Open 127 (Lovers Nightless -- GAME OVER) before 761

[sekinj]

stop what? stop saying that yoiu will hammer mith at l-1?

[Empking]

Yes.

[sekinj]

*shrug* well, you've already said it. it's just that I don't think it makes a difference whether you've said it, it just matters whether or not we believe you. and I'm not sure that I do.

[Empking]

Put him onto L-1 then.

[sekinj]

it is not worth the risk. that would be even worse than rolling the dice on our first lynch.

[-TinVision-]

First Vote Count of the Day

zwetschenwasser (2) -- Plum, Empking
sekinj (1) -- zwetschenwasser
Empking (1) -- mith

Not voting (2) - ortolan, sekinj

With six alive, it is four to lynch.

[sekinj]

my point is, I don't think it clears you just because you say that. We could all say that for each other person. And it woudl be utterly foolish to put someone at L-1 just to see who wants to prove their townieness by hammering. If we put a townie at L-1 there would be 5 players willing to hammer, and if we put scum at L-1 there would be 4 players willing to hammer. Since only one player CAN hammer, we don't gain any more info than we normally would at lynch.

[zwetschenwasser]

So... we don't care if Empking hammers random people?

[sekinj]

So... we don't care if Empking hammers random people?

what game are you reading?

[mith]

Empking, as sekinj is arguing, saying you're willing to hammer me doesn't prove anything; and wanting to prove we aren't scumbuddies isn't a motive only a townie would have (if the others decide we are scumbuddies, there's some chance he could get lynched for it, even though I'm not his scumbuddy).

Here's a few bad scenarios I could see playing out (aside from the fact that my townieness will radiate through all of my posts and thus there is no chance you will ever put me at L-1):

1. Townie Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking doesn't want to be thought of as a lying liar, and so he hammers mith, even though he doesn't think mith is scum (because mith is so obviously not scum). Townie mith dies, and then Empking has some 'splaining to do in a lynch-or-lose D2. Meanwhile, the scum slow dance together in the moonlight to celebrate.

2. Scum Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking hammers mith, and points to scenario 1 as evidence that he could be innocent, in order to get out of a lynching.

3. Scum Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Empking comes up with some excuse not to hammer mith, not wanting to mess with the suspicion of the hammer. The other player not voting for mith decides that Empking must be reluctant because he is mith's scumbuddy, and since mith is already so close to a lynch... then Empking says "ha, told you so", and dances on everyone's graves.

I'll have to look at the previous game to see whether I believe he was genuinely trying to emulate SensFan and said that out of townie motives. But it's worth a vote for now.

[Empking]

Mith: You may have forgotten 4?

Well, I know only one of them are possible and of course we also know that you might be scum and that there are also many more positive things. Every single action, no matter how pro-town has at least three bad possibilities connected to it.

[mith]

It wasn't an exhaustive list; did you have some more bad scenarios in mind when you made the statement?

You're missing my point. It's not that your action could result in bad things that is a problem - it's that there are clear negatives to your statement, and no positives. It doesn't do what you claim was your intention. I have a hard time believing that a pro-town Empking initiated a CUNNING PLAN without considering whether it actually worked or what the negatives are. I find it more likely that a scum Empking wanted to distance himself from a possible pairing to make himself look better, and to look like he was doing something that had been tried in a previous game by a pro-town player (which I haven't found in a quick search; link?).

[Empking]

The negative is the first one and that requires a stupid town. I do not think the town is a stupid own so there are no negatives that you have given that are true.

There are positives: We gain reactions to the plan, we get your "he's going to vote me, I better vote him first", we get more information from L-1, we make it impossible for me to be non-gambiting scum with you.

[zwetschenwasser]

I don't like this connection emerging between Mith and Empking, especially since Emp is now being more logical than he's been acting in any of his other games.

[Plum]

I don't like this connection emerging between Mith and Empking, especially since Emp is now being more logical than he's been acting in any of his other games.

