Mini 783: Cowboy Bebop Mafia - Game Over, Space Cowboy

[VP Baltar]

Vi, just curious, do you actually have your own thoughts on the matter that should be included in our thought process or were you just checking to see what came out?

[Juls]

What benefit would scum have killing for killing Xtoxm? The only thing I keep coming back to is so he wouldn't get the voting power. Why would Zeenon only put 3 people on his list if he could do more (as charlatan claims). Plus, an Xtoxm lynch is a positive lynch for town because it confirms pokerface 100%.

Charlatan also claims that the role would have passed to someone else. Why is that? and who?

At this moment I am leaning toward charlatan and DJ being scum. I am genuinely interested in what other motivation scum would have for killing Xtoxm (especially as opposed to Pokerface if they wanted to go with killing a mason. If I were scum and confirmed mason's were on the board I would kill the more productive one.)

Vote charlatan

[Juls]

EBWOP: First sentence should be "What benefit would scum have

killing

for killing Xtoxm?

[Zilla]

Gorrad has implied that he is more active past day 1. I hope he delivers on this. Hohum needs to post, I think the pressure is a good thing.

Vote: hohum

I don't 100% believe ZEEnon's claim that his role is passed on. I think it may have been a town-lie, considering Xtoxm's reason for picking him as his fake-mason was that he went along with those things. ZEEnon could have been returning the favor. He'd put his top suspects on the list including Xtoxm, so if Xtoxm also believed those two to be scum, he'd claim to get the power just to get those top two lynched. It's a risky play, but seeing what they had already done, I don't think it's beyond them to try something like that.

I want more detailed things from Charlatan about this passing on thing, and until then, I'm critical of his claim.

[hohum]

I agree with Juls. ZEEnon flip would have definitely been a free lynch for them of Xtoxm were still alive, mostly due to the fake claim. My other top suspect is of course charlatan.

Vote: Charlatan

[Juls]

Hohum, anything else to say regarding the whole day you missed where you were almost lynched. Specifically, can you address this comment:

If xtoxm claimed mason and lied, and ZEEnon happily went along with the lie, then they're both fucking stupid, but I still don't buy the claim.

I have to say, your 3 sentence posts doesn't help your chances of surviving the day.

[charlatan]

Okay, here's the detail on the role.

Basically, I am now a Crime Boss, the leader of the White Tiger. I double-vote, though the second vote is not displayed in the vote count and, of course, the mod cannot in any way confirm this. In the event of my death, I must pass on the role by giving Jahudo a list of who I want it passed on to in order of most preferred to least preferred, like ZEEnon said. The first townie on that list will receive the role. One thing he didn't mention: whoever receives the role also keep any additional role powers they may already have had.

There is no prescribed limit to how many people can be on that list; why ZEEnon only told us the first three of his beats me, but for whatever reason none of you bothered to ask him for clarification. Basically, the boss has more sway in voting and names a successor in the event of his death.

What benefit would scum have killing for killing Xtoxm? The only thing I keep coming back to is so he wouldn't get the voting power.

No? Killing Xtomx is a good move considering the specifics of the situation, as it greatly increases the likelihood of my claim going untrusted. Think about the possible outcomes. In ZEEnon's mind, Xtomx is definitely town, and Pokerface's thoroughly bread-crumbed claim further cements that. So, if ZEEnon's role is passed on, the following situations can occur:

Case 1: Charlatan is scum, d_j is not. d_j would receive the role and would likely say so, and scum-me would need to counterclaim and role the dice to save myself. Xtomx would be able to confirm that he did not receive the role, meaning one of the two of us was lying. Good for town.

Case 2: I am not scum, d_j is. I say I've got the role. Xtomx has every reason to confirm that he doesn't, as it means either d_j or myself is town. d_j can either claim it as well and once again one of us is lying, or he can say he doesn't have it and let it be. Still good for town.

Case 3: We're both scum. Xtomx claims the role. One (or less likely, both) of us counterclaims. You've still got a smaller pool of liars to choose from. Good for town.

Case 4: The mechanics don't work how ZEEnon says they do and he lied for whatever reason. Bad for town.

These strike me as the logical scenarios, and three out of four of them seem to be advantageous for town assuming Xtomx is there. Without him, it's more complicated and harder to believe all around.

