Open 160 Bird 7P (GAME!) - before 823

[muzzz]

Vote: Yabba

For not confirming and not making an immediate random vote.

[muzzz]

Not confirming and late confirming are pretty much equal in this case.

Why do you think you can do without random votes? Are you sure you understand the RVS completely? And do you really think a single failing newbie is any reason to dismiss the RVS?

[muzzz]

Forgot to preview...

@BC: are you suggesting we no-lynch today, or are you just scared to make a random vote?

[muzzz]

@Yabba: scummy as hell.

---

would you like it spoon fed to you?

This is your response to Charnel questioning VP's vote on you. Yet you have trouble with Hohum's more explained vote?

Also, I don't think Yabba is making a case against me.

[muzzz]

Huh?

That was still in response to BC.

[muzzz]

It's completely natural to have top suspects at any stage of the game.

No vote is ever completely random.

I wouldn't be keeping my vote on you if I were joking.

[muzzz]

Give me one good reason why anyone would ever make a pointless vote.

@BC: The question in 33 wasn't rhetorical.

[muzzz]

@Yabba: see, that's why I asked if you understood the RVS. Humans don't do random. Our brains simply aren't wired for it. So every vote has a point, even if it's not readily apparent. Dismissing it because it was during the RVS is, well, not smart.

@BC: answer questions please.

[muzzz]

@Charnel: my vote isn't random. It never was.

[muzzz]

Main points against Yabba:
- Not participating in the RVS.
- Pretending people can't be scummy from the get-go.

Contrary to popular belief, you can occasionally make scum slip by engaging them in theory debates.

[muzzz]

Other people didn't have to make a random vote because there was sufficient content after a few posts.

It's a very deliberate decision to use dice instead of any other reason for your vote.

Yes, scum are often scared of voting. Especially in the RVS.

The second bullet dealt with you flipping out over Hohum's early accusations, not with your initial refusal to post a suspect list.

[muzzz]

Show me where I twisted what you said.

The only WIFOM here is you saying "but I could've just waited for the discussion to start".

[muzzz]

@Charnel: do I look like I need something to hide in?

@Yabba: most people make random votes. If anyone else was planning on not doing that, they can consider themselves lucky that the RVS was over in two hours.

[muzzz]

@BC:
- People have to take your no-lynch vote seriously if you want it to end the RVS.
- You're not Mastin. And I bet even he had a few very rough games before his meta built up.
- Hohum's tunneling? Are you serious?
- Dodging questions is always a scumtell. You can argue that you weren't dodging, but that's it.

@Charnel: let me rephrase that question. Do you think that my play, on the whole, looks like that of someone trying to hide behind theory fluff?

[muzzz]

@Charnel: You say I'm hiding behind a theory discussion with Yabba,

and

making a stronger case against BC. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that's possible.

[muzzz]

I'm not sure how the concern is relevant. But other than that, I agree. Looking back, Yabba was almost defensive of BC in his reply to your 26. And then there's his fear of putting BC at L-1.

[muzzz]

@BC re. 116: I did ask you twice. You claimed to think that the first time was rhetorical, but it's completely fair for Hohum to think you just missed/ignored it. Calling that scummy is a huge stretch.

And you clearly have no idea what I'm like in RL.

---

Announcing a pressure vote is like telling someone you're going to throw them a surprise party tonight. It doesn't really work.

---

At this point, I really don't think Charnel deserves to have more votes than BC.

Unvote, vote: BC

[muzzz]

Aside from the contradiction I pointed out earlier, I don't really mind your suspicion of me. But I do mind you misconstruing my case against Yabba. I make my decisions based on what I find suspicious, and not just on the suspicions you happen to agree with.

[muzzz]

@BC:
- Where did Hohum insist that you would "fuck up" in the future? Because I didn't see that. Which makes 164 look like a really,

really

bad stretch.
- How is the last line of 136 a scumslip?
- You really did say "your [sic] so gay".

@Yabba: I agree with Baltar. The alternative would be for Charnel to do nothing but defend himself. Now

that

is a reason to lynch people.

[muzzz]

@Yabba: no, of course not. Trying to get people lynched is pro-town.

@BC:
- Sorry, not taking your word for that. And "subconciously" is scumspeak for "he didn't really mean it that way but I

want

him to".
- I asked "how is that scummy?" Not "could you please quote that post again?"
- What you said referred to him, not his behavior. You want us to believe that what you meant was less bad than what you actually said. Yet at the same time you want us to believe that what Hohum meant was actually worse than what he said. This is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
- Mykonian = Charnel. He knows it's a mislynch

because he was talking about his own lynch

! Pay attention, please.

---

I forgot to mention this earlier. In my experience, quick-lynching/-hammering is a towntell.

---

BC's had his chance to claim. Can we lynch him now?

[muzzz]

People understanding each other better is incredibly pro-town.

I expect suspicious townies to keep trying to lynch scum, even if they start getting votes. I find the opposite (neglecting to scumhunt while under pressure) much scummier.

I suck at numbers and game theory, so I have no idea if it's a good for a hypo-real-doc to counterclaim. But I'm making a policy unvote until everyone has had a chance to have their say about the matter.

Unvote

[muzzz]

You guys post too much while I'm gone.

Like I said, I suck at all that game theory and optimal play stuff. I'll need a few hours to grok the last pages, so I've only skimmed so far.

At the time of my last post, I was thinking that BC's play did make sense. In a weird sort of way. My guess was that he was trying to stay off the townie lists, to avoid getting NK'd. His tantrums seemed to fit a frustrated Doc who had his plan backfire more than it fit caught scum.

But now we have Egruntz claiming VT. Regardless of how BC played, I have trouble buying he would be stupid enough to fakeclaim Doc. So I'm inclined to lynch him. My faint grasp of game theory also suggests that this is the best worst case scenario. But you'll probably want to verify that last bit yourselves.

---

I mostly liked Hohum's logic, except for one big, gaping hole. He said that in this setup scum would want to claim a powerrole D1. But if that's so, wouldn't a "lynch me and you'll know he's fake" gambit be even better?

---

@Yabba & Baltar re. quicklynch/hammer - I've only seen it happen a handful of times. But most of the times it was done by townies.

[muzzz]

I did some more skimming to find out why people want to lynch Charnel. While I agree that he's got some points against him, I found him less scummy than BC. And most of the new arguments seem to revolve around him being Egruntz's buddy. So I don't really see the logic in lynching him first.

---

I forgot this in my previous post. Directing the cop is a very bad idea. Aside from what Baltar said, we

really

don't want the scum knowing who the cop will investigate.

[muzzz]

259-EBWOP:
I have trouble buying he would be stupid enough to fakeclaim Doc

as a townie

.

[muzzz]

I found his reasoning re. BC plausible. Bad, but plausible. The stuff re. Egruntz is a lot weaker, you're right about that.

[muzzz]

@Hohum: I still like to assume BC is smarter than the average lobotomy subject. Why do you care, anyway? It makes me think he's more likely to be scum.

---

I think I've gotten most of what's been said.

Vote: Egruntz

[muzzz]

What's Orto doing here?

---

Nice game, guys. Hohum's right, this really is an enjoyable setup.

I'm sure there were a few more intelligent things I wanted to say about this game. But I forgot all about them when I was indulging myself in France.

*shrugs*

Maybe next time.