Mini 816: Revenge of the Monkey(GAME OVER!)

[charlatan]

/confirm.

[charlatan]

Vote: Scott Brosius

for a .935 fielding average and 22 errors in 2001.

[charlatan]

@Adam and charter: what are your thoughts on the RVS and its usefulness?

[charlatan]

I would assume three then as this is MonkeyMan's first time modding, and has probably used a fairly basic setup, with about as many PRs as there are mafia.

I'd agree that this seems reasonable. I'm also not expecting much in the way of surprises power-role wise, but in general I tend to assume there are no wacky or unusual roles in play unless evidence in the game itself suggests otherwise.

[charlatan]

Unvote

.

I'm not neglecting anything. The point, one way or another, is that he left his vote on Scott even after Dev tried to get people off his wagon. I'm aware of the order: Charter voted Scott in RVS and then Dev defended him. The point is that even after Dev made the post, charter kept his vote on Scott while also saying he didn't see any reason to unvote.

Is this supposed to be damning in and of itself, or did I miss your argument here? I agree that charter had no particular reason to unvote at the time, and the fact that Devastation said to is irrelevant if he didn't agree that the bandwagon was harmful.

--

I guess now's a good time to offer my general thoughts on what's going on. Devastation's unvote and implication that the town was in danger ("no accidents") was odd, since there wasn't much risk involved. charter's response has not been without red flags, especially in terms of posting links in which running up an early-game bandwagon has helped him win as scum before. That said, when he made the easy semi-random vote on Scott, I fully expected scum to jump on him for an easy early mislynch target. Devastation was able to cast soft suspicion without actually laying cards on the table: he unvoted as if charter's vote was more reckless and dangerous than it actually was, but did not vote himself. This keeps him from making waves while simultaneously suggesting that charter stands to harm the town. It works best if Scott's town, as he gets buddy points.

StrangerCoug took the ball and ran with it, and has since tunneled hard on charter. Snake has played back-up, but he's engaging more in the overall dialogue, whereas Stranger has pretty much spent the entire game (at least in Serious Mode) taking swings at charter. I think it's an easy fight to pick, and at the end of the day I don't think charter's attitude towards bandwagoning is scummy, just arguably ill-reasoned. So, I'm looking mostly at the attackers.

Do I think charter's tactics thus far have been optimal? No. Do I think they've been scummy? Not necessarily. At least not with even a hint of the surety others have expressed.

Vote: StrangerCoug

FoS: Devastation

[charlatan]

Sajin has defined scummy and townie wagons fairly well (although it is assumed that every person that votes in the townie wagon has some solid reasons of their own for their vote), but I think you will find the bandwagon that I asked to stop before it goes overboard fits better into the first category of wagon than the second.

This is still pretending that placing a third vote on a player in RVS was a big, deadly bandwagon barreling towards a lynch. Which, by the way, it was not.

Have any of you had much luck catching scum based on a theory disagreement before? I haven't.

[charlatan]

So dramonic, you're also voting based on a theory disagreement?

[charlatan]

I don't want him lynched, but pressure is always a good thing. I'll unvote if we get too close to lynching.

This sentence renders your vote useless for pressure purposes, doesn't it? Why should he feel any heat now?

Maybe it's because I'm sleepy, but I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. On one hand, you consider it anti-town to be in favor of bandwagoning in the RVS as a scumhunting tool (strike against Charter), and on the other hand...what? All The Coug has really done so far is tunnel on Charter for disagreeing on that point, and you're voting him for the same reason. It's pretty scummy to give a reason to be voting one guy and then also repeatedly tack on "oh yeah, the guy who's attacking him is suspicious, too" without explaining why.

[charlatan]

Also, I guess you are sleepy. I'm saying SC is scummy for wanting to lynch Charter on such weak ground.

You're voting Charter on the same grounds. You don't seem why this might be questionable?