At this moment I am leaning toward charlatan and DJ being scum. I am genuinely interested in what other motivation scum would have for killing Xtoxm (especially as opposed to Pokerface if they wanted to go with killing a mason. If I were scum and confirmed mason's were on the board I would kill the more productive one.)

If you actually think both d_j and I are scum, you are buying into a situation in which ZEEnon accurately called two scum on the first day without really reading the game, then for whatever reason claimed his actual role but lied through his teeth about the mechanics of it in a way that gives scum a safeclaim and very probably has an anti-town outcome. I sincerely doubt killing Xtomx was about killing a mason (why wouldn't they hope to hit a power role?) rather than making a mess of ZEEnon's claim.

Plus, an Xtoxm lynch is a positive lynch for town because it confirms pokerface 100%.

I wouldn't have wanted to lynch Xtomx any time soon. The miller claim was highly believable after ZEEnon and Pokerface spilled. I am probably not alone in this.

Charlatan also claims that the role would have passed to someone else. Why is that? and who?

I have explained the first question, and obviously there's no way to answer the second question.

@Hohum:

Welcome back. Tell me why, again, would voting ZEEnon have been a significantly "safer" vote for me as scum than voting for you? You had plenty of votes and I'd been open and on the record all day about finding you scummy.

I'd vote for you, but I have every reason to believe that doing so would put you at L-1 and it's a little early for that.

[Vi]

Hmm... That's actually a more interesting possibility than I was initially considering.

Vi, just curious, do you actually have your own thoughts on the matter that should be included in our thought process or were you just checking to see what came out?

Yes.

I'll cut to the chase. charlatan is a doublevoter, no contest... but he has been a doublevoter since D1.
The vote record yesterday makes perfect sense if you consider that one of {VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan} has a doublevote; look for yourself. I don't have a double vote. Juls has claimed a number of things, but a double vote isn't one of them. If you look at the difference between vote counts 15 and 16, VP Baltar clearly cannot have the doublevote. Process of elimination says charlatan.

Add on to that that charlatan took very careful measures not to reveal this ability. He made exactly two votes over the course of the day, for hohum and ZEEnon.

Xtoxm's overnight death then makes reasonable sense. Nobody had any idea if ZEEnon was telling the truth about his role at the time. And as Zilla said, the alleged doublevote transfer was a powerful scumhunting tool, even better than a Cop investigation. That Xtoxm, the "intended recipient" of the role, died overnight suggests that the scum were trying to cover themselves. That charlatan actually was a doulevoter in the first place was an extremely lucky coincidence, and the only way the scum could hope to avoid being outed (if ZEEnon was telling the truth, mind). Whether d_j is scum is a bit murkier, as he was in a decent position to be framed... but I'm not doubting it too very much.

charlatan needs to poke a hole in this theory soon, because as it stands he's dead in the proverbial water.

Unvote: hohum
Vote: charlatan

(L-3)

[charlatan]

EBWOP:

The

mason

claim was highly believable after ZEEnon and Pokerface spilled.

[Vi]

Now that's service! You answer me before I even ask the question!

[PokerFace]

Ok first thing, I was not told anything about recieving a double voting skill so I don't got it. Second thing, Xtoxm didn't say anything about getting a double voting skill last night. Which means either he didn't get it and Charalaton is telling the truth or Xtoxm wasn't allowed to tell me about it due to his death occuring simultaneously with it. ZEEnon said the skill would still carry on so I guess we wait and see if anyone counters Charlaton.

Considering ZEEnon's lynch we likly have one scum on that wagon who can double vote or at least cancel out Zeenon's vote there. The possibility of unlynchable or voteless players sounds dubious on day 1. Same goes for some deadline ruling. After all Hohum spectualted on his flip pre-detemining the alignment of others so he has to be able to be lynched in order to flip.

I've already explained why I was on the wagon and pushed it, and since (if it worked as advertised)

it has confirmed someone that I've had questions about for a while,

I refuse to say the ZEEnon lynch was anything but a good move. tbh I think an examination of the motives for the votes at the end of the day would be nice about now.

Exactly who were you trying to confirm? Zee or Charlaton? I think your reasons for lynching Zee were a pretty big pile of shit, I mean if you believed ZEEnon had that skill that would make him town you shouldn't have lynched him because you believed he would "investigate" someone. You should have lynched him if you thought he was scum.

