Open 120 - Rebels in the Palace - Game Over! before 756

[ortolan]

n hindsight, probably a bad move to vote directly after Corvuus, as it did look sus, but what did you want me to do? wait for 20 fluff posts after Corvuus's post, and then vote? I was already going to vote for TM and just because I found him suspicious, independantly to Corvuus (though it might not look it) doesn't mean I'm therefore his scumbuddy, or anything like that.

The funny thing is I never said anything about Corvuus being scummy- if you remember I called him my most townie earlier, then said:

I'm sorry this vote is

very

scummy.

Do you and/or Corvuus genuinely think TonyMontana's behaviour is interpretable as making him more likely to be a guard or king? Firstly if he were guard/king his only motivation in doing that would be to clear Empking, who is his king. I've played with him before though and I know he's not that stupid. Oh, that and his claim it was satire is perfectly credible and consistent with his earlier criticism of our dice-roll method of lynching.

Anyhow

Vote: Qanqan

for poorly reasoned and opportunistic wagon hop using cliched "he's contradicting himself (not proven) therefore he's scum!" excuse.

I never said Corvuus was scummy, I said you were scummy for the way you jumped onto the bandwagon. I did however, ask both you and Corvuus questions about your case on TonyMontana. That was the only "link" I drew between you.

Because it's a scumtell (sorry, should have explained my point better before), scum will contradict themselves more often than town, because scum often try to mould different opinions on different situations to try and get town lynched. And, in their attempt to get town lynched, throwing around different stances to help their cause, they contradict themselves. Town, on the other hand, don't do this (or at least not as often), since as they aren't aiming for a quick/mis/easy-lynch, they don't lie about particular stances they have, so they wont accidentally contradict it later.

This is true, in general. However in this specific game, in this specific instance, TonyMontana, if indeed he did contradict himself, did not do so in order to get a mis-lynch but rather to actually protect zwet. He did not say anyone was scummy, he simply made a series of dice rolls and used it to argue zwet couldn't be the king. Now how does that fit in with your musings on what scum

generally

do?

Don't see how this is relevant, a bit of a red herring, since I never said anything about Zwet.

No, but you should have done, seeing as your case against TonyMontana is actually contingent on his relationship with zwet.

Satire doesn't need to be funny

Well, in the long run, enough mislynched to win, and condsidering how the last random lynching worked out, both quicklynches and easylynches as well (an easy quickmislynch, I guess).

And who are you suggesting he was trying to get mislynched?

[Qanqan]

n hindsight, probably a bad move to vote directly after Corvuus, as it did look sus, but what did you want me to do? wait for 20 fluff posts after Corvuus's post, and then vote? I was already going to vote for TM and just because I found him suspicious, independantly to Corvuus (though it might not look it) doesn't mean I'm therefore his scumbuddy, or anything like that.

The funny thing is I never said anything about Corvuus being scummy- if you remember I called him my most townie earlier, then said:

I'm sorry this vote is

very

scummy.

Do you and/or Corvuus genuinely think TonyMontana's behaviour is interpretable as making him more likely to be a guard or king? Firstly if he were guard/king his only motivation in doing that would be to clear Empking, who is his king. I've played with him before though and I know he's not that stupid. Oh, that and his claim it was satire is perfectly credible and consistent with his earlier criticism of our dice-roll method of lynching.

Anyhow

Vote: Qanqan

for poorly reasoned and opportunistic wagon hop using cliched "he's contradicting himself (not proven) therefore he's scum!" excuse.

I never said Corvuus was scummy, I said you were scummy for the way you jumped onto the bandwagon. I did however, ask both you and Corvuus questions about your case on TonyMontana. That was the only "link" I drew between you.

Ok, I misinterpereted your vagueness, does this make me any scummier? How is anything of what you just said relevant?

Because it's a scumtell (sorry, should have explained my point better before), scum will contradict themselves more often than town, because scum often try to mould different opinions on different situations to try and get town lynched. And, in their attempt to get town lynched, throwing around different stances to help their cause, they contradict themselves. Town, on the other hand, don't do this (or at least not as often), since as they aren't aiming for a quick/mis/easy-lynch, they don't lie about particular stances they have, so they wont accidentally contradict it later.

This is true, in general. However in this specific game, in this specific instance, TonyMontana, if indeed he did contradict himself, did not do so in order to get a mis-lynch but rather to actually protect zwet. He did not say anyone was scummy, he simply made a series of dice rolls and used it to argue zwet couldn't be the king. Now how does that fit in with your musings on what scum

generally

do?

