Lynch All Lurkers Mafia! GAME OVER

[Mastin]

D'oh. You'd think I'd learn to press 'go' instead of Quick Reply's 'submit' one of these days. :/

[Ether]

4 MafiaSSK (Xylthixlm, ortolan, Empking, populartajo)
2 image (roflcopter, Stephoscope)
2 elvis_knits (Nuwen, image)
1 Nuwen (elvis_knits)


3 Unvote (MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic)

12 alive; 7 to lynch.

Edit: Fixed

[populartajo]

Why is MafiaSSK not voting?

[MafiaSSK]

Why is MafiaSSK not voting?

Don't feel like it.

[Xylthixlm]

Why is mafiassk not scumhunting?

[ortolan]

I will probably vote elvis tomorrow btw (with reasons). Just a heads up in case she gets speedlynched, flips scum and I look less-than-optimal for not having voted her.

It's going to take you a whole day to make up some reasons? You're slow.

I think ortolan is being stupid not scummy there

Why stupid? It was night my time (also a reply to elvis suggesting it would take me a whole day to make up reasons).

Anyway, why elvis is scummy:

1) e.g. from

You're ignoring most of the game, and most of the players to hit on one thing that I said that actually should tell you that I am town. You're actually ignoring logic to make graphs and analogies to try to prove that I am scum. You are not making sense. It reminds me a lot of the other game, where you were scum pushing the idea that "lynching claimed power roles is statistically more likely to hit scum, so let's lynch all power roles."

Also, I wasn't in WIH2, and I don't know what you guys are talking about all the times you reference it. But if Nuwen used stats in a scummy way in that game too, that makes two confirmed cases where she presents bastardmath as scum. This game would be the third. That seems to be her scum MO.

She has repeatedly used the sole fact of Nuwen's deference to maths as a point against her because she has deferred to maths in games previously where she has been scum. I don't think Nuwen's argument that people who jumped on a lurker's bandwagon before they hit 72 hours are very much more likely to be scum, but her point, despite being a small one, is sound from a purely logical standpoint. It does not make her scummy.

Additionally, the tone of 1790 reads as disingenuous and full of appeal to emotion.

Read over the first two pages of the game. See where I misunderstand the rules in a way that scum would obviously be familiar with. See where Zwet attacks me (before there were votes on him) and tries to throw suspicion on me.

If you don't think I'm town, that's fine. But you would have to assume that I cooked up a fake misunderstanding and faked a fight with zwet scum (which would be an awful choice of player for me to do that with), to think I'm scum.

I don't really care if you don't think I'm town based on these events, but it's horribly convoluted to think I'm scum based on these events.

I don't like this. If a zwet busing was premeditated this instantly becomes invalid.

I will revote image if we all agree Nuwen is scum and will die next.

Lining up lynches, lacking thoughtfulness.

Tajo, you don't need to be a maths person so see that she's not making sense.

I don't know if she's more likely scum than image. But she's scum, and she needed my vote.

I think it's really scummy to try to "unconfirm" people. When you're scum, it sucks to have people confirmed town, so you search for ways to argue that they're unconfirmed. That's what she's doing, and using the crappiest logic to do so.

And while you are technically right that nobody is confirmed town, you can often tell from certain events that a person is more likely to be town. Sometimes, VERY likely to be town. A town player looks for these sorts of things so that they can narrow down lynch possibilities. A scum player hates this because the pool of possibile lynchees gets smaller and the chances that they get lynched increases. So they look for ways to argue that players accepted as VERY LIKELY TOWN, could possibly, maybe, be scum. Like snowballs chance in hell chance of being scum.

Your continued insistence your behaviour towards zwet places you above scrutiny, is actually one of the scummiest things about you.

I also don't like elvis in 1842 suggesting that it was somehow entirely DGB and Xtoxm's fault they were mislynched. It's particularly wierd when in 1844 she seems to give all these reasons *why* DGB

was

acting scummy, seemingly in order to validate why she found her validly suspicious (and thereby making whether or not DGB suicided irrelevant).

On a similar note, I dislike Xyl's claim he will never play with DGB again due to her "self-hammer", made while the game is still ongoing. The implication that he is outraged-town is mere WIFOM.

I especially don't like his:

I count xtoxm and dgb as jester lynches

Which seems a particularly scummy way to nullify the responsibility of anyone else for involvement in these wagons. According to tajo's analysis he was second, third and first on all these wagons respectively, which means his involvement and support of the wagons is entirely independent of any self-voting moves by those players. Whether or not these players were "jesters" (a stupid thing to say anyway) is irrelevant to

his

involvement in their wagons.

