Open 137: Mountainous Multiball (GAME OVER!) before 781

[dejkha]

The “Please bold your votes from now on” Vote Count

Empking -1- (Drench)
Huntress -1- (Empking)
Drench -1- (Huntress)
Flava Flave -1- (Gregory)
White Castle -1- (Flava Flave)
Gregory -1- (zwetschenwasser)
Kaiveran -1- (ekiM)

Not Voting: Furry, Scott Brosius, White Castle, Zer0ph34r, Kaiveran

If there's a mistake, let me know.

Furry replaces Shinnen_no_Me

[Furry]

First there is nothing too wrong with WC speculating about night resolutions. This game has potiential to create a prisoners dillema fairly easily, and the best course of action in said situations is to no lynch and hope for a cross kill, since even a scum lynch results in town loss.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that he is asking about a situation where both mafia factions have fullfilled the win condition of half the town. If this happens town has already lost so I dont see the point in asking this. Most mods either will continue the game (in something like 2-2-1), large group wins (2-1-1) or do an everyone loses result (1-1) though.

@WC - Now that we have replacements, does that mean you want to policy lynch? Also what stopped you from an inital vote? It seems to me that if you support a policy lynch, you arent going to want it stopped by needing replacements. Either way I doubt we policy lynch three pages into a game. Apprehension of a vote bugs me.

Nice to see that FF is probably town. Even though I disagree that its joke voting that draws the town out of the random stage. I find its usually someone trying to force a move early on, albiet the force can be interpretation of a joke.

And WC moves more to the scum side of the spectrum. He talks about prisoners dilema a bit more here, even though is origional post seemed to be more of a bloodbath situation inquiry. A 1-1-1 endgame should NEVER be called by the mod. Right move in PD is no lynch, and if that is reufsed a self-vote for everyone loses situation. Basically you force scum into a cross kill for a town win situation by threatening with a no one wins scenario.

Saying that FF does not care about the town endgame is blatant misrep though. I dont get how you can interpret that one. Also why are people thinking that scum have immunity in mountainous multiball? Everytime I have seen this type no immunity exists. I have seen one shot GF in closed setups but this is open. Just read the OP roles, no immunity is suggested.

Also if WC is scum, Kaiveran is his partner, and a good shot at being scum even if WC is not scum/opposite scum. There is agreement with FF in the current debate, admittance that WC is setting off scum tells, then a vote that doesnt back up the mentioned suspicions. Random voting stage is over, its suspicion time now and you are avoiding voting based on your stances.

After pressure from eikm (mike from here on out), Kav starts going back on her read on WC a little bit, also kind of non-squetor, but this to me is one of the much more theory intensive open games. Also admission here of trying to stay out of the limelight, which really should never be the fear of town. Especially in this game where there are no PRs, so being NKed isnt going to sway the balance of the game. Being very strong and getting double NKed is actually great for town.

Zero still going on about policy lynching while not really pushing any case on zwet or emp is scummy too. This may be to a knee-jerk reaction to hate (almost) all policy lynches, but nothing from zwet or emp I have seen constitutes one. It just seems like he is trying to look busy pushing something that obviously isnt going to gain any steam.

Vote Kaiveran

I think that there is a slightly higher chance of scum here then in WC. A mix of already doubling back on a read for no strong reasoning, not voting where even slight suspisions are in place of a random, and avoidance of trying to become active due to fear of something make Kav the higher priority then WC.

[Scott Brosius]

Subs! Time to catch up on the thread.

[Zer0ph34r]

OMG. People always saying that I'm lynching wrong or right or pushing my voting strategies on others, vote the way you want and I'll vote the way I want. (You vote based on nothing that has occurred and I'll vote later based on SOMETHING at least.)

[Kaiveran]

@Furry: I appreciate the effort, but your attack on me is poorly put together.

Observe:

Also if WC is scum, Kaiveran is his partner, and a good shot at being scum even if WC is not scum/opposite scum. There is agreement with FF in the current debate, admittance that WC is setting off scum tells, then a vote that doesnt back up the mentioned suspicions. Random voting stage is over, its suspicion time now and you are avoiding voting based on your stances.