Nice strawmen, but I'm not talking about his rolls which were supposedly to protect Zwet (those are your words, by the way), and this crap about TM not saying anyone was scummy (Where the hell did that come from? You're putting words in my mouth now, and just making things up).

Don't see how this is relevant, a bit of a red herring, since I never said anything about Zwet.

No, but you should have done, seeing as your case against TonyMontana is actually contingent on his relationship with zwet.

No, it isn't.

My case is about TonyMontana trying to get random lynches going, which was contradictiory to his prior motives in the posts before that.

You and your logical fallacies.

Satire doesn't need to be funny

How else are you supposed to know it's satire then?

Well, in the long run, enough mislynched to win, and condsidering how the last random lynching worked out, both quicklynches and easylynches as well (an easy quickmislynch, I guess).

And who are you suggesting he was trying to get mislynched?

Umm, rebels...

[Trumpet of Doom]

I just noticed:

his stance/meta is similar/close to mine.

Just curious: Where are you getting my meta from? My only two completed games have been with Trumpetscum, and the only other game I'm dead in really isn't a great one to meta me from.

Now, a few thoughts.
If Empking is king, neither zwet nor hohum can be guards. (Similarly, if Emp is guard, neither zwet nor hohum can be king.)
If zwet is king, neither Emp nor Tony can be guards. (Similarly, if zwet is guard, neither Emp nor Tony can be king.)

I can see zwet as a guard, given Tony's list of things zwet said in 347, which rules out the possibility of Emp or Tony as king. While I will switch my vote if it becomes obvious who the king is, for now I'm comfortable with a

Vote: zwetschenwasser.

[ortolan]

Ok, I misinterpereted your vagueness, does this make me any scummier? How is anything of what you just said relevant?

I am curious about your hyper-sensitivity to being linked with Corvuus.

Nice strawmen, but I'm not talking about his rolls which were supposedly to protect Zwet (those are your words, by the way), and this crap about TM not saying anyone was scummy (Where the hell did that come from? You're putting words in my mouth now, and just making things up).

Strawman? Your reasons for voting TM are expressed here:

Secondly, yes, I do think it makes him more likely to be a guard/the king, hence the vote. His posts, though few, have already been contradictory:

295/297/299: He is telling us how we all need to use analysis, rather than random voting to play this game, and goes so far as to 'deem the strategy a failure'.
308/309: Suddenly, in the space of less than a day, he is trying to pull for another set of random lynches like Empking did,

which is a contradiction

of his prior opinions that the random voting strategy is a complete failure. Not even a reason as to why he had changed his mind, he just did.
324: Then, he does some rather scrappy backtracking with the good old 'it was just a joke' card. If it was a joke, why defend the random rolling thing in 315. The whole satire backtracking yadda is again,

another contradiction

to 308/309/315.

Saying the satire was perfectly credible and consistent, I don't believe that. It honestly didn't sound like satire, and if it was, well, would have been nice to say that rather than waiting another whole day to kindly point out that it was. (Even a [/satire] would have been helpful)

Unfortunately these all boil down to exactly the same reason- you think he was being disingenuous in that random roll plan, and genuinely did want to clear zwet (I made a mistake in saying it was Empking earlier). He then backtracked when his suggestion was called out as scummy. However, assuming you believe his explanation that these rolls were satire (and in fact those dice weren't fixed, so he actually had no way of knowing who the dice would land on anyway), then you don't have a case. And what I'm asking you is- even if he did backtrack and claim "satire" when his plans were foiled, what were his plans to begin with? What did he hope to accomplish, if he was scum, by those random rolls? He certainly wasn't going for a mislynch, like you claimed, because his intention was to

clear

someone, not put them up for the chopping block.

[Qanqan]

I am curious about your hyper-sensitivity to being linked with Corvuus.

And I'm curious why you just ignored my questions.

Unfortunately these all boil down to exactly the same reason-

you think he was being disingenuous in that random roll plan, and genuinely did want to clear zwet (I made a mistake in saying it was Empking earlier).

No

(and in fact those dice weren't fixed, so he actually had no way of knowing who the dice would land on anyway)

Which is why I haven't been saying it was to clear Zwet, as it wouldn't make sense.

what I'm asking you is- even if he did backtrack and claim "satire" when his plans were foiled, what were his plans to begin with?