1863 continues the scummy WIFOM.

I think that someone asking to be lynched is always a sufficient reason to do so.

No, this is

not

why you voted them, scumbag.

@ Mastin, what the hell does "stylistically consistent" mean? Why is it a valid town/scum tell?

And how are you judging "quality of post content"???

I dislike your list because it doesn't give us information about how you came to the conclusions you did. It is practically useless for us.

I am obliged to keep my vote on MafiaSSK as long as he continues to blatantly not scumhunt and be totally useless. He needs to be lynched now, get on the wagon please scum.

[Xylthixlm]

ortolan: you're haring off in a completely wrong direction but I think you're doing it for protown reasons, thus "stupid not scummy".

Try reading my posts with the thought that I honestly believed there would be no way DGB would be so stupid as to pull that crap as town. I now realize this was an overestimation of DGB.

[elvis_knits]

Mastin's posts are useless and as far as I can tell only show he's counting the number of posts, and judging the average length of them. I don't see how this helps him or anyone else judge scumminess.

It worries me because it seems designed to look like he's scum hunting but there's actually no value there.

@Ortolan,

Nuwen's point is not valid. How is lynching lurkers more likely to hit town? I do not comprehend.

Don't you think it's significant that I can show you two other games where she has used crapmath as scum?

And yes, I do blame DGB and Xtoxm for being mislynched. One of your jobs as town is to make it hard to lynch you. This increases the chance that town will see you are town, and increases the chance that scum will show they're scummy. The worst thing you can do is make it easy for yourself to be lynched because it makes it harder for the town to see town from scum on your lynch. And hammering yourself deprives the town on info.

If DGB and Xtoxm had made it harder to lynch them, they might not have been lynched. A number of people voted them purely because "asking to be lynched" is scummy. And we cannot start assuming people are town when they appeal to emotion and ask to be lynched. If we do, we open a door for scum to fall back on this behavior and avoid lynches. That would make it infinitely more difficult to scum hunt.

[image]

Elvis, consider it this way. The difference between lynching everyone who lurks 48 hours and everyone who lurks 72 hours is exactly those people who do not post for between 48 and 72 hours. Any scumbag who tries to lurk for 72 hours will get lynched either way; however, the extra people who get lynched by the 48 hour policy are no more likely to be scum than someone lurking the same amount of time in a normal game, since scum have no added incentive to lurk for this time.

Or, if you prefer, consider it this way. The only reason, it seems fair to assume, that a townie would be inactive for 72 hours is some sort of RL issue. This is unforgivable, and they must be lynched. However, an RL issue is significantly more likely to last for 48 hours than 72 hours. By policy lynching after a certain time, we lynch all the scumbags who are trying to lurk for 72 hours, but also any townie who has RL issues. By setting the deadline earlier, we increase the number of townies we mislynch through policy.

Mod: I should be voting Elvis

[elvis_knits]

image, if we agree beforehand that we will lynch lurkers after 48 hours, it is not likely for town to do it. Most people can get online to post "hi" every 48 hours if they know they have to.

How do you know that RL emergencies normally last for more than 48 hours but less than 72? How do you know the ratio of players that we can expect RL situations to happen to? And how do you know this number is higher than the number of scum trying to lurk?

Besides, I only suggested this because I thought scum could share their lurker points with their teammates even if lynched after 72 hours. I was trying to prevent scum from getting an extra kill. That's the only real reason I thought we should do it, and I don't see how it would be detrimental to the town if everyone agreed to do it, and thought they could handle posting every 48 hours.

[image]

I just know that there is a non-zero probability of an RL emergency lasting for between 48 and 72 hours; as a result, the probability of an RL emergency lasting 48 hours is greater than the probability of it lasting 72 hours, since all that last 72 hours must also last 48 hours. It follows, then, that the odds of a townie being inactive for 48 hours are greater than the odds of one being inactive for 72 hours.

Further, it does not matter what the ratio of scum trying to lurk to people with RL issues is; all that matters are the people who are lynched by one policy who would

not

be lynched by the other. Both policies catch all the scum trying to lurk for 72 hours, but one is more likely to catch innocents as well.

If you only suggested this policy lynch based on a misunderstanding, why are you still trying to defend it? Why not accept that Nuwen's point that this is a bad policy is valid?

