Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[Tzeentch]

Vote: Brandi

Alcohol can cause damage to livers!

[Tzeentch]

Unvote

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Any reason why?

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

That post truly deserves a vote.

Firstly, this sentence is a little misleading - it sound like you intended to vote Gorrad, and I did a minor double take when I realised you voted inHim instead.

Regarding inHim's post, if a discussion of mafia theory is relevant to the game at hand, then trying to quell that theory discussion is trying to quell game-relevant discussion, which is a pretty scummy action.

I very much doubt there's a four-man scumgroup, and I definitely don't think the post so early was a "slip". It looked to me like just a throwaway joke. Nonetheless, it's prompted discussion, and preventing that is a bad thing.

The nature of the wagon determines how far the wagon goes. If we get 5 votes and still aren't satisfied, there will be a 6th. If the hunger still isn't gone, there's a lynch.

This worries me. The main purpose of the wagon is to create pressure on a player and gauge their reaction, but it also prompts other discussion and enables us to see how the other players are reacting to the wagon.

As I read this post, inHim seems to consider the wagon to imply an acceptable argument on the person being wagonned (what is it precisely we need to be satisfied about?) - the nature of a bandwagon means that it tends to excite its members into greater suspicion, and if the initial point is as minor as it is here, it's almost impossible for the person being wagonned to defend themselves.

Brian, you're right that wagonning does produce pressure, but it's important to remember that we shouldn't lycnh people because there's pressue on them, but have to look at why the pressure is there. Currently, I'm having trouble seeing a good reason for the pressure.

[Tzeentch]

Things that don't make sense = bad logic = scumtell

Not all things that don't make sense are necessarily bad logic. What's more, not all bad logic is a scumtell.

What's more, your post is a strawman (which is bad logic, and of the scumtell sort). What he said is this:

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game.

This could mean a number of things, and I read it as pointing out that the purpose of a bandwagon is to put pressure on the person being wagonned, to see how people justify joining the wagon, how the early voters react to a couple of votes becoming a serious threat, and how undecided people react to this. The lynch is merely an aspect of the wagon, should the various reactions imply that the wagonned person is most likely to be scum.

You reworded it as this:

You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This is not what inHim said. Maybe it is what he meant, I don't know, but it's definitely not what he said and it's also phrased far more simplistically, which makes it look scummier than it was.

Vote: Slicey

- I find strawmen to be one of the most notable scumtells.

[Tzeentch]

I would like to hear more from

Maturin24

, he has only made 3 posts all game, all with a number of days apart, and his last post was 6 days ago. Perhaps he might need a prod soon.

Good point.

Unvote, Vote Maturin24

Hm. Unless I'm missing something, Brandi didn't say (or even imply) that Maturin is scummy, just that he wasn't posting much.

I want Maturin to contribute a bit more (and should contribute a bit more myself ) but I don't like the "vote lurkers" concept, and never had. Not for the first "offence".

[Tzeentch]

Alright all, I'm sorry I've been so quiet recently - I've only really had time to read at work for the last few days (been trying to organise getting a new place) but will be contributing more when I get home tonight.

[Tzeentch]

Gaah. Sorry all, there's been a crackdown on net use at work so I've barely been able to post.

Anyone below this post who doesn't have his vote on inHim and doesn't hammer will be lynched tomorrow.

Threatening people for having a different opinion to you, and saying so, is not good.

But the deadline is looming, and we don't want a no-lynch. inHim is not at the top of my scumdar at the moment (I find Slicey more scummy even now), but he's still a much better lynch than none at all, and on the brief readthrough I've made he's a perfectly reasonable choice.

And the claim certainly doesn't help.

Vote: inHimshallibe

[Tzeentch]

Whoops, just got a reminder from our friendly Mod.

Unvote, vote: inHimshallibe

[Tzeentch]

First I think I get an "I told you so" on inhim being town. Trust the town reads, that wagon was weak, weakity weak weak.

Willing to bet slicey was a vig kill though, DDD death is a bit surprising however.

Prob going to vote Tzee for that shifty hammer. That was one of those scenarios where a no lynch was the best move.

Really? I didn't have inHim at the top of my scumdar, but he wasn't exactly the most innocent person either. And frankly, the lynch is all we (reliably) have - if we're too hesitant to use it unless we

know

people to be scum, we'll be paralyzed with fear and easy pickings.

