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

[zwetschenwasser]

You're using active lurking too broadly. Attacking the person attacking me, believe it or not, adds content to the game and creates discussion. And I couldn't care less that he's attacking me, as the scumminess I find in him revolves around Empking, not me.

The “Top O' De Page” 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.

[Zer0ph34r]

Zwet: I am Zer0ph34r to put words in your mouth. And I said that because you're predictable. You're already playing how I thought you would.

Furry: I never said it was bad, I said "odd". I never said I think anyone is town.
I never said that ["scum"] either, I said "suspicious".
I am not voting because there is no point for me to vote when I don't suspect anyone.
Would you prefer that I type a vote, despite its effect in the game as of now and my lack of knowledge of who's scum or not?

And ekim, when did I EVER suggest policy lynching?

[zwetschenwasser]

Sarcastic annoying scum!

Vote: Zero

[Zer0ph34r]

Got a reason, zwet?

[Flava Flave]

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

Ignore the number of posts. Plenty has happened. Opinions on it would be nice.

Furry: I never said it was bad, I said "odd". I never said I think anyone is town.
I never said that ["scum"] either, I said "suspicious".

Scumtell #1: Using non-committal statements to back off of stances.

I never said that ["scum"] either,

I said "suspicious".

I am not voting because there is no point for me to vote when

I don't suspect anyone.

Scumtell #2: Contradiction.
Scumtell #3: Refusing to have a stance.

Sarcastic annoying scum!

Vote: Zero

Can't argue with that vote. Although I prefer WC as scum.

[Zer0ph34r]

Flave, how am I trying to back off of stances?
What contradiction is in my posts in the slightest way?
I'm not refusing to have a stance, what could I possibly use to think someone is scum? There has been nothing legit that I could use.




I feel that I'm going to repeat history

[Flava Flave]

@Zer0:
You used "odd" and "suspicious" and backed off by saying you didn't mean scummy.

Being suspicious and not suspecting anyone at the same time is hard to do.

Some of us have suspicions. That means there are reasons to suspect people. Why can't you find anything? Do you have comments on other players' suspicions?

[Huntress]

I feel that I'm going to repeat history

There's a saying: "Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I don't want either of them in the game, scum or not. I HATE zwet and I've only heard bad things about empking.

You made your decision to play with them when you signed up for the game as they had both signed up before you. So I wonder why you choose to write something like this?


I've got several low suspicions but nothing major yet. Too tired to go into more detail tonight but I'll have time tomorrow afternoon to get a better post up.

[Zer0ph34r]

I never backed off from using the word "scummy". I used the words I used because I meant them. If I meant scummy, I would've said scummy. I meant odd and suspicious, so that's what I said. And I know what a suspicion is, braniac. I most likely can't find anything because there's nothing logical to go by. And no, no comments.

Huntress: The saying should be "Those who don't learn from history are going to face zer0's repeat of history". I chose to write that because it's what I think.

PS: I find something odd. There's always one fool who suspects me for the dumbest reasons that I later prove wrong, but this game, there appears to be TWO. [Any thoughts of what that could mean when there are TWO groups of TWO mafia, people? Please use your heads.]

[White Castle]

V/LA up to 4/27 to attend an out of town wedding.

Admittedly, I haven't read much in the thread since I knew I was going out of town.

I'm still thinking about the endgame.

Standard one scum group stuff: In a day start with only one scum and 3 townies, the town should no lynch. This starts the next day at 1 vs. 2 and gives the town a better shot at hitting scum. If you try to lynch scum at 1 vs. 3 and miss, it's game over. The same applies to two scum (same group) and four town. The town should no lynch.

I was able to do a little more research. There is some discussion of 2 vs. 2 vs. 8 here starting in about post 330.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=325
The key take I got so far is that in a daystart of 1 vs. 1 vs. 2, one of the two townies should claim and volunteer to get lynched in order to have a night of 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 and hope for a scum cross kill.

More to come when I get back. If I'm lynched while I'm gone, then be suspicious of whoever pushes for a lynch this early in a game where we need to take as much time as possible before lynching. A mislynch today could start D2 at 2 vs. 2 vs. 5.