[Xylthixlm]

After some closer analysis of what Nuwen actually said and her probable thought process in saying it, I think I understand what she was thinking. I still think her conclusion is wrong, because she is discounting the possibility that lurking could be (and imo, is) "inherently scummy" even without the 72-hour mechanic; but I see how she reached it.

Now, back to killing MafiaSSK. DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE.

[elvis_knits]

I just know that there is a non-zero probability of an RL emergency lasting for between 48 and 72 hours; as a result, the probability of an RL emergency lasting 48 hours is greater than the probability of it lasting 72 hours, since all that last 72 hours must also last 48 hours. It follows, then, that the odds of a townie being inactive for 48 hours are greater than the odds of one being inactive for 72 hours.

Further, it does not matter what the ratio of scum trying to lurk to people with RL issues is; all that matters are the people who are lynched by one policy who would

not

be lynched by the other. Both policies catch all the scum trying to lurk for 72 hours, but one is more likely to catch innocents as well.

If you only suggested this policy lynch based on a misunderstanding, why are you still trying to defend it? Why not accept that Nuwen's point that this is a bad policy is valid?

Maybe I'm wrong but I still think lurking is a scummy activity no matter time duration.

And I am still defending it because she is trying to say that it was scummy for me to suggest it. AND she has never mentioned the circumstances of my suggestion. It's not a bad policy given my understanding of the rules, even if you think I'm wrong about everything else.

[elvis_knits]

Tajo, based on your analysis of lynches and who was on and off what wagons, who do you tihnk is most likely to be scum? Because I don't think you ever said.

[roflcopter]

post to reset my 72

[Xylthixlm]

WHY IS MAFIASSK NOT DEAD YET?

roflcopter, Stephoscope, Nuwen, elvis_knits, image, MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic: Explain why you are not voting MafiaSSK.

[MafiaSSK]

WHY IS MAFIASSK NOT DEAD YET?

roflcopter, Stephoscope, Nuwen, elvis_knits, image, MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic: Explain why you are not voting MafiaSSK.

I believe I am town, sir. I just don't feel like posting a huge ass post detailing why you are scum.

[Xylthixlm]

WHY IS MAFIASSK NOT DEAD YET?

roflcopter, Stephoscope, Nuwen, elvis_knits, image, MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic: Explain why you are not voting MafiaSSK.

I believe I am town, sir. I just don't feel like posting a huge ass post detailing why you are scum.

Do it.

[MafiaSSK]

WHY IS MAFIASSK NOT DEAD YET?

roflcopter, Stephoscope, Nuwen, elvis_knits, image, MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic: Explain why you are not voting MafiaSSK.

I believe I am town, sir. I just don't feel like posting a huge ass post detailing why you are scum.

Do it.

No. Because it would mostly be filled with posts for you begging everyone to get me lynched as if you would die for another mislynch.

[Empking]

I likewise am wondering why people aren't voting Mafiassk and I'm thinking about how much information and how much false information a lynch like DGB's or Xtoxm's actually gives us.

[ortolan]

Xyl Re: 1881: Do you think DGB's self-vote made a difference to whether or not she was ultimately lynched?

Do you believe you are as responsible as you would normally be for lynching her considering you seemed to be voting her long before any self-voting issues arose?

[Xylthixlm]

ortolan: I'm not going to discuss DGB and self-voting. If I try, I'm going to get angry again, and then I'll either do something stupid or make myself replace out of the game. Drop the subject.

[Xylthixlm]

WHY IS MAFIASSK NOT DEAD YET?

roflcopter, Stephoscope, Nuwen, elvis_knits, image, MafiaSSK, Mastin, Kinetic: Explain why you are not voting MafiaSSK.

I believe I am town, sir. I just don't feel like posting a huge ass post detailing why you are scum.

Do it.

No. Because it would mostly be filled with posts for you begging everyone to get me lynched as if you would die for another mislynch.

So, what happened to your post restriction?

[ortolan]

ortolan: I'm not going to discuss DGB and self-voting. If I try, I'm going to get angry again, and then I'll either do something stupid or make myself replace out of the game. Drop the subject.

entirely independently of her self-voting

, you were absolutely sure at the time you voted for her she was obv-scum, yes?

[Xylthixlm]

entirely independently of her self-voting

, you were absolutely sure at the time you voted for her she was obv-scum, yes?

IIRC I had her at about 50% chance of being scum at the time I voted her.