Do you believe the connection has a strong possibility of being a scum/scum connection?

Empking has declared that he will hammer mith if mith's put at L-1. This does seem to make the possibility of the two of them being buddies seem less likely, at least on the face of it. Doesn't change the probability that one or the other is scum, and it's obviously still possible that such is the case, it's just considerably more remote.

That said, that's no reason to

put

mith at L-1, in and of itself.

Is Empking trying to do what town-Sensfan tried to do? Maybe, but this doesn't look quite as useful. Sens went in with the mentailty of willingness to hammer anyone who got close on Day 1, and unless I remember incorrectly held multiple players there Day 1 - two or three, maybe. Is declaring intentions to hammer a certain player if certain player is hammerable

alone

useful? Not as much. I'm not sure that half-measures are going to be very useful here.

As Sekinj points out, going at bandwagons just to see who's willing to

hammer

is not much help by itself. Can we all just say 'well, I'm willing to hammer anyone'? Not really, and not at all if all we try to do is prove townhod or eliminate pairing possibilities through hammers votes and willingness to place them. We have one Day 1 hammer. Best use is on scum. But we can't rely on it for the bulk of our info.

As mith put it, we have to milk info out of other things, too. I will think of ways to get info out there. You guys come up with some ideas too. Next step is blind collaboration via implementation. We must all move our ideas, without speaking of them, in tandem. Cleverly, we will avoid banging into each other and throwing the whole dance into a mess.

Now, presume for a moment that in the one game of the three runs of this setup the scum have won the scum didn't draw much attention to themselves - I believe that this was at least somewhat the case, and perhaps the correlation was in this case a partial causation. This presumption would spur the question 'who has been quietest', at which point we wonder what Ortolan is doing. He doesn't seem to be lurking, but he has been quietest overall. Which wouldn't be a scumtell as much as a jumping-off point.

Now, presume for a moment that Sekinj is scum, theoretically.

Now, presume for a moment that I am scum and Sekinj isn't (in reality, with info I currently have the first thing in that statement is false and the second is unknown).

Unvote; Vote: sekinj

[sekinj]

@plum - you say ortolan is a jumping off point and then vote me? i don't understand your two presumes at the end of your post....

[Plum]

@plum - you say ortolan is a jumping off point and then vote me? i don't understand your two presumes at the end of your post....

My 'presumes'? Hm, no, I'm not entirely sure what purpose they'll end up serving. I mean the first (you being scum) is obviously something I think is a possibility - otherwise I don't believe I'd vote for you. The second (presume Plum is scum and Sekinj isn't) is presumably one thing one might put in the list of possible answers to the question 'Why did Plum just vote Sekinj?'. I suppose I'm saying 'I'm thinking about thinking about thought processes, and maybe everyone else should as well.

Yes, Ortolan has plenty of room to be a jumping-off point. I might explore that later. You yourself are another jumping-off point, perhaps more fertile in these early stages. In some ways, you're an equally promising place for my vote as Ortolan, in one way slightly less, and in one way potentially a fair bit more, and it's far from being all about you, Sekinj. Now think about my thought process here (if you feel like it; feel free to not do that, of course).

[sekinj]

well, I appreciate your vote for fertility... the rest seems rather riddling, but i will spend some time thinking of your thoughts...

[mith]

Empking: Focus on the hammerer would not be "stupid" by the town, necessarily. That isn't to say that any hammerer of a townie D1 must be scum, or even must be the lead suspect (if that were the case, scum would avoid hammering). But, when you have stated your intention to hammer me well before it's an option, it would be a stupid town

not

to at least ask the question: "Did Empking pick mith because he knew he was innocent, and therefore safe to hammer?"

Btw, here's a 4. that I perhaps should have included for completeness:

4. Townie Empking says he will hammer mith. Townie mith gets to L-1. Townie Empking never really intended to hammer mith in the first place, and was just saying it to "eliminate a possibility". Both get suspicion because Empking goes back on what he said, mith probably gets lynched because he's already close.