It's better to have a lynch with a 50-60% chance of success than no lynch. And yes, it didn't pay off, but it was a gamble I was willing to take.

On the other hand, I am interested by hp's ultimatum. Discouraging discussion is not a good thing - and you effectively pressured those who didn't find inHim as scummy as yourself to not post in his defence. Even as a "final thought for the day" sort of thing.

Re-reading is now required, back later.

[Tzeentch]

Anyone below this post who doesn't have his vote on inHim and doesn't hammer will be lynched tomorrow.

Threatening people for having a different opinion to you, and saying so, is not good.

Already he sees that hp is trying to bully votes onto inhim.

But the deadline is looming, and we don't want a no-lynch. inHim is not at the top of my scumdar at the moment (I find Slicey more scummy even now), but he's still a much better lynch than none at all, and on the brief readthrough I've made he's a perfectly reasonable choice.

Ok, this is what makes no sense. Slicey is more scummy then inhim. The two top wagons are slicey and inhim. However a lynch of a second (or maybe even lower) choice is taken. If he really thought that slicey was scum, it should mean that inhim is NOT scum. So he backs the wagon on someone that he should logically think is town, in order to get a lynch.

*cough*

Please don't assume I've been thinking illogically, mmmkay?

Firstly, believing Slicey was scum (putting aside for now that I actually thought he was

probably

scum) does NOT imply belief that inHim was town. Even putting aside the possibility of bussing, there's still a multi-scum-group possibility to be considered here. Not that I necessarily think there ARE multiple scum groups, but what you posited was a false dilemma, which is something of a pet peeve of mine.

Secondly, while I did believe Slicey was a bad guy, I wasn't 100%. So really, it was more "Back the 50-60% scummy lynch we will actually get over the 60-70% scummy lynch we won't" - and I'm sure you can see why that is far less of a questionable decision.

And the claim certainly doesn't help.

*facepalm* ok seriously people. Just about every role can work as any alignment given how the game is balanced. Give me any role and I bet I can throw together a somewhat balanced mini in about ten minutes. If this is about role name thats even more annoying. Any good mod will give scum fakeclaims, or they will all be roles that are townie sounding. Name/Role claims should be taken on if they fit flavor if you are going to attempt to bust on it. If inhim claimed doctor, then yeah, thats flavorfail. RB is not.

And finally, putting my words into my mouth. I'm perfectly aware that flavour and mechanics are rarely linked that strongly (in fact, I've made note of your seeding of potential doubts for the future), and it's interesting you didn't ask

why

I thought the claim didn't help.

One of the most common power roles to give scum is roleblocker. In addition, the only way to test the power involves a pro-town power role losing their role for a night, then willingly stepping forward to state this. What's more, the only way to reliably test involves a power role stepping forward BEFORE being blocked - making them an obvious target.

In other words, it's one of the most reliable scum claims there is - it's a power role, but one which is both near-impossible to test without giving the scum information and one which is very likely to go to the scum.

It was the fact that he claimed roleblocker that tipped it over the edge for me. Not the fact that he claimed that Jordan was a roleblocker.

Also, it's interesting what you seem to be implying here:

Just about every role can work as any alignment given how the game is balanced... If this is about role name thats even more annoying.

The first part says that any role can work as any alignment. Initially I read that as "Any character can work as any alignment", but the next bit - where you say it's worse if it's about the role name - seems to imply that the first bit was talking about the ability itself.

Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this bit, but does that mean that you think we shouldn't take a person's claimed role into account when deciding whether or not to lynch them?

..

On the other hand, I am interested by hp's ultimatum. Discouraging discussion is not a good thing - and you effectively pressured those who didn't find inHim as scummy as yourself to not post in his defence. Even as a "final thought for the day" sort of thing.

Re-reading is now required, back later.

No-lynch hurts town. I posted that on the final day, where we would have to lynch inHim or have a no lynch. Which would you prefer?

I would prefer for everyone to be able to contribute as they normally would without being threatened for it. What if someone wanted to step forward and corroborate inHim's claim somehow (I don't know how, but it's always possible) - your statement could have held them back, then someone else might have made the lynch based on incomplete information.

I just think that it's never a good thing to try and restrict discussion.

[Tzeentch]

And the claim certainly doesn't help.

*facepalm* ok seriously people. Just about every role can work as any alignment given how the game is balanced. Give me any role and I bet I can throw together a somewhat balanced mini in about ten minutes. If this is about role name thats even more annoying. Any good mod will give scum fakeclaims, or they will all be roles that are townie sounding. Name/Role claims should be taken on if they fit flavor if you are going to attempt to bust on it. If inhim claimed doctor, then yeah, thats flavorfail. RB is not.