_________________

Lynching Vi is not even going to be considered by me. I've stated this clearly several times. Lynching hohum for not being here also doesn't sit well with me.

Zeenon is a much better choice, particularly considering he has said his role would transfer upon death.

Meta about him lying as town doesn't excuse out and out scummy play in this game,

even if you think he would go along with the mason claim for it.

Unless something drastic happens, my vote is likely locked.

VP, seems to be calling for a policy lynch right here^. Lynch scum, not town because they lied. Your vote shouldn't have been locked for that.

ZEEnonicity

heh.

If Zee is scum, he has played masterfully.

something like that...

And what's this, so you are agreeing with Xtoxm that ZEEnon couldn't be masterful scum?

_________________

@Charlaton, you go from this
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 21#1684521
to this
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 52#1684752
ZEEnon did give hint to his role before both of those.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 00#1684500
You didn't vote ZEEnon when he first came clean so I'm not really bying your reasons for doing it later? If hohum is scum perhaps you didn't want your distancing to turn into a bus?

_________________

Well, on my part, it was part confirmation of

ZEEnon

's double-voting ability and part wanting to execute his planned scumhunting method.

@Zilla, I thought you were jumping just to keep things balanced.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 63#1685063
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 67#1685067
When did you say you wanted to use his skill pass on technique?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 54#1683554
Think you can answer the question stated at the top part of this^ post from yesterday?

I agree with Juls. ZEEnon flip would have definitely been a free lynch for them of Xtoxm were still alive, mostly due to the fake claim. My

other

top suspect is of course charlatan.

Vote: Charlatan

Other? Are you refering to xtoxm as a suspect from yesterday or do you mean something else?

Edit while previewing: Got a phone call while writing this and am yet to read the last couple of posts by Vi and charalaton. just thought I'd say that since I don't feel like going back and editing something in here.

[Vi]

But it doesn't answer the critical point, namely that you didn't just now get your doublevote. Ah well.

[charlatan]

Yeah, well-timed simulpost, eh? I'll still respond to specific points raised:

The vote record yesterday makes perfect sense if you consider that one of {VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan} has a doublevote; look for yourself.

It does make sense, but as Rhinox has pointed out, any number of other explanations also make sense. Maybe Hohum is unlynchable. Maybe someone didn't get a vote yesterday. There were things at work yesterday that we clearly didn't know -- it seems perfectly logical that there might be more of them. You haven't struck me so far as one for oversimplifications.

Add on to that that charlatan took very careful measures not to reveal this ability. He made exactly two votes over the course of the day, for hohum and ZEEnon.

This would suggest that under normal circumstances I change my vote often, which I do not. I feel that I was pretty clear with why my vote was where it was throughout the day.

[charlatan]

p.s. - I didn't have a doublevote yesterday, just to be clear.

[Vi]

Exactly who were you trying to confirm? Zee or Charlaton? I think your reasons for lynching Zee were a pretty big pile of shit, I mean if you believed ZEEnon had that skill that would make him town you shouldn't have lynched him because you believed he would "investigate" someone. You should have lynched him if you thought he was scum.

charlatan.
Think of the scumhunting potential involved in being able to give the mod a list with gray-alignment players on top and point out the first Townie.

-----

Maybe Hohum is unlynchable.

Extremely dubious. But if that's so, we don't have any business lynching him today.

Maybe someone didn't get a vote yesterday.

Who, then? I've done my research; let's see yours.

There were things at work yesterday that we clearly didn't know -- it seems perfectly logical that there might be more of them.

That's why I gave a period for people to claim. That they haven't yet suggests a scum ability.

This would suggest that under normal circumstances I change my vote often, which I do not. I feel that I was pretty clear with why my vote was where it was throughout the day.

I don't know your meta, and pragmatically speaking, it doesn't matter. If you were playing to your meta, it was a good meta to play to.

[Juls]

Charlatan, how many can the list have?

[Juls]

I was re-reading Zeenon and noticed/remembered this:

don, you do realize that you unvoted,
just to re-vote me again right?