I am not suggesting with these cases that any of this is sure to happen given a particular pair of Empking-alignment and hammer-decision; there's a symmetry here. There is, however, a danger to us if you're town (that the town won't see things your way if it came to that situation), and a danger to us if you're scum (that you might be successful in using the symmetric nature of the thing to get you off the hook). What I'm trying to figure out is whether you genuinely believed that there was some benefit to this plan for the town (as a townie yourself), or whether you believe it would be to your advantage as scum.

As for your positives: That there are reactions to a plan does not mean it is a

good plan

. It should be pretty clear that I am not voting you because of the vague possibility that you might hammer me, but because I think the plan is poor and that you didn't think it through (possibly because you weren't concerned with whether it's good for the town, since you're not). I'm not sure what information you think we gain by potentially making one of the votes a policy vote. And I think it's pretty clear from the responses of the other players that you have totally failed in convincing anyone that we're not scumbuddies - if I

were

scum and thought it was with someone else, I'd go doublecheck I hadn't misremembered, that's how failtastic the ploy is.

In summary: This is a tricky game, but it's still Mafia. Hammer someone because you think they are scum. Hammering for any other reason only makes it more likely we lynch an innocent today, and muddles things for tomorrow in that case.

[sekinj]

@plum - okay, I've thought about your thoughts. and I think you are just trying to get a vote in for no reason by hiding it behind something that sounds thoughtful, but is really nothing.

[Empking]

Mith: I've seen people suggest that we're not scum, at least on the face of it. And nobody has come out and said thaty they think we're scum buddies.

Mith: The plan is to get information, reactions is and example of information. If the plan gets more day 1 info than it loses then its a good plan in my eyes.

Mith: I still know that only one of your opinions is possible and I still stand by it requiring a stupid town in order for it to be a negative.

Plum: Do you think Sekinj is the scummiest?

[Plum]

@plum - okay, I've thought about your thoughts. and I think you are just trying to get a vote in for no reason by hiding it behind something that sounds thoughtful, but is really nothing.

Thank you for thinking about my thoughts. The fact that you came to the wrong conclusion doesn't matter much. Believing what you profess to believe, however, do you find me scummy for doing so?

Plum: Do you think Sekinj is the scummiest?

I don't have enough information to determine anyone here being substantially more or less scummy. I do, however, think that my vote is perhaps most useful on Sekinj right now.

Has Ortolan been posting elsewhere on the site? Yes. I note that.

[sekinj]

@plum - this early I can believe you are doing it for discussion and reactions... we will see

[zwetschenwasser]

Plum, our best lead now is to test this interaction between our two suspects. The question is whether we lynch the founder of MS or the useless VI.

[Plum]

Plum, our best lead now is to test this interaction between our two suspects. The question is whether we lynch the founder of MS or the useless VI.

Ah, but the other question is: Which one

is scum

, if any (or, remotely, both). And I must say that you're one to talk about being a VI, Zwets .

I have an idea, Zwets: You may play with mith and Empking as you will. I will play with Sekinj and Ortolan for now until I get bored of that or something shinier catches my eye, because frankly I'm not sure exactly why you're speaking of mith and Empking as if they're our only two suspects, or even as if they should be our two main suspects. If you'd like to argue that Empking is scummy for his proclamation re: hammering mith, argue that. I'm not sure where mith even did much more than respond to Empking's proclamation and be its target - why would he be one of the two we'd need to choose between for the lynch?

There are worlds of possibilities out there still. Boxing ourselves in (for example, to a mith-or-Empking for lynch only mentality) could allow us to play into the hands of scum.

Rereading the thread:

Put him onto L-1 then.

Why? Do you think that testing out your claim immediately is really the optimal strategy here? Putting aside whether the statement was townie, scummy, smart, stupid, or anything, was

asking mith to be put at L-1 so you could prove you aren't buddies with him

really a good idea at that point? Think hard, little grasshopper.