And finally, putting my words into my mouth. I'm perfectly aware that flavour and mechanics are rarely linked that strongly (in fact, I've made note of your seeding of potential doubts for the future), and it's interesting you didn't ask

why

I thought the claim didn't help.

One of the most common power roles to give scum is roleblocker. In addition, the only way to test the power involves a pro-town power role losing their role for a night, then willingly stepping forward to state this. What's more, the only way to reliably test involves a power role stepping forward BEFORE being blocked - making them an obvious target.

In other words, it's one of the most reliable scum claims there is - it's a power role, but one which is both near-impossible to test without giving the scum information and one which is very likely to go to the scum.

It was the fact that he claimed roleblocker that tipped it over the edge for me. Not the fact that he claimed that Jordan was a roleblocker.

So you were outguessing the mod? Never seen a town RB I take it? As I have said before, give me a scum role, I will give you a setup for it. Dont WIFOM the setup though.

There also is blocking scum kills for town RBers though. Also if they do hit a town role that knows it, it confirms the role it hit when they claim. Best play for a RBer is to just aim for the scummiest player. They might stop a kill, they might end up confirming a PR of a scummy player that causes scum to need to scramble given that a lynch just got their role confirmed. I can go hunt for games with a town RBer if you want, bet I can find quite a few.

Of course I know roleblockers can go to both scum and town. What I was saying (if you care to read my post) is that I’m also aware that roleblockers are a very common scum power role, are near-impossible for town to test without giving the scum a major advantage, and have historically been one of the most common power roles for scum to claim.

I’m not saying that roleblockers are scummy. I’m saying that a roleblocker claim doesn’t make me significantly less inclined to lynch.

But thanks for your totally irrelevant lesson, I appreciate my words being twisted and misinterpreted to look like I have no idea what I’m doing.

Just about every role can work as any alignment given how the game is balanced... If this is about role name thats even more annoying.

The first part says that any role can work as any alignment. Initially I read that as "Any character can work as any alignment", but the next bit - where you say it's worse if it's about the role name - seems to imply that the first bit was talking about the ability itself.

Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this bit, but does that mean that you think we shouldn't take a person's claimed role into account when deciding whether or not to lynch them?

I mean WHO they claim is not important at all.

Any mod worth a salt will not make the game breakable by nameclaim. What is important is what they claim in relation to their name claim, and what they claim if you strip all flavor from the game. For example vigs, I could see...

Hooch - Because hooch is crazy
Doug - Because he is a really bad doctor
Kelso - Because he fires people

If we had a claim of JD - Vig, now that doesnt make sense, and is a claim you lynch.

Now if you have someone claim a cop with investigations on the obv-innocent and a dead player, then you lynch them regardless of a name.

On the other hand, I really liked your responses.

unvote

Reading brandi, hp, BMQ now.

So either names are irrelevant (as you initially argue) or they are actually a way of testing the potential veracity of a claim (as you later argue)? You’re arguing two opposite points here – as I read it, your answer to my question:

does that mean that you think we shouldn't take a person's claimed role into account when deciding whether or not to lynch them?

essentially boils down to “No, because yes.”

You’re saying we shouldn’t outguess the mod – but you’re also trying to argue that you should only do what “makes sense” in a flavour sense, despite:

Any mod worth a salt will not make the game breakable by nameclaim.

Also, I find this very interesting:

Or you just didnt quite understand what I said.

Outguessing the mod for what roles (RB, vig, doctor etc) are what alignment, or are in the game or not is bad outguessing the mod. Now, comparing a roleclaim to a flavor claim is not really outguessing the mod as much as it is having a claim not make any sense. Theme games are made to put nameclaims with APPROPRIATE roles so the mod and players can have fun.

If the mod just put random roles with random names, I will be pissed beyond reason (even though current roles show this is not true). You dont outguess the mod for setup or what alignments roles are, in a theme you are allowed to lynch role-name claims that dont add up.

You’re basically trying to tell us what we can and can’t accept as believable. You know what? That says to me that you’re setting up for future claims. You keep talking about not outguessing the mod, but you contradict yourself by then telling us where we are "allowed" to outguess the mod.