[charlatan]

I think I understand perfectly well where you're coming from. I just think it's suspicious. We'll see if anyone agrees, I suppose. Basically, what you're telling me is that you think Cougar is anti-town for having the same opinion as you, but for being more sure of himself. Meanwhile, one of you (him) is actively scumhunting, while you cast a neutered vote and hedge your bets by casting some weak suspicion on both people most in the hotseat. Couple this with you making the very first FoS of the game on Cougar on weird grounds, and what it looks like is poor scum distancing.

[charlatan]

Basically I'm telling you Cougar is anti-town for being extremist in his judgment. Meanwhile, he is tunneling on someone who could very well not be scum even though he's quite anti-town, while I cast a neutered vote and state my opinion that both should do something bout their opinion basing.

You're referring to your suspects using the phrase "anti-town" four or five times more than you actually are saying "scummy".

Do you have any actual opinions as to who might be scum? You'll call someone anti-town no problem, but then mention things like the fact that one of your top suspects could "very well not be scum", which is the kind of wiggling language most often employed by people trying to fly under the radar that still want to be able to profess having found someone suspicious after the fact.

You seem to be having trouble committing and you clearly don't "mean it" with your vote, which is especially intriguing given that you hounded people with RVS votes to change them a little bit ago.

Coupling this with me making the first FoS of the game on Cougar on grounds YOU deem weird, and what it looks like is a town player who think people are looking for crap where there is none

It seemed like a terribly artificial FoS, and it's not as if I'm going to go by

your

stated opinion of the scuminess of your actions.

[charlatan]

Oh, and while we're at it, can you explain how you went from this:

I don't want him lynched, but pressure is always a good thing. I'll unvote if we get too close to lynching.

to this...

I think they are BOTH being anti-town and they BOTH warrant a lynch

...in 8 posts?

[charlatan]

typo. I meant they both warrant a vote.

Fair enough, I suppose.

ISO 14

ISO 14 is a prime example of the wiggling-room language I'm talking about. I'll quote it here:

Right now, I can admit my scumdar is not giving me prime suspect. However, anti-town wise, you and SC are both "beeping"

See? You don't even commit to anything here. You say "eh....I don't know who's scummy, but you're kinda anti-town!"

Just to make sure, you DO know there is a large difference between anti-town and pro-scum, right?

Yes, that's precisely my point. I get town reads from people who are

scumhunting

, not people who are anti-town hunting. You're either incapable (or uninterested) in catching scum, but boy you'll definitely point out who's anti-town which, as it turns out, doesn't really help us. You're hesitant as can be to actually say someone might be scum. Hedging bets?

Is there any peculiar reason you want me to unvote so much? My vote is not random anymore and the same should be for the others. Also, I like my vote where it is and I don't have trouble comitting to this game.

I don't want you to unvote, nor did I say I do. I wasn't saying you were having trouble committing to this game, I'm saying you are having trouble committing to anything concrete within the game. You're casting a vote that doesn't count for anything (because no matter how many times you say it's a pressure vote, it definitely doesn't apply pressure), and you don't scumhunt, just refer to people as being anti-town but still quite likely innocent, which accomplishes nothing.

Indeed that would a ridiculous thing to do. However, if you're not willing to care about my answer you can just as well not ask questions.

I do care about your answer! I cherish your words. I jot them in a depressing little pink spiral notebook that has your name written all over it. I just won't be taking your word for it, that's all.

[charlatan]

It seems that back and forth with Charlatan and dramonic was pretty pointless. Dramonic said that he doesn't find anyone particularly scummy and charlatan was all over him because he's "not committing". Dramonics explanation was enough and there wasn't much reason to try and condemn him for something he admitted to.

You're pretty much wrong, but it's cool. There's much to be gained from stirring the water and gauging the reactions of others, and I wasn't making things up from thin air. I had (have) every reason to want to get a better read on dramonic, since he has defended a player I find scummy (Devastation) without stating facts to back it up, has mostly avoided scumhunting (but cast vague suspicions to appear more involved than he is), etc. Meanwhile, he also says things like this, from his eighth post in isolation:

We've gotten some conversation going, why are there still so many different lynch candidate?