To get another random lynch like Empking did. Maybe there is a reason why in Empkings random lynch, everyone jumped to get lynching, but for Tony's, no one wants to go ahead and lynch (which would possibly suggest that the king is one of the first few to be lynched in his roll (Corv, Trumpet, TM)).

He certainly wasn't going for a mislynch, like you claimed, because his intention was to

clear

someone, not put them up for the chopping block.

I'm starting to get a little suspicios of you, ortolan, to be honest. Quite a lot of these arguments you have given are riddled with logical fallicies, and whenever you get a hole in your argument, you ignore it and attack in another angle in the hopes I wouldn't notice. They all sound a bit like scumtactics to me. And, considering I'm relatively new to mafia (on this forum, at least), you would have probably guessed I wouldn't have the knoledge and experience to pick up on them, thus making me an easy target. So,

Fos: ortolan

(No, this isn't omgus)

[ortolan]

Tony should have the obligation/opportunity to respond to these questions before I do- we are getting into discussing his motivations (and in fact it seems we disagree about more than that) so I will wait for him to reply first.

[ortolan]

Oh, also, I didn't ignore any of your previous questions that I'm aware of. Which are you talking about?

[TonyMontana]

Decent point, but you could also argue we were unlucky not to get more guards/ the king etc. Plus we haven't actually worked out our odds of winning if we continue using the strategy yet.

Actually we were not unlucky.
The chances of getting 2 scum was 21/55

[ortolan]

fair enough

answer the other questions Tony so I can get back on the offensive please

[TonyMontana]

I'm alittle confused as to what questions you are referring to

[zwetschenwasser]

I just noticed:

his stance/meta is similar/close to mine.

Just curious: Where are you getting my meta from? My only two completed games have been with Trumpetscum, and the only other game I'm dead in really isn't a great one to meta me from.

Now, a few thoughts.
If Empking is king, neither zwet nor hohum can be guards. (Similarly, if Emp is guard, neither zwet nor hohum can be king.)
If zwet is king, neither Emp nor Tony can be guards. (Similarly, if zwet is guard, neither Emp nor Tony can be king.)

I can see zwet as a guard, given Tony's list of things zwet said in 347, which rules out the possibility of Emp or Tony as king. While I will switch my vote if it becomes obvious who the king is, for now I'm comfortable with a

Vote: zwetschenwasser.

WTF? Do you have any backing for this random spouting of nonsense?

[TonyMontana]

fair enough

On further calculations I see now that the chance of just getting 1 scum was 35/99, so you were correct after all.

[sekinj]

Vote Count 11

(# of votes against) Voted Player - by Voter(s)

(2) TonyMontana - by Corvuus, Qanqan

(0) Corvuus
(1) Empking - by hohum
(1) Numberfourteen - by Empking
(0) ortolan
(1) Qanqan - by ortolan
(0) Trumpet of Doom
(1) zwetschenwasser - by Trumpet of Doom

Five (5) votes to Lynch.

Mod Notes:
-Seeking replacement for hohum

[zwetschenwasser]

Do we need any more number crunching in this game?

[ortolan]

To get another random lynch like Empking did. Maybe there is a reason why in Empkings random lynch, everyone jumped to get lynching, but for Tony's, no one wants to go ahead and lynch (which would possibly suggest that the king is one of the first few to be lynched in his roll (Corv, Trumpet, TM)).

Tony's rolls weren't for random lynching and he never said they were. They were to determine who the king was. Again, it only really makes sense as satire.

I'm starting to get a little suspicios of you, ortolan, to be honest. Quite a lot of these arguments you have given are riddled with logical fallicies, and whenever you get a hole in your argument, you ignore it and attack in another angle in the hopes I wouldn't notice. They all sound a bit like scumtactics to me. And, considering I'm relatively new to mafia (on this forum, at least), you would have probably guessed I wouldn't have the knoledge and experience to pick up on them, thus making me an easy target. So,

Fos: ortolan

(No, this isn't omgus)

You need to be specific here. Rather than just saying "I do believe you are spouting logical fallacies holes in your arguments" and "I assure you, this isn't OMGUS" you need to provide some justification as to why these statements are true.

Corvuus, what do you think of Qanqan's behaviour?

[ortolan]

sorry, "I do believe you are spouting logical fallacies

and have

holes in your arguments".

[Corvuus]

sorry, lots of stuff came up.

re-reading and post in a bit.