Hmm, let's review my post:

As for the suspicion on WC, he had questions that dealt with both sides, but its still registering a blip on my radar. No real lynch material as of yet IMO, but he's someone to keep tabs on.

No real lynch material as of yet

IMO, but he's someone to keep tabs on.

No real lynch material

Not exactly difficult to read. I've already said that I don't like to vote seriously until there's good evidence. I like to get rid of as much "maybe" as possible before placing my vote. I understand how that post might raise

some

suspicion for you, but painting me as the

most-definite

choice for a lynch based on my playing style is asinine.

After pressure from eikm (mike from here on out), Kav starts going back on her read on WC a little bit, also kind of non-squetor, but this to me is one of the much more theory intensive open games. Also admission here of trying to stay out of the limelight, which really should never be the fear of town. Especially in this game where there are no PRs, so being NKed isnt going to sway the balance of the game. Being very strong and getting double NKed is actually great for town.

NUMBER ONE:

Read this and tell me

ONE

part of this post where I retract my suspicion on WC.

I don't see how Flave's logic is exactly crap. I did some research and found out that White Castle had been playing for a while now, and we are playing a quite simple open setup. He'd only be genuinely concerned about Mafia win conditions if he were Mafia. In addition, when he tries to clear himself by linking his concern to the human cause he again describes a situation where the town has lost. Perhaps it's a mistake, and it's not the greatest case ever, but this is day 1 in a vanilla game, pretty much -- did you really expect lots of evidence?

So how's it going? Got nothing? I thought so. If anything, this post is SUPPORTING my suspicion, NOT retracting it; I do some digging and provide some more perspective on the issue.

NUMBER TWO:

I did not ever express concern over being Night killed, so don't put words in my mouth. I don't see how an expression of concern over becoming a suspect is a valid reason for a lynch, because, well,

nobody

wants to be a suspect. Especially with the absence of power roles, avoiding suspicion is a roughly equal concern for

everyone

in this game, because suspicion gets you lynched. Look:

- If you're a townie and you're lynched, you give advantage to the Mafias.
- If you're Mafia and you're lynched, you give advantage to the opposing Mafia and the town.

You see how it's a zero sum game here? It's not a smart idea to lynch someone just because they want to avoid suspicion. We should be looking for more specific things like counter-productivity and ulterior motives to decide our lynch vote.

Zero still going on about policy lynching while not really pushing any case on zwet or emp is scummy too. This may be to a knee-jerk reaction to hate (almost) all policy lynches, but nothing from zwet or emp I have seen constitutes one. It just seems like he is trying to look busy pushing something that obviously isnt going to gain any steam.

That's

more like it.

For now I'm going to assume that this was just you overlooking certain things and move on. Time will tell.

-----------

I know this is going to look bad after that attack, but screw it, I have nothing to hide.

Vote: White Castle

They give me gas anyway.

[Furry]

OMG. People always saying that I'm lynching wrong or right or pushing my voting strategies on others, vote the way you want and I'll vote the way I want. (You vote based on nothing that has occurred and I'll vote later based on SOMETHING at least.)

I thought you wanted them policy lynched? You arent even voting for either of them for reasons I can not find except maybe that you realize no one is going to follow you in this plan. Lets get some reasoning behind what you pushing, maybe a vote on one of these people you seem to want dead.

Response to Kev coming, games getting interesting. Good

[Furry]

Im not going to playing with formatting too much, all I do is bold and my page break thing.

As for the suspicion on WC, he had questions that dealt with both sides, but

its still registering a blip on my radar

. No real lynch material as of yet IMO, but he's someone to keep tabs on.

I hate the random stage because its usually a large group of people afraid to make a stand due to what response will happen, so when even a slight read occurs I act. What you did here was admission that you saw something that made you think WC was scum.

I am not trying to argue that you should of wanted him lynched for what had occured. What I am arguing is that from the wording bolded above, you saw that what had been done was scummy. You however did not act on it, and decided to make a random vote instead. When you ignore not only something that you did have an opinion on, but also had taken up nearly a page or arguing, it seems like you are trying to avoid taking a stance.