Nameclaims are relevant – for example, if you were to say “I’m Turk!” and someone else piped up “Wait, I’m Turk. How can you be Turk?” it would create another piece of information we can use when deciding who to lynch. However, almost any character can have almost any role, with flavour for justification. Similarly, any role (name or power) can be any alignment. Nonetheless, some power roles are more common for scum than others. This is simply a fact, and refusing to bear it in mind when voting is pure foolishness.

Long story short: I don’t trust people who contradict themselves, I don’t trust people who twist other people’s words, and I don’t trust people who try to tell us how to think, especially not when it defies normal (and well-tested) reasoning.

Vote: Furry

[Tzeentch]

Tell me where you fail to follow me

1) There should be no nameclaim that makes you go "lets not lynch this person"
2) There should be no roleclaim that makes you go "that is a town/scum role"
3) You

should

be sure that the name claim fits the role claim
4) If the nameclaim down not fit the roleclaim, its a fakeclaim.

So from what you had bolded

WHO they claim is not important is covered by 1.

Right here. The only way that a nameclaim can be unimportant is if who they claim has no bearing on your reaction whatsoever. You yourself state that it can, in your later points, so clearly who they claim IS important. Therefore, point one alone does not justify that statement. Even if you accept your points as valid (which I don't), that statement is refuted by points three and four.

Speaking of which, I also disagree with three. To assume that a character's role can only be an "obvious" one is to make an assumption about how the mod designs games - in other words, attempting to outguess the mod.

And I definitely disagree with four. I've already explained why, but I'll explain again in a moment.

Before that, though, it's worth noting that all four points are black-and-white (apart, debatably, from point three) - you do realise that in a game of incomplete information and with both logic and gut feeling playing integral parts, shades of grey are kinda an important part of the game? Just because I would never see a role and say "That's definitely a scum role" or "That's definitely a town role" (aside from the obvious case of a role with stated alignment, such as SK), that doesn't preclude me from saying "That's

more likely

to be a scum role" or "That's

more likely

to be a town role". Your rules above don't consider this possibility.

JD - Vig is covered by 3, that role makes no sense, ESPECIALLY as there are roles that make more sense as a vig in the game. Maybe in super fluffy happy bunny land there would be a vig that doesnt make sense, but in a game with doug, kelso, janitor, hooch etc... no, there are some roles that dont make sense. This is also going into 4.

Hm. Potential slip here - earlier you talked about

Outguessing the mod for what roles (RB, vig, doctor etc)... are in the game or not is bad outguessing the mod.

but here you say "there are roles that make more sense as a vig

in the game

... in

a game

with [various characters]" - I suspect a mild Freudian slip, and that you wanted to say "a theme" but have accidentally revealed that you have information.

That aside, I consider that it is the general consensus that using the most obvious characters for each role can lead to obvious game design, and therefore that being prepared to give characters roles which might not be immediately obvious is actually a good thing. Do you deny this?

I also contend that almost any character (in Scrubs or in almost any theme) can be given almost any role with valid flavour justification for that character having that role. This is not the first time I've mentioned this, but you haven't answered this point. Do you deny this?

For your last part, I feel the better the mod the farther away from the meta of regulation (RB/GF/goon) they go when making scum setups if they still can make a balanced, non-swingy game.

I agree that good mods can get away from this meta. It's interesting that you now accept that this meta does exist, though, because accepting that the meta exists means accepting that it is generally accepted that roleblockers are often found in scum groups. (Ugh, painful parsing. Let's try: For this meta to exist, it would need to be generally accepted that roleblockers are often found in scum groups. By accepting the existence of the meta, you are implicitly accepting that this is the general consensus)

Anyways, I've just noticed the time ( ) so I'm going to take my leave now. I look forward to seeing your response.

[Tzeentch]

Brandi, you're at L-2. Claim please.

L-2 is no reason to worry, and there isn't any reason for me to claim. So, no.

Day 2 will conclude at the latest in 5 days, at Saturday 6/27, 11pm (Central).

*sigh*

Unvote, vote: Brandi

.

When a deadline's approaching, obstinance helps no-one. Claim please.

[Tzeentch]

I think Tzee just voted to get a claim (and perhaps fair enough, given the proximity of the deadline and the amount of lurking)- at any rate, there are no other reasons given.

Absolutely correct. I've not been able to do a decent enough analysis to have a strong feeling one way or the other - there are valid points against Brandi, but some of the people on the wagon haven't really contributed. Personally, I simply think that obstinance - such as refusing to claim at L-2 when there's a deadline in less than a week - is not useful, so if I can prompt action, I will.