Maybe some of the mystery about why hohum wasn't lynched revolves around dj. One of his unvote/votes is not on the same line (see post 927). And it was only 13 minutes after he had just voted Zeenon. And he switched to hohum at the very last minute. I don't know what to make of it. Somebody smarter than me want to take a gander at it?

[Juls]

It may be nothing but notice the red ones:

vote: shadowgirl

unvote, vote charlatan

unvote

unvote, vote: vi

unvote, vote juls

unvote, vote: vi

unvote, vote: juls

unvote, vote vi

unvote, vote zeenon

unvote

[snip]

vote: zeenon

unvote, vote hohum

This is the third game I have played with DJ and he has not had such a consistent voting format. I am working on the theory that he may have a role that requires him to use a certain format for his public vote and maybe a different one for his private one.

Unvote, Vote: DJ

[charlatan]

@Charlaton, you go from this
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 21#1684521
to this
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 52#1684752
ZEEnon did give hint to his role before both of those.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 00#1684500
You didn't vote ZEEnon when he first came clean so I'm not really bying your reasons for doing it later? If hohum is scum perhaps you didn't want your distancing to turn into a bus?

Note that in the first post you cite, I wasn't talking only about ZEEnon, but about both him and Xtomx. In the posts before that, ZEEnon had just said he wasn't a mason with Xtomx, and Juls immediately voted Xtomx. I wanted to see how some things played out before choosing which (if either) I might vote for. Given the playstyles of both of them (and their propensity for lying regardless of alignment) I didn't want to slap an easy vote on just because of "lynch all liars". You claimed and I believed that, which also made me believe Xtomx. Having decided that Xtomx was legit, I was more inclined to vote ZEEnon. I thought it seriously suspect to go along with a mason claim when you're not a mason, in addition to his general scuminess throughout the game.

Moving on to Vi's concerns:

I think it's pretty unlikely hohum was unlynchable, too. I suspect there's another explanation that we haven't thought of, maybe. As for who might have a vote that doesn't count -- obviously, if that were the case, it would be someone on hohum's wagon. I don't know what the exact situation is, really, but my point is that it's all setup speculation, and it seems dangerous to cling to one idea because it's the most convenient one you came up with. Or, if it really is another hidden double-voter, perhaps it's you. If it's going to come to light eventually anyways, why not get a jump on it first?

This would suggest that under normal circumstances I change my vote often, which I do not. I feel that I was pretty clear with why my vote was where it was throughout the day.

I don't know your meta, and pragmatically speaking, it doesn't matter. If you were playing to your meta, it was a good meta to play to.[/quote]

As I see it, that still doesn't make it a logical thing to base part of a vote on. Keeping a vote where I think it belongs is a far cry from carefully hiding my superpowers from you by playing in a way that I may or may not do pretty much all the time. But hey, if you've got your mind made up already to vote for someone, any little bit helps.

All in all, this seems pretty poorly justified. You're voting because I am an okay fit into a theoretical situation based on how you think the roles might be set up. Because I haven't come up with a better hypothetical situation clearly means there isn't one. We'll see how that turns out, I guess.

Charlatan, how many can the list have?

Like I said before, there is no specific limit mentioned. Just to make sure, I have asked (no reply yet), but as I understand the role PM you can put as many people as you like on it.

[Vi]

I don't generally like the idea that a relatively simple theory should be discarded based on the possible existence of a more complex theory that requires twice as many assumptions.

I also didn't ask for baseless accusations (i.e. maybe it's you; maybe there's a vote that doesn't count). I asked for evidence. I provided evidence; if you would like for me to spell my case out I most certainly can.

I will note that d_j has not posted today. Granted, the Day hasn't lasted that long so far, but I think his voice would be nice to have right about now.

[Gorrad]

I'm afraid I'm not quite following. Are people actually saying that Charlatan had a double-vote all D1 with no one noticing, and today when he claims to have been the target he's risking whoever ACTUALLY got the role counterclaiming?

That makes no sense at all to me.

[Vi]

I'm afraid I'm not quite following. Are people actually saying that Charlatan had a double-vote all D1 with no one noticing, and today when he claims to have been the target he's risking whoever ACTUALLY got the role counterclaiming?

That makes no sense at all to me.

Who said anyone ACTUALLY got the role?

[Gorrad]

I'm afraid I'm not quite following. Are people actually saying that Charlatan had a double-vote all D1 with no one noticing, and today when he claims to have been the target he's risking whoever ACTUALLY got the role counterclaiming?

