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

[VP Baltar]

Why do you object to advising the cop on a target?

Because it allows the scum to have influence over his/her investigation. It is better if we just let the cop make up his/her own mind and not give the scum the opportunity to direct the investigation away from them.

Regarding BloodCovenent's claim, isn't a possibility that he is a vanilla townie and he claimed doctor to protect the real doctor.

No, that makes no sense. There are few incidences where fake claiming doc is a good idea. This is most certainly not one of them. If his role really is VT, then he's an idiot who was playing selfishly just because he didn't want to be lynched.

@Charnel:

Did you believe it? Why didn't you address it directly?

[Charnel]

@Charnel:

Did you believe it? Why didn't you address it directly?

I did answer.

I believe he is town that was made a target. And since I normally don´t expect townies to lie, I would have needed a cc to not believe it.

guess I was wrong there, but for some players this is an accepted play. However, if a new player that doesn´t share these ideas comes in, he might undo it. Otherwise I can´t see why he would do it. I can´t see this coming from scum, and I am way more suspicious of Yabba.

why didn't I address it? because there was incomplete information. I have said multiple times that I thought BC a towny that was made a target, I went even so far to say scum would be on him, and I waited if there was a cc to make a real judgement. Until that, I would talk about something I didn't know everything about.

In any way, a Egruntz lynch here is plain wrong. Lynching me is not a good idea either, although some people still need convincing, but we need to look at those other 4 players.

[egruntz]

I'm not going to make many remarks about Bloodcovenant. It's very apparent where all of you picked up scum-tell from him, and I would have definitely voted for him if I were also in this game. Just know, however, that he is not Mafia, but rather a horribly,

horribly

-played townie.

Now onto the game. Really, no one caught my eye besides hohum, and I know that this could seem like an OMGUS because he's the one that's most for lynching me, but no. I really just don't like how much he wants to see a lynch happen:

Moar BC lynching, please.

More BC lynching, please.

More BC lynching please.

Lynch him please.

Both you and Yabba need to stop fucking role fishing and start lynching BC.

We should be lynching BC

Usually, I would be fine with this, because pushing for a Bloodcovanent lynch was completely logical. It was what he posted here, however, that really reflected the sun:

I want him out of this game. Either lynch him or me. I'm going to do fuck all until one of us is gone.

"There must be a lynch! Lynch someone now or I'll go crazy!" That's what I get from here. There are also these posts of his that I do not like:

I'm worth trusting. Lynch me and find out if you want to save your scum buddy instead. I promise you that he's lying.

I'm also offering to be lynched today (as a last resort) in order to prove my point.

To me, these posts suggest that he's saying "I'm obviously town because I'm offering to be lynched. That's how confident I am."

If you are town, then offering to be lynched like that is

not

smart. There are only 7 players here. Day 1, we lynch you. You're town. Night 1, another town dies. 2 Mafia and 3 town left. Even if a Mafia is lynched the next day, that leaves the next night kill: 1 Mafia, 2 Town. It's basically a 33% chance that town will win at that point.

[hohum]

One way or another I'm going to drag you guys kicking and screaming into this egruntz lynch.

This setup is unique in that it creates far more incentive for scum to claim power roles at any stage of the game. To use a baseball analogy: it's a sacrifice fly. One scum goes down in flames while the other one snipes at counterclaimed PRs. By not following procedure and lynching without a counterclaim, we effectively remove this incentive and tip the balance back into the town's favor.

I don't necessarily agree with this being a good tactic for scum. Losing one of their members for a PR isn't a great exchange because they only have two members. This is especially true of claiming doc. Say they get a counter claim on the doc and lose a member that day. That night the doc gets killed, but the second member would still be susceptible to cop investigation. It is a bad decision that could result in a perfect town win. I plan to check out your link; I just need some time today to do it.

re:egruntz--I want to hear his reread. He could still be scum trying to backpeddle on the doc claim now because it put him in a sticky situation. Of course, BC could have also just been an idiot who was pissed at the game and boned the town.

Again hohum, there is no rush until we sort this matter our fully. I don't like Charnel dismissing the possibility of BC/egruntz being scum immediately because of a fake doc claim. That makes no sense. A Charnel lynch today wouldn't be a bad idea either.

There's a multitude of reasons why you should listen to me. I'm trying to get you guys to think ahead because you can be sure that after all this theory and setup debate the scum team are.