Not exactly difficult to read. I've already said that I don't like to vote seriously until there's good evidence. I like to get rid of as much "maybe" as possible before placing my vote. I understand how that post might raise

some

suspicion for you, but painting me as the

most-definite

choice for a lynch based on my playing style is asinine.

Oh one of these people who dont vote unless there is good evidence. I am in the exact opposite boat as I love votes. They provide a much more clear suspicion level and are easy to look back in later in the game when it is needed to round up final scum. If you play like this I will probably continue to get on it just because its a small tell in my book.

Answer this though. Why did you random if you dont vote without good evidence? Your post showed that you acknowlaged we had left the random stage.

NUMBER ONE: Read this and tell me ONE part of this post where I retract my suspicion on WC.

I don't see how Flave's logic is exactly crap. I did some research and found out that White Castle had been playing for a while now, and we are playing a quite simple open setup. He'd only be genuinely concerned about Mafia win conditions if he were

nt

Mafia. In addition, when he tries to clear himself by linking his concern to the human cause he again describes a situation where the town has lost. Perhaps it's a mistake, and it's not the greatest case ever, but this is day 1 in a vanilla game, pretty much -- did you really expect lots of evidence?

Added bolded is what I misread it into. Trying to catch up quickly and having no vote appear for WC here made me stumble a bit.

You see how it's a zero sum game here? It's not a smart idea to lynch someone just because they want to avoid suspicion. We should be looking for more specific things like counter-productivity and ulterior motives to decide our lynch vote.

Lots of people seem to associate being a suspect as a side product of being active and agressive, which is actually usually the complete opposite. I find being one of the more active and contributing people gets me lynched next to never, and NKed early quite a bit.

When you were talking about avoiding the spotlight, that just sets off warnings since I dont see how it makes sense to purposly avoid playing optimally given that it might make you more suspicious. If everyone played like that, no one would make a case out fear of being wrong. I see intentionally avoiding taking a stand or being noticeable under the fear of being "suspicious" as a scum tell.

I know this is going to look bad after that attack, but screw it, I have nothing to hide.

Vote: White Castle

They give me gas anyway.

If you did that in your first post I wouldnt of been suspecting you anyways...

unvote

going to make another quick read of zero and WC.

[zwetschenwasser]

OMG. People always saying that I'm lynching wrong or right or pushing my voting strategies on others, vote the way you want and I'll vote the way I want. (You vote based on nothing that has occurred and I'll vote later based on SOMETHING at least.)

This ^^ screams "I'm neutraler than thou"

[Zer0ph34r]

Furry, if you've read my last games, I do not care AT ALL if people vote with me, I voted for someone knowing that if I did, I would be lynched. And I have not voted for them because I don't want to base 100% of my vote on that. Even I'm not that stupid. I always try to wait for a bit of info in the game to get to me, then base my vote on that (but not entirely).

[Flava Flave]

I don't like you because you took White Castle's perfectly valid townie questions and analysis and tried to paint them as scummy. If a day starts with one townie and two opposed scum, the townie

needs

to know what the outcome is if he dies and the scum go into night. This is not hard to understand.

That wasn't his question.

Look:

B) can the two scum groups end in a draw (such as one in each group at the beginning of a day - they wouldn't be able to vote each other out but would settle it at night. If they both kill or both pass it ends in a draw.)[/b]

This is his question. No townies involved. Just two opposing scum. He is asking the outcome in a scum vs scum scenario. At this point, it doesn't matter to town what happens.

I ask about this, and THEN:

I already stated why I'm looking into draws - because it impacts the endgame.

For example, if a day starts with 1 scum vs. 1 scum vs. 1 town, the townie should send the game to night and hope that the scum kill each other at night.

It puts the scum in a bad position because if scum A kills scum B while scum B kills the townie, the A-team wins.

FOS Flava Flave

for not caring about the town's endgame

THEN a townie is involved. This is fine except that it wasn't the original question. How does a scum vs scum endgame have anything to do with a town vs scum vs scum endgame?