C

[Empking]

I think Hohum's vanishing act seems king-like to me.

[Corvuus]

orotolan:

I don't understand your play since you are

1. blatantly defending another player (TM)
2. Blatantly saying things which shouldn't be said unless you are advising scum.
3. apparently this is all based on your belief that scum couldn't have verified each other, and thus there is no buddying to worry about and you think the fact that you blatantly buddy must somehow mean that you are rebel and so is TM since guard/king wouldn't be so obvious??

i.e. you and TM's actions are suspicious, yet your 'defense' is that it is so BLATANT and 'stupid' for scum to do that it is not suspicious at all.

I couldn't careless if we lynch Zwet today, but I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that a defense for Zwet is as simple as "posting nonsense 1 liners, blah blah, joke, blah, crap" is so BLATANTLY scummy that he can't possible be scum since scum wouldn't do that.

and yet, the argument for TM and yourself Oro is pretty much exactly the same, yet it is ok when you and TM do it?

So explain to me why should I accept your version when it is possible that TM is king, you (oro) are guard; TM did something crazy/weird/scummy as King, you as guard have to help him so you 'blatantly' do so and rely on the fact that it is so 'blatant' scummy that you won't be lynched for it since it is 'too stupid for scum' to do.

In the end, the original 'reasons' for going after TM aren't that important and don't even have to be right. His response/reaction to it, is important and I will vote and pressure him more simply because of his post #11 (will post point on zwet later, go look at someone else and stop looking at me (paraphrased).

He could have been 'more townie' looking if he just posted his view of Zwet in isolation. Instead, he chose to make his 'random/satire/whatever' post, comment on it, get called on it, and THEN he goes after Zwet. Why attempt to scumhunt 'then' and not 'earlier' and if his point (which you say) was to clear someone (joke or not), it 'cleared' Zwet, yet he found Zwet the easiest target to go after to remove attention from himself?? Yet you find this all ironclad reason to believe that he is rebel to the point of defending him? If this was a 'normal game', would you still do this?

----------------

As for how scum could verify each other, yes, it could be through RVS, words, comments, etc. Guards all know who the king is so they can use that. It may create false positives and other problems for them internally but there are only 2 guards left and a King. The guards know the king, and through interaction without even 'key' words, they may know each other. For you to claim that guards have NO idea who each other are, I think is false since my biggest problem with right now is that scum appear to not be trying to check/find each other... implying that they have already found each other.

If I had a certain point or thing to look at, then we would have already lynched them. Of course, we may be scrutinizing the king right now, and the guards see each other's reactions. Either way, I think I am valid to assume so simply because I can see how people react when I do so.

------------------

Trumpet, I didn't read any of your other games. I read you this game only. Maybe it is my assumption but based on your words/personality, I think I have a read on you and that you are town. This may change, but as it is right 'now', I won't agree to your lynched, but neither will I defend you.

In terms of my scum/anti-town ranking; TM, Oro, (14/hohum inactive/replaced is somewhere in the middle here until I get a response from him) Zwet, Emp.

FoS Zwet

with you for more 'useful' posting/read from Zwet but I want more responses from TM/Oro.

Q, i'm neutral-leaning townie on but time will tell.

C

[sekinj]

Mod Notes: veerus replaces hohum

Reminder: Trumpet of Doom is V/LA until 3/21. Please PM me if you have issues with that.

[zwetschenwasser]

Welcome, veerus. The only thing I don't like about Corvuus' last post is that by talking about different ways scum can talk it looks like he's giving a signal himself.

[Corvuus]

really?

I'm tempted to lynch you unless you can explain exactly what you mean Zwet.

First: What signal am I giving? or what are you reading/interpreting that you think i am giving a signal? Who am I giving it to? i.e. who do you think is scum, etc. more you say the better.
Second: 'different ways scum can talk'; what does this mean?
Third: It is an open setup so we all have the same information EXCEPT Guards have the name of the King written in. Guards can look at each other in whatever way they choose. It doesn't have to be something completely obvious nor does it mean guards 100% *know* each other or anything. They may merely suspect that they know who is a guard, may have false positives, or other problems in 'talking' to each other but I see no reason to assume that guards have NO IDEA at all who each other are. I doubt until a lynch and flip will they 100% know, but they could have a 75-80% certainty that this person should be a guard, based on words/interaction that they take meaning in, etc..