It's hard to claim you can't get reads on people because it's too early and there's not enough meat yet, and to simultaneously push people towards being quicker about forming their bandwagons.

So, what's the point of the first paragraph of your post? Does my ("pointless") scumhunting make me more or less likely to be scum? Or dramonic? I'm typically suspicious of players who just sort of regurgitate what's happened recently, since it's a good way to fill some post space without actually saying anything.

That said, when he made the easy semi-random vote on Scott, I fully expected scum to jump on him for an easy early mislynch target.

So you know it'll be a mislynch?

Oh, damn! You got me! Epic slip-up!

No, I don't know if it'll be a mislynch or not. Since I'm talking about a hypothetical in which scum are pouncing, I was assuming such for the sake of the post. Of course, if charter were scum, I wouldn't expect townies to grab on to that vote and stick with it for the entire day, because I think it's basically a disastrous thing to try and build a case from. But, from a scum perspective, it's a good thing to anchor in from the beginning since it was an ill-placed vote.

Honestly, it's silly, the weight this thing is being given. In case I haven't been loud enough on the record: anyone who thinks it's a valid concern that Scott might've suddenly got three additional votes placed on him before we could derail a baseless wagon is sorely out of touch with reality. Anyone building a case on the assumption that charter was pushing for a quicklynch is probably scummy.

^This is exactly what I've been saying. Only stupid scum would actually quick hammer, which makes me suspect anyone who has said they would want a quicklynch.

Who said they want a quicklynch? Provide quotes, please.

Anyway, bandwagoning can only be good in RVS because that's the only time you don't have opinions on anybody.

This implies that you do think bandwagons can be a source of gaining information or helping to draw opinions. It would be useful to me to know for sure whether you do, in fact, believe this. Bandwagons can be helpful in getting reads on players: yes or no?

That's just ta coincidence because it's common knowledge that bandwagoning is a classic scumtell.

Trying to start or control a bandwagon can often be a scumtell, but it a) it isn't necessarily and b) simply voting on one is not. Townies run up bandwagons on folks to see what they do when they're in the hot seat all the time, and it's often effective (especially Day 1). This appeal to common knowledge is not legit.

[charlatan]

owie, don't prod

No Konowa, I can't point you at where I have been scumhunting, because to the best of my memory I have had to defend my wording and intentions in every single post I have made (including this one).

Defense and scumhunting are not mutually exclusive. You can actually do both in the same post, even.

[charlatan]

complaining about his "useless" argument with charlatan

Just for the record, Snake said that, not dramonic.

I agree with SB's attitude on dramonic.

Vote: dramonic

What? You haven't read the last few pages (in which all the dramonic stuff has pretty much taken place), but you're going to vote based on it?

[charlatan]

@Devestation - So the biggest scumtell to you so far is an opinion on theory? Also, as SC has said, if you think it is a scumtell why are you giving him scum points for pursuing charter?

This is the right question.

Furthermore, Dev, if you actually consider it a scumtell (the word you used), then you have no reason not to be voting him. You seem to be saying scumtell on one hand and thinking "mistaken town tell" in your mind. If his opinion indicates he's scum, he should be lynched, easy call. This disparate stance is enough to bump you into my #1 slot, but I'm not eager to put you at L-1 at this second.

Regarding jesters, they, in my opinion, have no place in normal games and should only be in bastard/open setups. So yes, bringing up jesters is scummy as it introduces a whole different type of WIFOM to the game.

Agreed in general, though there

are

other places to play mafia in which they're more common, since games are quicker (especially EpicMafia). I'm not too hung up on this one.

However, Devestation is just a pile of scuminess and is probably a good call for today's lynch. My top three haven't changed in a while, but he's eeked into the #1 position.