The misrep just makes it worse.

I don't like White Castle because he tried to paint your lack of comprehension as scummy.

No lack of comprehension here. Just close analysis.

I am fallible, sometimes I forget the points I make early in my posts. Oops!

So you forgot that you didn't think it was the RVS anymore?

I don't see how Flave's logic is exactly crap. I did some research and found out that White Castle had been playing for a while now, and we are playing a quite simple open setup. He'd only be genuinely concerned about Mafia win conditions if he were Mafia.

^
Exactly this. Kaiv gets it.

Imagine a day starts with three players left alive. One of them is Mafia A. One of them is Mafia B. One of them is a townie. If the rule is that two mafiosi going into night together both win then they each will be happy to lynch either remaining player. Either way they win. If the rule is that two mafiosi going into night together draw (a 'lesser' win), then they will be happy to lynch the townie but prefer to lynch the other mafioso. If the rule is that two mafiosi going into night together both die and thus lose, they will definitely not want to lynch the townie, will be very happy if they lynch the other mafioso, but will have to settle for a no lynch and a prisoners' dilemma-type situation.

As the townie in that situation, you

absolutely

want to know what the mafia win conditions are. Even though you are town. Do you see?

Play to win.

If you are scum, you want to win regardless. You want to lynch the other scum. Lynching the last townie is just poor play.

I'm not saying that I AM going to vote for either empking or zwet first, but I sure as hell want to. I am obviously going to be having gameplay play a part in my vote, but previous games will also play a part, despite that zwet is the only one here that I have played a game with in the past (& shinen, but she's being prodded.)

So if not Emp or Zwet, who is scummy?

Also if WC is scum, Kaiveran is his partner, and a good shot at being scum even if WC is not scum/opposite scum.

I like what I'm seeing from your post so far, and I was actually thinking this as well. Kaiv pretty much sat on the fence on White Castle (I'm gonna start using WC for him) here:

As for the suspicion on WC, he had questions that dealt with both sides, but its still registering a blip on my radar. No real lynch material as of yet IMO, but he's someone to keep tabs on.

Common reaction when a scumbuddy takes some heat.

The one thing I disagree with you on is this:

Being very strong and getting double NKed is actually great for town.

Scum should actually be shooting for each other because they are a greater threat to each other than the town is. And that helps us too because scum dying brings us closer to our win condition. It benefits everyone when scum shoot for each other.

But I agree on not being worried about the NK. If you catch scum on Day 1 and die on Night 1, you've done your job as a townie.

Subs! Time to catch up on the thread.

You were a great 3rd baseman. Great to see you playing mafia now.


So...

WC, Kaiv, and Zer0 are my biggest suspects at the moment. Furry looks like a mirror image of myself. I don't know what to think of that. I want to see more from Gegory, Empking, Huntress, and Zwet. Scott, I know you are catching up, but it's only 3 pages, so a content post ASAP would be appreciated.

[Furry]

Furry, if you've read my last games, I do not care AT ALL if people vote with me, I voted for someone knowing that if I did, I would be lynched.

I dont read up meta on people. If I have played with someone, I have a meta on them. Rereading game meta != playing in game meta. The sooner people understand this the better.

And I have not voted for them because I don't want to base 100% of my vote on that. Even I'm not that stupid. I always try to wait for a bit of info in the game to get to me, then base my vote on that (but not entirely).

So you dont want them policy lynched?

@Zero and WC - What are you current opinions on Emp and Zwet? Apparently you both want them dead, but arent really giving me any reasoning to having them dead, either from actions this game or otherwise. On top of that you are not even voting.

Vote Zero
FoS WC

These are very close in level of suspicion. Depending on answers to the above questions they are subject to change.

Kev is back to around neutral after that exchange. Drench sits poorly on gut level. Mike leans town. No read on everyone else.

[Flava Flave]

I dont read up meta on people. If I have played with someone, I have a meta on them. Rereading game meta != playing in game meta. The sooner people understand this the better.

Definitely. You get a better feel from a game you are actually in. Also, knowing the player's alignment throughout the entire game is a step above playing with them to begin with.

