Mini 810: Infection! Mini - Game over!

[Xylthixlm]

Day 1 Vote Count

Battle Mage -

4

(fallen angel, Shotty to the Body, populartajo, Mokina)

no lynch

-

2

(veerus, Battle Mage)
populartajo -

1

(malthusis)
Kelly Chen -

1

(Kid Know Nothing)
Kid Know Nothing -

1

(Kelly Chen)
Shotty to the Body -

1

(charter)
fallen angel -

1

(PaperPenguin)

Not voting: Rally Vincent

With 12 alive it will take 7 to lynch.

[Mokina]

Discussion can still occur and we can lynch the most scummy player if one presents. In the case of NL, the guard will have some good info to use in determining his kill. In no way did I mean to stifle the discussion and say we should no lynch NOW. But to me, it's as logical an end to a day as lynching someone, especially later in the game.

If the scum feel no threat of a lynch happening, they're unlikely to go out of their way to defend themselves or convince the town to off someone else. They'll be advocating the sit-back-and-relax approach, because it offers far better odds. Whether it's through a bandwagon or a misplaced argument, scum have consistently revealed themselves almost exclusively during the voting phase. Without the day game, we have no way of identifying the infected.

FoS: veerus

for pushing this point. I honestly don't believe it's a protown strategy at all.

[fallen angel]

V/LA until 6/27/09. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[fallen angel]

Gah. Not bolded.

V/LA until 6/27/09.

[Mokina]

Lurkers! Get in here and move your votes off random mode!

[Xylthixlm]

Prods sent.

[malthusis]

First off,

Unvote

@veerus: I don't really support your NL plan because IT WILL stifle most discussion(What are we supposed to do after we decide NL?), and your plan about the scum not killing could be easily foiled by them doing a killing (and worse, with scum changing out, it is hard to find them.) To top it off, we rely on a killing role to win a game for us (not what I want).

Mod: Will a power role keep their power if infected?

Power roles lose all powers if infected.

@BM: You seem to agree with veerus's idea, but why?

[veerus]

I guess I agree that NL kills off a lot of the potential discussion, but I still believe it's a decent back-up plan if there's a deadline.

Can someone tell me what the case on BM is? Besides lurking (something that could be said of many here).

[charter]

At Yos Beach Bash. Will post later.

[Shotty to the Body]

The other major flaw in a NL plan is if the guard gets infected we won't know and then your plan becomes moot.

[Shotty to the Body]

Err one more question for the mod before I take off for the night, when someone dies who is infected (as in was infected at night instead of starting that way) will we be told what their role before infection was? Normally it's like XXX, Insert Role, died at night or whatever, will we just see XXX, Infected or will we get something like XXX, Infected <insert other role here>?
You will not learn the original role of Infected players.

[Rally Vincent]

I guess I agree that NL kills off a lot of the potential discussion, but I still believe it's a decent back-up plan if there's a deadline.

Can someone tell me what the case on BM is? Besides lurking (something that could be said of many here).

How is a NL a "decent" back-up plan? Why would it be better then just lynching the scummiest player and thus having information by that? And again, on which other issues will we discuss if not on votes? Why don't you start a discussion to back up the decency of your back-up plan?

vote: veerus

until you back yourself up somehow. BM has enough votes on him for now.

[Battle Mage]

thought i already did this.

Unvote

Mokina is town.

BM

[Mokina]

Mod: Will a power role keep their power if infected?
Power roles lose all powers if infected.

Good question. Was unduly worried about the security guards for a moment.

thought i already did this.

Unvote

Mokina is town.

BM

I know you like short posts, but do you

still

think NL is a good idea, or are you finally convinced? If this endorsement is a silly ploy to make me unvote you, it is both transparent and amusing.

I guess I agree that NL kills off a lot of the potential discussion, but I still believe it's a decent back-up plan if there's a deadline.

Can someone tell me what the case on BM is? Besides lurking (something that could be said of many here).

Is a policy of no-lynching if we cut it close to the deadline really a decent back-up plan? I am somewhat concerned about this proposition - from my understanding, it's general agreement that this would improve the chances of the scum and that we should play the day game as much as possible. The case against Battle Mage is primarily due to his lurk tendency, but he was also a supporter of your proposed policy ... which is still looking like an antitown push, if not outright scummy.