I also don't consider defensiveness a scumtell in general, but Dev's is a special kind of defensiveness that I

do

consider scummy. For example:

When I'm not constantly having to defend my own actions I will think more about the actions of others.

In isolation you'll see he's made several comments like this. The gist of it is, "if you want me to scumhunt, let me off the hook." That's not how it works. You get off the hook by showing yourself to be pro-town and making people rethink their assertions: so far, no dice.

[charlatan]

All those connections just turn into WIFOMs in my mind, but thats just the way I think.

I don't see any of the things that have been said about you as WIFOM.

Nobody seems to have accepted my reason for not hunting, so I offer you none more.

In my experience, there is never a good reason for a town player not to scumhunt.

Yes, you've completely outreasoned me. Yes, I skimp off other peoples scum-hunting and rarely put effort into it unless I've actually noticed something seriously odd, and when I voice the things I find seriously odd I get a few more votes on me.

I don't think anyone's voting you simply for lack of scumhunting; it's not quite as easy as that. I'll sum up the case as I see it to give you a last chance to change my mind, otherwise I'm probably going to hammer pretty soon.

Bare bones summary:

1) Overly cautious in the early game; likely an attempt to look like careful town.
2) Pretending three votes is a big, dangerous bandwagon and trying to present Charter as scummy for starting it.
3) Saying Charter's stance on wagons is a huge scumtell, but not wanting to lynch him for it. Seems like a likely slip.
4) Defensive play coupled with appeals to emotion that project the idea that you're being treated unfairly.

Again, please claim immediately.

Also, in case this day ends more quickly than I expect it to, let the record reflect that ryan's L-1 vote is scummy.

[charlatan]

Also, in case this day ends more quickly than I expect it to, let the record reflect that ryan's L-1 vote is scummy.

I am intrigued as to how so?

You popped in to parrot two points I raised against Dev a few posts earlier and then bump him to L-1 without further explanation. At best, you're following the pack without doing your own legwork. At worst, you're scum trying to nudge Dev towards the edge.

[charlatan]

Dramonic: What specifically "looks bad" to you? Aside from Charter, did anyone in particular's vote bother you? In what way is Charter "driving" the wagon? That would imply that in some way he's persuaded others to vote for Dev (and his opinion is basically meaningless to me, and I will likely hammer Dev, so I think this is probably not true.) Give us

something

here.

Basically, it only works one of two ways, as far as I see. Either you think the wagon's problematic because you have reason to think Dev is town, or you think it's problematic because some of the votes/voters are anti-town. Which is it? Simply saying "Charter is scum" won't really cut it.

As for the deadline, I'm trying to give Dev time to get back and answer. I also want to squeeze everything out of this day, because we've got some seriously inactive players and we have every reason to believe that scum will kill someone outspoken, leaving us worse off tomorrow.

[charlatan]

By the way, just as a reminder, let's make sure we all remember to look at loud people tomorrow. It's probably a pretty safe bet that scum will whack someone active to leave us with lurkers, so it will be worth noting. If StrangerCoug is killed, for instance, ask yourself why myself, Charter, et al were not, etc.

[charlatan]

Theres a difference between huge scumtell and the biggest scumtell so far.

I think this doesn't answer any questions at all.

I'll claim if a majority of people want me to claim.

You're very close to a lynch, so I'd safe it's safe to assume that we want that.

Yes I damn well think I am being treated unfairly. It would appear that you and Konowa have yet to disagree on a thing, perhaps we should be looking closer at you two.

By all means. I'd encourage all town players to look at everyone closely, no exceptions.

Claim please.

[charlatan]

I can't think of a single pro-town reason not to claim right now. What is there to think about? Or do you need time to craft a fake one?

[charlatan]

The biggest scumtell in the game, regardless of the size of that scumtell, should still probably be where your vote goes.

[charlatan]

I'm not sure how I'm managing to miscommunicate here.

