Open 147: Vengeful 5P - Game Over before 792

[ODDin]

/confirm

[ODDin]

Oh well.

vote: empking

Although I really have no idea what's the whole empking lynching thing.

[ODDin]

Err... do we really want to put someone on L-1 so early in the game?

unvote: empking
FoS: charter

[ODDin]

One guaranteed scum - certainly the goon will hammer, not the godfather. So if empking is town, the goon hammers on empking, empking kills the goon. I prefer 2 scum out of 5 to 1 out of 3.

[ODDin]

What are you trying to prove? I'm not voting for Para at the moment and I'm not giving you a second vote. I still don't think it's prudent to have two votes on somebody at this point, although you're right about the GF thing.
If mafia hammers now, we've gone to D2 without doing anything productive. We can't discern any connections or have any basis - we've got nothing. It does, however, reduce the chances of randomly hitting scum fro 40% (2/5) to 33% (1/3).

Basically, I don't to be in a point where it's up to the mafia to consider whether they want to sacrifice one of them for a hammer. I like to be in control. And with someone in L-1 with no information whatsoever, I don't think that's the case.

[ODDin]

EBWOP: the line before last should read "I don't want to be in a point (...)".

Also, in the first line, what I mean is "I'm not currently voting for Para, so I can't unvote and thus pull him out of L-1".

[ODDin]

I don't know what's with the empking lynch thing. I intended to play seriously. RVS is RVS, so I thought that I might as well vote for said empking, but that doesn't mean I actually want to lynch them.

[ODDin]

Frankly, were an observer from the side, I too would think Charter and myself are a team. Also, even if I were scum, I would most likely get Charter's point and act the way I acted.
Alas, all I can say in my defence is "I'm not scum", which doesn't really get us anywhere.

[ODDin]

Khamisa - we also had L-1 on page 1. I myself pointed out that I don't like that, but in a 5 player game it's sort of inevitable. Also, we did have some discussion going, so L-1 seems more reasonable right now.
However, I agree with Para - if you're trying to make a point with the L-1, make it. Pondering out loud if L-1s are acceptable without actually pointing fingers doesn't go anywhere.

Also, if anyone understands what the hell is going on between charter and empking, I'd appreciate an explanation. It seems that charter thought empking was trying to accuse him even before any accusation was actually presented, which seems very defensive at this point. However, it also seems that's related to the charter-empking meta on the whole, which makes it pretty hard for me to base any cases on this.

[ODDin]

I highly second Para. Roles aren't distributed based on meta. What you're saying is exactly why you should be

protecting

empking, advocating that what others may see as tells are, in fact, null-tells in view of his playing style.
I also don't like you being so sure of empking. This is quite ridiculous.

We should be able to think clearly and lucidly. A mislynch today may spell our loss in the game, so I'd expect you to be more serious about it.

[ODDin]

Charter, you're seriously beginning to annoy. Yes, Empking hasn't been acting at his best right now. He lied about your games together, or forgot, either way, strange.
However, are you really that sure that he is scum? You have advocated yourself that his playing style is strange on the whole. Which means that you, of all people, should be saying he might not be scum but just playing weird.

I don't see nearly enough evidence that Empking is scum. If empking is town and you are indeed town, you must realise that empking will most likely kill you for his revenge - effectively losing us the game.

So, what I see is you attempting to lynch a player very early in a game, while understanding that if it's a mistake it spells the loss of the game.

unvote, vote: charter

[ODDin]

charter: you misquoted, it's me you're quoting, not Para.

This is some really poor logic. I understand that if Empking is lynched and he is town, then he can vig town. You completely discount the possibility of Empking being scum, why is this?

I don't disregard the possibility that he is scum. I agree that his behaviour is somewhat suspicious. However, I don't think it's enough suspicious enough to be all that sure that he's scum, especially in light of what you said about him acting strange and using poor logic all the time - which reduces the value of your arguments against him significantly.

However, what you're saying isn't just "I'm suspicious of empking", it's "can it be empking killing taim now plx" - and I think you must realise that the arguments against him aren't nearly strong enough for that. Yes, he's suspicious. But a lynch on him *right now*, with the amount of information we have *right now*, is a very stupid thing to do.

[ODDin]

I don't like that Khamisa is basically following Para and myself, quoting Para's argument almost precisely. Haven't you got anything new to bring to the table?
For instance, what do you think on the exchange between charter and myself in the beginning of the day?

[ODDin]

Khamisa: No, I haven't played in this setup before.

[ODDin]

Well then your over reaction makes sense, ODDin.

If it makes sense it isn't overreaction, eh?

No quote pyramids, please.

Why not?

Because it's annoying as hell.