[ekiM]

You're using active lurking too broadly.

That's your opinion, not mine.

Would you prefer that I type a vote, despite its effect in the game as of now and my lack of knowledge of who's scum or not?

Yes. Would you prefer if it everyone waited for someone else to take the initiative and we got to deadline with no information whatsoever?

And ekim, when did I EVER suggest policy lynching?

In your first post:

I'm debating my vote for either zwet or empking.

I don't want either of them in the game, scum or not

. I HATE zwet and I've only heard bad things about empking.

II find something odd. There's always one fool who suspects me for the dumbest reasons that I later prove wrong, but this game, there appears to be TWO. [Any thoughts of what that could mean when there are TWO groups of TWO mafia, people? Please use your heads.]

See, this is the kind of dazzlingly brilliant analysis we need. Keep it up!

[Furry]

FF and mike are at least 90% town, this game is going to be over quick for scum.

That's your opinion, not mine.

If people ever talk of policy lynching you, then its more then just my opinion. You should never be policy lynched, or even lynched in more then half your games, or more then a quarter day one. Even those numbers are very very high. I try and keep under 15% lynch, under 5% D1.

@Zero - So depsite that you said you wanted to vote for emp/zwet early for not wanting them in the game, but didnt (because?), so somethin about now not wanting them lynched and finding no one suspicious and im lost. I usually can get where people reaching are coming from since I dont think like most.

@WC - Look, im kind of big on theory, its why multiball is one of the only open setups I like. However you are using this as a way to avoid talking about anything. The correct theory can be figured out by most people who have heard of a prisoners dilemma before. Arguing theory though is actually active lurking because while you seem usefull for giving information to the town, nothing is accomplished that furthers the game. So suspicions, next post.

Starting tomorrow I might have choppy access through sunday, but should be able to make a post a day. If I dissapear for a while dont freak though.

[Gregory]

IPS: I find something odd. There's always one fool who suspects me for the dumbest reasons that I later prove wrong, but this game, there appears to be TWO. [Any thoughts of what that could mean when there are TWO groups of TWO mafia, people? Please use your heads.]

You are pressing us to vote them, right? why don't you vote them yourself?

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Zer0

His whole unwillingness to put his vote where his mouth is, his putting words in Zwet' mouth and his active lurking.

[Kaiveran]

Hey I finished my ACTs 'n shiz. Posts coming up.

[Kaiveran]

I'll have to go along with the crowd here and say that Zer0 is acting really suspicious -- in fact, I think he's our best bet for a lynch.

THE COMPENDIUM:

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.)

There was opposition to your proposed policy lynch, but I didn't catch anything up until this point when someone said you were pushing voting strategies on others. The accusations were about you "still going on about policy lynching" and "trying to look busy" with your consistent push for a zwet/emp lynch. No one said that you were trying to force voting strategies on others;

that

came from you.

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).

OK, so you're going to save your vote for when there's significant evidence, but even when there's info, you're "not entirely" gonna base your vote on that? This is really sketchy. Also, I'm not gonna read into reputations outside of basic info. Humans are unpredictable and can always throw a few curveballs your way, so you can't place your trust in the past.

Zwet: I am Zer0ph34r to put words in your mouth. And I said that because you're predictable. You're already playing how I thought you would.

First sentence: Uh, what? Is that supposed ti be a bad pun or something? Being predictable also isn't a good reason to lynch someone.

Furry: I never said it was bad, I said "odd". I never said I think anyone is town.

I never said that ["scum"] either, I said "suspicious".
I am not voting because there is no point for me to vote when I don't suspect anyone.

Would you prefer that I type a vote, despite its effect in the game as of now and my lack of knowledge of who's scum or not?

And ekim, when did I EVER suggest policy lynching?

This pretty much sells it for me. Were you even reading this post as you typed it? Apparently not.

Blatant contradiction #1:

You imply you've found someone suspicious, and yet you say there's "no point" in you voting because you "don't suspect anyone."

