. I am not convinced either way, but since ort unvoted, and everyone else, I thought it was a bit dangerous to leave mykonian so close to a lynch, when vollkan wasn't.