[ODDin]

Mod

: so what exactly happens at deadline if nobody gets 3 votes until then? Who gets lynched? If nobody then it's practically not a deadline, considering that there is no night and no power roles.

[ODDin]

charter - what you're saying is true, we need all three of us to lynch scum. However, I don't really like how certain you are of who the scum are at this point.
What you're saying about Khamisa is correct. However, she's behaving the exact same way in another game I'm playing with her right now. Sure, she might be scum in both, but it still speaks in her favour. Yes, it's very poor play, but not necessarily scummy.
I don't like Empking either. He's done quite little scumhunting - the one shallow argument against you (charter) doesn't really count. But again, charter, you've said yourself he's playing like that in all of his games, so this makes it less obvious he's scum. If he plays this way even when he's town, then your argument is something of a null-tell.

So, I'm still most suspicious of you, charter. You're being extremely certain that some people are scum, trying to force a lynch against them so hard that it's practically appealing to emotions already. This isn't a good strategy in a regular game, but it might work wonders in this setup, given that we're more or less in LyLo from the start.
Also, you're "ruse" that helped you conclude I'm town seems, in retrospect, more like an attempt to buddy me and make me sure you're a wise and very smart player, since I see how you managed to "discover the truth" about me so early in the game.

[ODDin]

Empking, to your question - just read the game and you'll get what you want, eh? I've been questioning charter in the beginning of the game on the L-1 issue. Later I questioned Khamisa. I continued to express my developing opinions on charter and yourself as the game progressed. I think only one I haven't really addressed was para, and I'm not suspicious of him and pretty sure he's town.

charter, you are more than invited to show the logical fallacies in my post. Saying they are there doesn't help anyone.

Khamisa, no, and I haven't got the slightest idea how you managed to get to that.

para, I'm going with charter lynch on the deadline right now. He's got two votes on him, so para, it's essentially up to you to decide on this.

[ODDin]

It is lynch.
Well, darn.

[ODDin]

Yeah, well, but now you revealed that you're town. I don't see why you would lie about your alignment during the twilight of your lynch.

[ODDin]

I lynched you because you've acted suspiciously, and I think I've explained why I thought your actions were suspicious.

[ODDin]

Hmm. So, it's myself, Khamisa and Para.

I don't like Khamisa's play one bit. Problem is, she's playing the exact same way in another game I'm playing with her, which leads me to believe she just plays like this generally.
If Khamisa was scum playing generally poorly, I'd expect her to hammer charter when the possibility arose.

Para... well, he's actually voted for everyone but me during the game. This might be because he's trying to appear to have accused the scum as well during the day, yet eventually he lynched a townie.
Also, I did ask charter a question, which is to explain why my argument was full of logical fallacies, according to him - so there was still something to gain before the deadline.

Thus, I am somewhat leaning towards voting para right now, but I don't want to do this just yet. After all, I might be wrong, and then I'd just give Khamisa a quick victory.

[ODDin]

Err, as far as I understood, charter was lynched, and in his act of vengeance he killed empking.

[ODDin]

This game is sliding downhill like... well, I can't think up a suitably vivid metaphor, but pretty darn fast.
Can anyone explain me why charter isn't dead? Does anyone understand by what rules the game is currently running?

[ODDin]

I'm here, don't worry. I'll have to think a bit more on this, but I'll reply to some of Khamisa's points.

It looks like his [that is, mine] reaction was a little overboard due to the fact that he knew charter wished to lynch Empking.

As I've said, I thought the lynch on empking idea was mainly a joke. It was good RVS stuff, but I didn't actually expect charter to continue this line of thought.

ODDin, on the other hand, didn't vote, and was apparently looking towards this "mafia wins at deadline" win.

I didn't change my vote because I felt charter was the most suspicious player and thus wanted to lynch him. I saw that there was still enough time to the deadline, so I didn't feel the need to lynch somebody I found less suspicious just for the sake of lynching anyone at all. If we had come to the deadline with still no lynch in sight, I wouldv'e, of course, voted for somebody with 2 votes in order to lynch him. I might be lying, of course, but there were still something like 3 days to the deadline when para hammered charter - plenty of time for me to change my vote if I wanted to.

This is extremely suspicious, seeing how he was voting for charter yet unhappy to see his lynch.That makes absolutely no sense.

It really makes no sense to me why this makes no sense to you. This has been said after charter said he's town during twilight. I saw no reason to think he's lying during the twilight of his own lynch. As far as I was concerned, it was as if zwet said he's town.
If he were scum, I'm guessing he'd say "bah, go scum" during the twilight - it's not like it matters at that point.

[ODDin]

Well, I can count, and I knew we had three votes on him, and since it's an open setup, I knew lynch was settled already. So yes, I believed him. If you want to think it's a Freudian slip of sorts... well, I can't really say anything on the matter other than "no, it wasn't".