Blatant contradiction #2:

You've been going on about policy lynch targets Emp and zwet SINCE THE GAME STARTED, and yet your saying that never, ever, NOT ONCE IN THIS GAME have you suggested a policy lynch? Get real.

Flave, how am I trying to back off of stances?
What contradiction is in my posts in the slightest way?

I'm not refusing to have a stance, what could I possibly use to think someone is scum? There has been nothing legit that I could use.

I feel that I'm going to repeat history

HAHAHA. I feel sorry for you then.

Unvote

Vote: Zer0

FoS on Mr. Slider still. He does seem to be dodging legit discussion by posting a bunch of theory, may be trying to put on a town face.

[Zer0ph34r]

I am scum, my partner in crime is deadleaves93, who is now scott brosious. If you people are smart [which you clearly aren't], you'll lynch us both.

[Flava Flave]

I never backed off from using the word "scummy". I used the words I used because I meant them. If I meant scummy, I would've said scummy. I meant odd and suspicious, so that's what I said. And I know what a suspicion is, braniac. I most likely can't find anything because there's nothing logical to go by. And no, no comments.

What do odd and suspicious mean in your opinion? How is it different from scummy?

There is plenty to go by. Play the game like everyone else. You don't get a free pass.

PS: I find something odd. There's always one fool who suspects me for the dumbest reasons that I later prove wrong, but this game, there appears to be TWO. [Any thoughts of what that could mean when there are TWO groups of TWO mafia, people? Please use your heads.]

See, you can't say stuff like this and say you don't have suspicions. If you are suspicious of someone, grow a pair and say so.

The same applies to two scum (same group) and four town. The town should no lynch.

I disagree. 3 town and 1 scum is LYLO. 4 town, 2 scum in opposing factions, a mislynch and 2 town kills means no lynch the NEXT day, not that day. There's a chance of crosskills either way. Actually, with 6 players alive, and 2 being scum, 3 deaths being all town is unlikely. Lynch has a 2/6 chance of being scum. And each kill has a 1/5 chance, meaning there is a 2/5 chance of scum dying at night.

But how about this: Any suspicions so far or just setup discussion?

prisoners dilemma

Ok, I feel dumb, but I keep seeing this term flying around. What exactly is it?

I am scum, my partner in crime is deadleaves93, who is now scott brosious. If you people are smart [which you clearly aren't], you'll lynch us both.

Unvote, Vote Zer0

He just claimed scum. Whether Scott is scum too or not doesn't matter yet. This is a scum claim and the guy needs to be lynched.

[ekiM]

Please play to your win condition next game.

ekiM unvote

ekiM Vote: Zer0ph34r

[Zer0ph34r]

Why?

[Furry]

Lynchin time.

@FF - Prisoners Dilemma is a rare situation where the town still has a win possibility, but can no actually win the game by lynching a player. The best example of that would be something that can occur on this game. If the last 3 players are town, Mafia A, Mafia B. The town player can not win the game through a lynch, instead the right move is to no lynch. Now if the two mafia kill eachother, town is the last player standing and they win the game.

[Huntress]

Why?

Because by not playing to your win condition you are spoiling the game for others and breaking the rules of the site.

FoS: Zer0

This would be a vote if he wasn't already at L-1.

The trouble is, Zer0 has claimed scum at least twice before and turned out to be town both times, causing a mislynch, but there's no way of knowing whether he's fake-claiming again or telling the truth this time.

He's at L-1 now and although he fully deserves to be hammered I don't want to end the day so soon and I don't think we should let him cause us to do that, at least, not until I've written that post I promised and I think there are others that also need to chip in a bit more before we go to night.

[dejkha]

The “The Suicidal Player” Vote Count

Zer0ph34r -6- (Furry, zwetschenwasser, Empking, Kaiveran, Flava Flave, ekiM)

White Castle -1- (Scott Brosius)
Empking -1- (Drench)
Drench -1- (Huntress)
Flava Flave -1- (Gregory)


Not Voting: White Castle, Zer0ph34r

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to Lynch.

If there's a mistake, let me know.

[Zer0ph34r]

Do you really want to risk it me being scum?

[Huntress]

Risk what?