That makes no sense at all to me.

Who said anyone ACTUALLY got the role?

Um, ZEEnon? Right?

[charlatan]

I don't generally like the idea that a relatively simple theory should be discarded based on the possible existence of a more complex theory that requires twice as many assumptions.

I don't think it should be discarded and I didn't say it should; I think each player should consider its likelihood in their own eyes. I don't think it's so simple, though, as it does require a few big assumptions: For instance, that ZEEnon was either lying about his role being passed on or that another player received it and did not, for whatever reason, claim it. It also assumes that I would play the entirety of yesterday trying to keep my double-vote from being outed, only to switch away from a comfortable vote to jump on a bandwagon that would put me at a greatly increased chance of being found out by virtue of changing the expected outcome of the vote. It also assumes that I as scum knew that ZEEnon was lying about the mechanics of his role so as not to be outing myself by claiming it. Are you positive it's simple? Or is it possible that, seeing as we were in the dark about a whole lot not so long ago, we're still in the dark about some other things?

I also didn't ask for baseless accusations (i.e. maybe it's you; maybe there's a vote that doesn't count). I asked for evidence. I provided evidence; if you would like for me to spell my case out I most certainly can.

If we accept your theory, then someone on ZEEnon's wagon has a double vote. Simply because you say it's me doesn't make it so; it could just as likely be you. You can't expect us to just take your word for it. But, then again, like I said, I don't even know if that's the case. I'm not claiming to have a definitive answer. You didn't provide evidence, by the way, you provided a theory. If you want me to provide "evidence" in the style of yours for a no-voting player, I could pick a random player from hohum's court and say "there, look, they don't have a vote. It's obviously them."

[Vi]

I'm afraid I'm not quite following. Are people actually saying that Charlatan had a double-vote all D1 with no one noticing, and today when he claims to have been the target he's risking whoever ACTUALLY got the role counterclaiming?

That makes no sense at all to me.

Who said anyone ACTUALLY got the role?

Um, ZEEnon? Right?

I rest my case.

-----

Vote Count #18 of Day 1

ZEEnon ––– VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan (Largest Wagon)

Hohum –––Zilla, Rhinox

Starting point.

Vote Count #19 of Day 1

ZEEnon ––– VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan
Hohum ––– Zilla, Rhinox, Xtoxm, ZEEnon

Notice the lack of a "largest wagon" indicator here. I would assume that there is a tie here. We (presumably) know hohum had five votes on him.

Vote Count #20 of Day 1

ZEEnon ––– VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan, don_johnson (Current Largest Wagon)
Hohum –––Zilla, Rhinox, Xtoxm, ZEEnon

Notice that there

is

a "largest wagon" indicator here. Thus, the ZEEnon wagon had more than (presumably) five votes on it as of now.

Final Vote Count of Day 1

ZEEnon ––– VP Baltar, Juls, Vi, charlatan, Zilla
Hohum –––Rhinox, Xtoxm, ZEEnon, don_johnson

Between the last two vote counts, d_j unvoted ZEEnon for hohum (placing hohum up to five votes) and Zilla unvoted hohum and went to ZEEnon (placing ZEEnon up to presumably five votes), in that order. But ZEEnon was the one default lynched.

Conclusions.
1) Someone on the ZEEnon wagon in #20 had a doublevote, and it's not d_j. (This leaves VP Baltar, Juls, me, and you)
2) Someone on the hohum wagon in #20 had a nullvote, and it's not ZEEnon or d_j or Xtoxm. (This leaves Zilla and Rhinox)
3. Wacky role-related vote mechanics that specifically deal in messing around with tiebreakers.

Further investigation.

Vote Count #15 of Day 1

ZEEnon --- VP Baltar, Juls, Zilla (Largest wagon)

Zilla ––– Xtoxm, PokerFace
Juls ––– Gorrad, don_johnson
Hohum ––– charlatan

Vote Count #16 of Day 1

Hohum ––– charlatan, Zilla, Xtoxm (Largest Wagon)

ZEEnon ––– VP Baltar, Juls

Zilla did not have a nullvote. From these same vote counts, VP Baltar did not have a doublevote.

I cannot verify that Rhinox's vote counts.