Scumtell = action that is typically associated with scum; an indicator of someone likely being mafia.

Biggest scumtell = the single scummiest action in the game.

The person who commits the scummiest action in the game is logically the most likely to be scum. The fact that you apparently disagree with this ("it's just his honest opinion" is problematic.

[charlatan]

Agreed, no need for a counterclaim at this junction. I'm not really buying the claim at this point. Need to hear more from Devestation.

[charlatan]

And Scott, you'd see me think that regardless of my alignment, just for future reference >_>

I believe this. Does anyone not? Frustrated player does not always equal scum.

I think it's unwise to lynch Devestation today. On one hand, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see scum fakeclaim cop in this situation. On the other hand, it's not impossible that he's telling the truth. Do we really want to risk it?

What's more, if he

is

telling the truth, scum will know this (I doubt he would fakeclaim cop as another pro-town role) and have every reason to stick with their votes and try to see this through to a lynch.

If Dev's not a cop, I suspect we'll be more and more sure of it as time goes on, and we can clean this up later. But I, for one, do not support a Dev lynch today.

If Dev eventually flips scum, Charter looks good as a buddy due to his suggestion to counterclaim and keep discussion to a minimum -- he'd know Dev was faking as scum, so he'd get a bit of townie cred for calling him out and he'd stand to unmask a real cop, if we do indeed even have one.

More things to consider:

• Scott's vote is fishy. He votes based on a hesitation on Dev's part, which is essentially a nulltell in this situation. If Dev's scum, deciding on a fakeclaim might take time, agreed (I'm the one who pointed this out, after all). But if he's not, stalling would make just as much sense -- a cop doesn't want to claim; if he is spared he'll likely be offed or roleblocked all game anyways.
  
• Dramonic's 274 is suspect, too. The Dev quote he cites as "pure anti-town" does not make Dev more likely to be scum than it does to make him a frustrated, honest townie who's had a rather bad game.
  Anti-town does not equal scummy
  , and all game long Dramonic has ignored this fact. The second half of that post goes on to ask Saijin to clarify what seems to be a pretty straightforward statement. Potential rolefishing?

Then we've got the biggest problem of them all.

Well, your win condition sounds nothing like mine, so I'm pretty sure you're just guessing.

His supposed win condition (that he wins when all town opposition is removed) is not only pretty standard, but is

exactly

like mine, and town players: Go check your role PMs, because I'm guessing yours is similar, too. If Charter's win condition "sounds nothing like that", then I doubt Charter is a townie.

Unvote

Vote: Charter

[charlatan]

@Charlatan: I know anti-town =/= scummy, but lynching an anti-town player is better than a no lynch

Who's suggesting a no lynch? I'm suggesting we lynch scum.

[charlatan]

Whoa, look at that. Big post. I don't have much to say in response because I agree with a lot of it. I'll cover points directed at me though:

@Adam and charter: what are your thoughts on the RVS and its usefulness?

Looking back, this post strikes me as odd. Why just those individuals?

Must not have looked back hard enough. Those were the only two that had confirmed but hadn't placed an RVS vote. Just a way to try and get some discussion rolling.

Really? Night speculation before it happens? Wow.

OMG strange, right?

I generally agree with Charlatans 287. The thing is, Charlatan says his role PM is exactly like Dev's, yet Dev paraphrased. Which means it necessarily isn't exactly like yours. Not to mention, mine is different from what both of you said. Thus, that statement from Charlatan I find as slightly scummy. Charlatan says his role PM is EXACTLY like Dev's PARAPHRASE, and asks town players to look. Well, mine is different than both of yours. Just something to sink our teeth into.

I'm not talking about the exact wording, I'm talking about the content of it. My win condition is identical to his.

If yours isn't, I'm suspicious.

[charlatan]

I win when all threats are wiped out or them being killed off is inevitable.

[charlatan]

And actually, somehow I didn't notice that second part before. That is different from Dev's, so now I'd like to hear how Charter's is different, too.