I would suggest that guards avoid using their nightkill at all, until we at least have some day suspicions to go on. Having one or two uninformed, infection-prone security duke it out with two or three informed scum has bad odds written all over it. Even if the guards

don't

die fast, we'd be handing the infected a victory - the security guards have the special antitown power of killing otherwise NK-immune test subjects in a heartbeat. By extension, this plan's looking more and more like a scumtell.

[veerus]

I guess I agree that NL kills off a lot of the potential discussion, but I still believe it's a decent back-up plan if there's a deadline.

Can someone tell me what the case on BM is? Besides lurking (something that could be said of many here).

How is a NL a "decent" back-up plan? Why would it be better then just lynching the scummiest player and thus having information by that? And again, on which other issues will we discuss if not on votes? Why don't you start a discussion to back up the decency of your back-up plan?

vote: veerus

until you back yourself up somehow. BM has enough votes on him for now.

All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, NL is a solid option. Theory on a game with this mechanic has not really been tested a whole lot and just because you disagree with my idea does not make me scummy.

The problem with lynching scummy players is that they may not be scum and I think it's well documented that the D1 lynch is almost always a mislynch.

The problem with lynching scummy players in THIS game is not only may they not be scum, but they may be a scientist or a guard - two roles that are key to winning this game. So let's see here, we have a scientist, a guard and some test subjects who may or may not be immune. Assuming 2 or 3 scum, odds of them hitting immune test subjects or vaccinated people or getting shot are fairly high.

In fact, the more I write about this, the more I think we should NL today. Since it's D1 and we know that the PRs are still town, we can afford a night or two of night actions only without risking mislynching them or getting infected. Then depending on the night results, we can continue to scum hunt normally.

As for generating a lot of discussion, how much is too much? If the most towniest player is infected, how do you forsee the town lynching that towniest player-turned-scum for the win?

[Shotty to the Body]

Not lynching scummy players in this game is a mistake. If we let someone who acts scummy slide they'll just kill themselves that night and we lose our chance at taking down a scum. This isn't a normal game where we could hold them in our pocket till we are ready to lynch them. The odds of shooting an infected player are exactly 1 in 6 if there are two scum and 1 in 4 if there are three scum. Those don't exactly seem like good odds to me. We need to have day time action to give the PRs something to work with instead of a shot in the dark after a NL.

FOS: Veerus

[veerus]

Not lynching scummy players in this game is a mistake. If we let someone who acts scummy slide they'll just kill themselves that night and we lose our chance at taking down a scum.

Hmm.. good point. This is the first thing I've seen against the idea that makes sense.

The odds of shooting an infected player are exactly 1 in 6 if there are two scum and 1 in 4 if there are three scum.

I was also talking about the chances of them infecting an immune/vaccinated person.

Anyway... what does everyone else think? Last I checked, this game had 12 players, not 3.

[Rally Vincent]

Not lynching scummy players in this game is a mistake. If we let someone who acts scummy slide they'll just kill themselves that night and we lose our chance at taking down a scum.

Hmm.. good point. This is the first thing I've seen against the idea that makes sense.

I disagree that this should is the

first

argument against a NL. If a player is acting scummy, he'll get vaccinated or killed and thus not be able to pass the infection. The original task is to stir up scum to slip, which is why we need a lynch with all the consequences of voting.

[Battle Mage]

Lol ok ok, so i've just been being a douche. Serious times now:

I think a No-Lynch might be worth a punt.

Unvote, Vote: NL

BM

Not worth it. The daygame makes it or breaks it for us (fallen angel knows what's up - read his post).

Why did you selectively quote here, and opt not to answer the question posted to you?

I know you like short posts, but do you still think NL is a good idea, or are you finally convinced? If this endorsement is a silly ploy to make me unvote you, it is both transparent and amusing.

You "know i like short posts"? Gimme a break! Haha. How well do you think you can judge my playstyle atm?

My NL vote wasnt serious. Was just something to do. *shrugs*
I totally agree with the sentiments of Kelly Chen, the mechanic of the game has completely overshadowed scumhunting, and made it really difficult for anyone to actually do anything.

My "endorsement" was genuine, but markedly premature. It was based on 1 post, and ive now found twice as many that say the opposite.

So,

FoS: Mokina

. Let's hope you dont complain about that too.

As for a serious suspect at this point, on a reread, im pretty happy to run up Shotty to the Body, with Charter as his likely partner. Might be a bit early for distancing, but i dont see anyone else obvious at this point, and 1 of Charter's posts made me a bit wary if i recall.

So,

Vote: Shotty to the Body

BM

[Mokina]

...why me in particular?