Unvote

I will give a decent analysis at home, when I have a good chance to read through properly.

[Tzeentch]

Gorrad: I unvoted because my vote had the desired response, and because I didn't want a lynch to happen before I could do a decent analysis.

Brandi: L-2 is a pretty standard time to ask for a claim at the best of times, simply to prevent a bad lynch. When there's a deadline, it's more important to find out the relevant information while you can, and therefore there's more urgency for the claim.

[Tzeentch]

Crap. I was really hoping this wouldn't be necessary at this stage, but...

BMQ is NOT scum

.

BMQ is my Mason partner. The mod has confirmed in our roles that we are both pro-town.

[Tzeentch]

I'm JD, and BMQ is Turk. It's our "Guy Love" that makes us masons.

[Tzeentch]

*sigh*

Yay for being the only one online around now

Unvote, vote: Brandi

I guess... We've had depressingly little discussion so far (especially from BMQ, hp and, irritatingly, Lindisfarne), so I have to follow the best lead I can with distinctly poor information.

[Tzeentch]

Mod: I will have uncertain access for approximately a week while my new place gets Internet access.

[Tzeentch]

Mod: I will have uncertain access for approximately a week while my new place gets Internet access.

We should totally lynch him while he is gone.

I'll do my best to get access, naturally, but it won't be for too long.

[Tzeentch]

MafiaSSK: PLEASE unvote. It's very possible that we're in LyLo, and if we are then holding that vote is seriously risky while we have people who've barely spoken who could be waiting for an opportunity.

[Tzeentch]

Sorry for the lack of analysis - not got much time online.

But this one seems easy enough.

Vote: Veerus

[Tzeentch]

(It is Day 4.)

Considering how few night kills we've had, I think that a doctor claim would be very useful.

I'm Dr. Cox, vanilla.

Innnnteresting.

Obviously, I'm JD, Mason with Snow White.

Everyone else?

[Tzeentch]

I'm Carla. I'm a Cop because Cox trusts my judgement so much that he's willing to share his informaiton about the person I select. so

n1 my predeseccor investigated BMQ and got a guilty

N2 got a guilty on veerus. N3 I got an innocent on Fishy.

First things first, I know you're lying, so

Vote: MafiaSSK

.

Your play at the start of D3 kinda supports you getting a guilty on Veerus, given how hard you drove it, but hp[leaves]'s play does not remotely support him getting a guilty on BMQ.

He only voted BMQ towards the end of the first day after voting Slicey, inHim, Maturin, inHim again, Slicey again and inHim again.

He didn't even mention BMQ in day one except by replying to him in one post, with not a shred of suspicion, and eventually lurker-voting him - which he had repeatedly made painfully obvious was his preferred voting method.

Obviously you can't speak for hp[leaves] yourself, but it looks to me like you replaced in, saw an opportunity, and went for it.

N2 got a guilty on veerus

Why didn't you lynch him, then?

Thought I could be paranoid.

This doesn't ring true to me. If you thought you could be paranoid, why did you immediately vote him, without explanation, in LyLo? You asked permission to vote Veerus, someone you apparently had a guilty result on, but then declined the opportunity to hammer him - twice.

You should also know now that apparently the only possible unsane cop possibility is you being a random cop, which is incredibly unbalancing in a mini. If you therefore assume you are a sane cop - which would be, in my opinion, the only logical choice - why did you not come out and vote Snow White at the start of the day?

One other quick point: There is no flavour reason to assume any character is pro-town or anti-town. The Janitor flipped as a member of the Brain Trust, which makes sense as a scum group, but both Ted and Doug flipped as town - and they're member of the Brain Trust in the show (Doug, admittedly, is kinda part-time though).

Also, the flavour is interesting here. Apparently, Carla is a cop because Dr. Cox trusts her enough to share opinions and knowledge. Also apparently, Dr. Cox is a vanilla townie who has no specialist knowledge. We also know that Dr. Cox is the mod's role. Something very weird is going on with the flavour here...

[Tzeentch]

Brandi: The only reason I dared go for the Mason gambit was because we were lovers.

Normally, Masons is a terrible claim because as soon as one dies, the other scum is incredibly obvious. Given that we were lovers, though, there wasn't that much risk, so I felt it was a worthwhile gambit. Thankfully, it worked!

GG all!