[charlatan]

Mine has a pretty important clause before it talks about how I actually win. I'd think if you were town you would have noticed it and included it.

Just so everyone's clear, mine does not. As such, my vote probably won't move.

I'm guessing Charter's seeing the tide in the bandwagons shift and is trying something drastic before the deadline.

Regardless of where you vote, we should all be moving towards a lynch of

someone

soon, I'd think, because there are a few good candidates and a no lynch isn't going to help us out.

[charlatan]

My issues since my last post:

Charlatan reconfirms that his role PM is EXACTLY like Dev's PARAPHRASE. If he is paraphrasing, he is not using the actual text. To say yours is EXACTLY like his then makes me very suspicious.

Did you actually read the post in question? I didn't say that at all. I said the

content

of my win condition is the same, not the wording. And then I corrected myself because I had neglected to remember the second part.

Charlatan says he doesn't beleive claim.
Then, next page, says he's unwilling to lynch Dev, and decides to go after Charter.

Why is this a problem for you? I don't believe the claim. I'm unwilling to lynch Dev today.

This is because -- shocker -- I've been wrong before, and if I'm wrong on this one as well, then we'd lose a cop. I'm not in a hurry.

Charlatan then responds to my lengthy post saying his content is not the same as Dev's, but the WC is identical (Of course, if you are both town, the WC is identical-duh. Or you both could be scum trying to remove Dev from this dangerous situation). He then later says, "I win when all threats are wiped out or them being killed off is inevitable." Says the second part is different from Dev's.

Not only are you not making any points and instead just summarizing what's happening, but you're not even doing it accurately. Of course the second part is different from Dev's, because Dev didn't have a second part. And even before I corrected myself, the point that our WC was the same (which you dismiss with a lolworthy "duh") is hugely important, because Charter said his did not resemble it at all.


Charter, claim please.

[charlatan]

Politician affects voting: he can buy another player's vote each night.

I'm leaning strongly towards believing Konowa's claim, and I'd like to wait for the replacements (welcome to the game) to post their catch-up posts before I start commenting in full.

[charlatan]

I got an innocent, on Charlatan.

Yes, why me? To be honest, not to sound like I'm playing an obvtown game here, but I haven't been high on anyone's suspicion lists yet -- I'm pretty sure there would have been much better players to investigate.

IMHO Politicians are a risky role, because if the Politician is wrong about who he thinks is scum, he's gone and stuffed up someone who might have a correct suspicion. I suppose it can work the other way though.

Irrelevant theory discussion?

[charlatan]

2 people you think are town and 2 people you think are scum devestation please. Thanks.

Wait. Who thinks he is town? Point this out for me.

I think he's asking for Dev's opinion.

[charlatan]

I see no reason to inform the mafia who is confirmed town.

Agreed. Until we're on the verge of mislynching a confirmed townie, we don't need to hear it.

[charlatan]

Sorry for the delay. I'm in China now, so my time is sporadic.

I too feel I was a pretty shoddy investigation target, if indeed I was investigated by anyone. I'm thinking he just named me to try and get one of those attacking him on his side, and since I haven't been anyone's top suspect yet I might've seemed an easy person to falsely clear.

I'm pretty much with the general tide that Dev is a very solid lynch for today, but it seems a little easy, right? Pretty quick. Most likely last night the scum decided that they did indeed need to bus Dev while the bussing's good, so on my next reread I'll be looking for players who hopped on board this bandwagon today that didn't give it much attention yesterday. I'm also thinking it's entirely possible that Dev miscounted before his self-vote and was trying to quickhammer himself.

[charlatan]

I enjoyed the game for the relatively short time I was in it. Dev and dramonic I was pretty sure about from the get-go, but I should've stuck with my gut on charter instead of changing my mind at the last minute. Not terribly helpful. I followed along with the rest of the game; glad to see town came out with a win.