I know you like short posts...

Inactivity prod. To tell the truth, I voted for you because you were a lurker who I know can make serious posts. I could just as easily have voted for Kid Know Nothing, but feh.

Still on the fence about this vote I'm carrying, since your NL flip-flop feels a bit contrived, but thanks for posting and ending the douchery. Care to explain your suspicions?

[Kid Know Nothing]

...why me in particular?

I know you like short posts...

Inactivity prod. To tell the truth, I voted for you because you were a lurker who I know can make serious posts. I could just as easily have voted for Kid Know Nothing, but feh.

Still on the fence about this vote I'm carrying, since your NL flip-flop feels a bit contrived, but thanks for posting and ending the douchery. Care to explain your suspicions?

So you were unwilling to apply pressure to me because of... "feh?"

If you are going after one player, why not go after someone else who has done the same thing as well?

[Shotty to the Body]

Another vote without explanation? I love it, moar accusations without reasons so I can't defend myself thanks! I'm also tired of waiting for Charter to post his reasons for listing me and KKN as top suspects. If you want to vote me, can you tell me why so I can defend myself? This crap where someone votes or suspects without posting reasons is annoying and scummy. Scum do that sort of thing to make the town look harder at someone and when a genuine townie posts real reasons for a vote (mistaken or not) then the scum will be like "Of course that's why I was voting!!" All I've done this game is discuss and share my opinions with town and answer anything directed at me, so please tell me why BM you find me a votable target after a reread?

[Battle Mage]

...why me in particular?

I know you like short posts...

Inactivity prod. To tell the truth, I voted for you because you were a lurker who I know can make serious posts. I could just as easily have voted for Kid Know Nothing, but feh.

Still on the fence about this vote I'm carrying, since your NL flip-flop feels a bit contrived, but thanks for posting and ending the douchery. Care to explain your suspicions?

So you were unwilling to apply pressure to me because of... "feh?"

If you are going after one player, why not go after someone else who has done the same thing as well?

Ugh, this guy is sickeningly town. I'm almost tempted to implement a Vollkan-like LoS right now.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Another vote without explanation? I love it, moar accusations without reasons so I can't defend myself thanks! I'm also tired of waiting for Charter to post his reasons for listing me and KKN as top suspects. If you want to vote me, can you tell me why so I can defend myself? This crap where someone votes or suspects without posting reasons is annoying and scummy. Scum do that sort of thing to make the town look harder at someone and when a genuine townie posts real reasons for a vote (mistaken or not) then the scum will be like "Of course that's why I was voting!!" All I've done this game is discuss and share my opinions with town and answer anything directed at me, so please tell me why BM you find me a votable target after a reread?

Lol, emotive reaction much? People put way too much emphasis on reasons. To an extent (and a very limited extent-which will no longer be valid from this point hence in this game) voting without reasons given is a town-tell, because scum are generally more cautious, and afraid to attract attention. Im happy to be questionned because im town, have nothing to hide, and am confident in my case. Or i could just be an arrogant sod. Thats open to your interpretation.

Your comments seem to be based on concern that people will find genuine reasons to suspect you, and ill ride their coat-tails. Tell me, if you anticipate there being genuine reasons to suspect you, why is it an issue that i am voting you now? I'll only have to join the party later.

This reaction doesnt do you any justice, but then, your posts havent really stood in your favour thus far. Gonna watch a film now-will try and post the full case so far, either tonight, or at the latest, tomorrow.

BM

[Shotty to the Body]

I respond emotively when I feel like I'm getting a screw-job, if you don't like it that's a personal problem. I have no problem answering a reasoned argument, but you have presented none. How in god's name can you overemphasize reasons? Reasons are what we base our votes and lynches on, when you put no reasons with your vote it has the same impact as "I'm not scum," defenses. If you can't present legitimate reasons now, why are you voting? Voting me now subconsciously causes people to look out for and overreact to things they would have previously passed off causing them to make a hasty judgement which you sit in a position to jump on. I'm just as open to questions as you say you are, but you haven't actually asked me anything. What issues do you find with my posts? The only crime I've committed so far in my posts is disagreeing with you and the lack of reasons presented is leading me towards an OMGUS vote especially since I voted you early on. It's also very nice for you that your vote without reasons is a town-tell, but after that vote no others can be that way. Let's not even mention the WIFOM inherent in saying your vote without reasons is a town-tell because scum would never do that because it isn't cautious!