However, you seem to disregard the fact that I also brought up an argument against you, para (post 150, top of page 7). You replied to charter, but you didn't at all address my point - although you clearly read the post, as you selectively replied to the part about Khamisa.

[ODDin]

Also, para, you didn't say anything about me and my behaviour prior to Khamisa's post - not during the twilight discussion, not during the beginning of D2. Yet all of Khamisa's points are relevant to things I've said during twilight at the latest. Yesterday, you said I was your most likely candidate to be town. You brought up arguments against Khamisa in post 157 and didn't say anything about me.

Then, after Khamisa's post 163, I've earned a FoS - more so than Khamisa, apparently. Now, with all due respect to Khamisa, you've been paying attention to the game all along and obviously knew what was going on. It's hard for me to believe that you couldn't see none of Khamisa's points before, to a level that it brought me from "most likely to be town" to "most likely to be scum", until she came and "opened your eyes".
Instead, what I is you suddenly changing your mind and following Khamisa's argument. Why? Because you're scum, and you need one of us townies to vote for the other townie. Yet you see that I'm way too careful, and am also somewhat suspicious of you. Khamisa, however, is more absentminded, and is also bringing up an argument against the me, the other townie. So you see there are good chances she actually votes for me - at which point you will quickly follow with your own vote and end this.

Thus,

FoS: Para

To the other townie, however you are - I urge you not to vote until you're as certain as can be that you're voting scum. Remember that if you misvote, the scum member can end the game then and there. So, consider your vote a hammer and a final decision.

[ODDin]

EBWOP: "whoever you are", not "however you are", naturally.

[ODDin]

It's not that I completely disregarded empking. I was just more inclined to regard his behaviour as a null-tell due to his meta, as reported by charter.

Also, the statement about the game sliding downhill wasn't referring to the actual state of the game, but to the situation with the rules and charter, as the next line explained. I was pretty disturbed by dead charter speaking already during D2 and then zwet claiming he's actually not dead.

Also, Khamisa, para raised an actually valid point: on your list of suspects back then, para was right after empking. What happened now? What caused you to change your mind?

[ODDin]

Yet you suspected para. Why did you suspect him back then? What happened to these suspicions now?

[ODDin]

I'm not suspicious of you for changing your thinking per se. Of you I'm suspicious for chaning your thinking in a very specific way with a very specific timing.
As for Khamisa, I'm not accusing her, I'm asking her a question that I want answered. Putting someone as second scummiest, even among 4 players available, means something IMO. I'm not saying it's suspicious that this list has changed. I just want to know what she now thinks of you - if you were second on her list, she must've had some reason to suspect you more than others. I just want to know what happened to this reason.

[ODDin]

What?! Are you fucking kidding? This is ridiculous. A deadline should be announced at least a week in advance, all this deadline can do is squeeze out premature votes.

[ODDin]

I agree that this may colour me in a certain unfavourable light - all I can say is that if you acknowledge the reason behind me not voting empking back then and think it was a pro-town thing to do, you should understand the possibilty that this is actually what I did and I made a mistake. (Or, rather, was unlucky; I still think my course of action was reasonable in light of what I knew.)
However, why do you think para wasn't opportunistic? Please notice that he did, eventually, vote for charter, a townie. What makes his play look less opportunistic to you now?

[ODDin]

Khamisa - so you agree that para's actions can be interpreted as pretty opportunistic. And once again, you said yourself that my actions can well be seen as being prudent. So why do you think I'm more suspicious than para?

[ODDin]

Well, I guess I have nothing else to do but

vote: para

. Khamisa, I hope you'll be making the right choice here.

[ODDin]

Oh well. If my vengeance still applies then I

kill para

.

[ODDin]

Wow. Khamisa, well done. Damn, we sucked.

Anyways, was fun.

zwet, I could appreciate more attention to the rules (the charter thing was very annoying). Joking about deadlines doesn't help. General "more activity please" doesn't help either. Set how much activity you want in the beginning of the game, and prod/replace people who aren't active enough.

[ODDin]

charter:
D1 I was less inclined to suspect empking because of his meta. You have said yourself that he normally plays this way - making it all a scumtell. I still think you did a poor job D1. Your "test" of me was so obvious and shallow that I was practically sure it was buddying. You constantly shouted "lynch empking lynch empking". And eventually, you said my arguments were "full of logical fallacies" without actually saying what these logical fallacies were.
Then D2 I'm pretty sure Iw as clear on why I suspected para. If you're saying yourself he looked like empking's partner, then it should be obvious why I suspected him.

[ODDin]

No you weren't.

[ODDin]

[ODDin]

I didn't like your modding either and I said it, I just didn't word it as strongly.