[Scott Brosius]

I don't like Kaiveran's joking tone and is getting awfully defensive. Something I will keep an eye on.

I am also suspicious with the others about WC asking about the endgame with little regard to the village and much concern for Mafia win conditions under the 2 mafia setup. This seems fishy to me and thus is my intial vote

Vote White Castle

[Empking]

Mod: Scum win con?

[ekiM]

I will say this one more time. There are endgame situations where the exact win conditions for the scum affect correct townie play. If you don't understand this, then revisit my previous posts; muse upon it; or take it on faith.

These players have, in my opinion, have contributed nothing to this game so far: Empking, Gregory, Huntress, Zer0ph34r, zwetschenwasser. At least one of you is a townie. Shape up.

Furry, whose alt are you?

Kaiveran's overdefense has confirmed my vote, for now. When you're wrong just admit it and move on.

[Gregory]

dude, we are only on page 3.

I think some people are very quick with their votes, as there hasn't happend a lot allready

[ekiM]

Yo dawg, no time like the present.

[Zer0ph34r]

Based on the game so far, I don't anyone that suspicious. But if I had to vote based on what I know right now, I would most likely vote for Kaiveran because he has in a way defended me. And no one ever defends me. Never. It's just odd to me. Other than that, though, no one one really strikes me as suspicious enough to vote yet.

Have I not posted my opinions of zwet yet? And as for empking, I have no actual opinion other than what I've heard. I hasn't said much yet.

[zwetschenwasser]

That's the point. You want a player dead off of other people's meta, not your own experience with him.

[Zer0ph34r]

Zwet, I'm sure if I said I wanted someone dead based on my experience with them, you would say I wanted the exact opposite. And my way makes more sense than how someone played in the last game.

[zwetschenwasser]

Wrong. Who are you to put words in my mouth?

[dejkha]

The “Does This Vote Count Make Me Look Fat?” Vote Count

White Castle -3- (Flava Flave, Kaiveran, Scott Brosius)

Empking -1- (Drench)
Huntress -1- (Empking)
Drench -1- (Huntress)
Flava Flave -1- (Gregory)
Gregory -1- (zwetschenwasser)
Kaiveran -1- (ekiM)
Zer0ph34r -1- (Furry)

Not Voting: White Castle, Zer0ph34r

If there's a mistake, let me know.

[Furry]

Kaiveran's overdefense has confirmed my vote, for now. When you're wrong just admit it and move on.

I dont buy the overdefensive scumtell, too easy to call anything overdefensive. Basically make a case, wait for a response, call the overdefensive scum, rinse and repete. That would be all scum needs to do if it applied.

I think some people are very quick with their votes, as there hasn't happend a lot allready

You are still voting though, is this a legitimate vote or random. If random who is scummy to you?

Based on the game so far, I don't anyone that suspicious. But if I had to vote based on what I know right now, I would most likely vote for Kaiveran because he has in a way defended me. And no one ever defends me. Never. It's just odd to me. Other than that, though, no one one really strikes me as suspicious enough to vote yet.

So defending someone that most people think is scum is bad if you think they are town? Hell if you let someone you think is town get lynched without saying anything im going to be after you in a heartbeat. Also did you really just say "I am always scummy, so because someone defends me they must be scum?" Why arent you even voting? No one is going to get quicklynched pg 3.

BTW, always scummy should just be lynched untill they stop playing scummy.

[zwetschenwasser]

That's your opinion, not mine.

[ekiM]

Zer0ph34r, if you wanted a policy lynch you should have voted a long time ago. Right now you are active lurking.

Zwet has yet to contribute anything other attacking the guy who suggested policy lynching him. He is also active lurking.

Furry, that would be all that scum needed to do, if the entire town surrendered their critical faculties and followed blindly. I think Kaiveran's first post had a scummy tone and her follow ups are worse. This is largely subjective so I'm not expecting this to be particularly persuasive, but anyone can read her posts and judge that for themself.

People should definitely be less afraid of putting their vote wherever their suspicions lie. Mountainous games are sedate affairs. Let's see all those lurkers take a position on... something.