--------

To elaborate more:

Oro asked me to 'prove' that guards know each other. I could say "prove that they don't" or I could say that they already know or that they are right now testing/examining each other and doing it (what I think at least) in an incredibly stupid way.

I.e. All guards know who the King is. King acts scummy/anti-town. A guard (or more) will defend King. King is 'safe'/unlikely to be lynched if played 'right'. Guards see defense of King, all guards know who the king is. Chance of false positives since maybe rebels will defend the king 'by accident' and various other situations, but hey, there are ALOT of possibilities and variations that scum could try or have tried just to see if someone is a guard by response. I think it would be foolish to assume that they have no idea/clue at all.

I'll leave that possibility as it for now but I'm perfectly willing to pressure/bandwagon someone just to see what happens and threaten lynch if it gets me a response. There are no nightkills in this game, so unless a majority thinks i'm crazy/scum, etc. and I risk being lynched, there is no reason for me not to be blatantly belligerent in getting responses/reactions and I think it is my optimum move.

Corvuus

[veerus]

Hi guys, I'll read through the thread tonight.

[veerus]

I'm not really following Trumpet's numbers. But they work.. It's just like in poker. Our odds of hitting a guard/king in the next two random lynches are 1-((5/8)*(4/7)) = 65%. By the same math, odds of us hitting a guard/king in the first 4 lynches were 1 - ((8/12)*(7/11)*(6/10)*(5/9)) = 86%

I suppose 65% isn't that bad...

But if I was going by play.. I'd say that zwet and TonyMontana are the most likely guards/kings as they seem to be derailing the town the most (though in zwet's case, he's always pretty useless so I'd rather lynch TM first)

[ortolan]

1. blatantly defending another player (TM)

Well, I am pointing out that Qanqan is incorrect (either deliberately or apparently ignorantly) in suggesting that Tony's roll was to determine who to lynch. He said it was to find the king. It's a clear error of fact.

2. Blatantly saying things which shouldn't be said unless you are advising scum.

What are these?

3. apparently this is all based on your belief that scum couldn't have verified each other, and thus there is no buddying to worry about and you think the fact that you blatantly buddy must somehow mean that you are rebel and so is TM since guard/king wouldn't be so obvious??

I'm not saying scum haven't verified one another, ironically at this point I'm feeling increasingly strongly that the king knows who one of his guards (at least) is. That doesn't mean no-one else has picked up on it, though. What I object to is your position in 342 that "WELL YOU DONT' KNOW, they might have found some AMAZINGLY CLEVER way of cross-confirming each other while the townies are oblivious to it." Again I ask you to describe any way this could actually be done in practice e.g.; or in fact I will go you one better. Do you think random voting the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? Do you think breadcrumbing something strange about the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? If not how do you suggest, they are going to do so with no risk of being caught?

i.e. you and TM's actions are suspicious, yet your 'defense' is that it is so BLATANT and 'stupid' for scum to do that it is not suspicious at all.

How are

my

actions suspicious? We've already seen yourself and Qanqan's justification for TM's actions being suspicious. I think it's poor, but you don't need to go there again. Just tell me why

I'm

scummy.

I couldn't careless if we lynch Zwet today, but I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that a defense for Zwet is as simple as "posting nonsense 1 liners, blah blah, joke, blah, crap" is so BLATANTLY scummy that he can't possible be scum since scum wouldn't do that.

and yet, the argument for TM and yourself Oro is pretty much exactly the same, yet it is ok when you and TM do it?

I don't understand what you are arguing here. TonyMontana is attacking zwet. You are saying you find zwet scummy. Yet you find TM scummy also???? And someone in all of this is apparently defending zwet- it's not me though. Who are you talking about?

At this point, I consider it unlikely that you (ortolan) are guard trying to help them (odds, meta, etc.) but how do you think it will look for you if they DO flip guard?

Funny that you didn't express any problems with me doing this to you in 292 and 298.

Or Qanqan doing it in 307:

I am feeling some pro-town vibe from Corvuus, like everyone else is I'm guessing.

How would

we

look if you flipped guard? In fact, in your response post 305, you deliberately avoid placing any suspicion on us after we say how townie you're looking. Your targets are hohum, then zwet/Empking/TM. And your most townie is Trumpet of Doom. When questioned you give no good reason for why. Nevertheless you fail to mention two people who've just nominated you as their most townie. This is interesting.

Please tell me what you think of Qanqan also, you didn't answer this question in your last post.