I think you're severely underestimating the incentive part. If (for example) we allow the claimed doc to live, what's to stop the next scum from claiming cop? Or, what to stop the scum from counter-claiming the cop later? It all involves a fair amount of gaming; however, allowing the claimed doc to live also involves the same WIFOM.

I'm suggesting that we lynch egruntz based on nothing more than the mountain of evidence which points to the fact that he's scum. As BC pointed out, he's been under suspicion now since (well actually before) page 2. Throw the boldfaced lie he told when he claimed on top of that, and you've got a recipe for scum soup.

lynching Charnel isn't a bad idea. Hohum, thoughts?

I believe we'd be settling for charnel at this point based on the notion that every setup is similar enough that we should blindly follow standard operating procedure. I find charnel quite scummy and would be supportive of the lynch today, but I would still much rather see a BC/egruntz lynch.

We've already caught the scum. The confirmed fakeclaim should at this point simply be the straw that broke the horse's back.

If we leave him alive we're only going to end up back in the same endless theory debate tomorrow. That gives the scum too much opportunity to break is apart by WIFOM. I'd rather put and end to this now and do some scum hunting tomorrow with the benefit of a productive flip to go on. I just really don't see charnel's flip as being quite as productive as egruntz/BC.

I want my read on charnel to be 100% before we lynch. In the last couple of pages it's getting closer but not quite there yet. After egruntz flips and I am proven correct, then things like the newbie-card-chainsaw-defense argument will stick better for charnel having said shit like this:

hohum: as a newby, I once undid a uncc'ed copclaim when I replaced. So egruntz could be in the same position as me. In that situation are two things different: I replaced a newby, and he claimed in a very wrong way.

[VP Baltar]

And if he does flip VT?

[hohum]

Remember guys, they don't have to NK us all, they only have to get us down to a 2:2 endgame to declare victory. Using PR claims to delay scum lynches in such a small setup is an extremely viable scum strategy. We shouldn't be as dismissive of the notion of lynching claimed PRs in such a small setup for that reason.

[hohum]

And if he does flip VT?

If he does flip VT and I'm wrong, then we've simply been sunken by BC's stupidity, and we're likely going to lose this game anyways.

[VP Baltar]

Answer my question, where do you think the town sits tomorrow if he flips VT? Who would be your top suspect?

[hohum]

I did answer your question. You made the same mistake that I made by not reading the thread all the way through before posting.

Top suspects for tomorrow in case BC's VT flip I'd have to sit here and meditate on for a bit. I'd rather do more scum hunting tomorrow though than today. The time to speculate is over. More egruntz lynching is the right thing to do here.

[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.

[Charnel]

And if he does flip VT?

If he does flip VT and I'm wrong, then we've simply been sunken by BC's stupidity, and we're likely going to lose this game anyways.

No, then we are looking at claims and stuff in stead of really scumhunting.

and if you read that quote about my newby game: I was scum there, rewinding a fakeclaim, but I say I think the situation is different here: there was IMO little need for a gambit like this from scum.

Hohum: there is no option I am going to get you into a lynch of someone else?

[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

.

[VP Baltar]

@muzzz, I never said that my logic is that Charnel could be egruntz's scumbuddy. That sort of speculation is useless without a flip. I find it far more interesting that he ignored the doc claim altogether and now comes up with a very irrational theory on why egruntz must be town. It seems to me like he has inside information. It just doesn't seem natural to auto believe something as ridiculous as one player claiming doc and then his replacement claiming VT.

[muzzz]

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

[hohum]

I have trouble buying he would be stupid enough to fakeclaim Doc as a townie.

*headdesk* come on guys. Every single one of you have called his actions scummy for some reason or another. He *LIED*. Saying that the fakeclaim was too obvious of a mistake is giving him too much credit. If he lied about that, who knows what the hell else that came out of his mouth was completely contrived.

Muzz, you're sitting there saying the same thing I am. Charnel is lynchable, but not without more scum hunting. BC is scummy, etc. Why don't you support the lynch?

No, then we are looking at claims and stuff in stead of really scumhunting.

Excuse me? Did you really just say that we should be relying on claims

INSTEAD

of scum hunting?

[hohum]

@Baltar: the hole in your logic is this: If charnel were scum and BC were town, it would be in charnel's best interest to let us lynch BC. It's a free kill, puts us in lylo tomorrow and has the added convenience of making me look ridiculously scummy.

Charnel realized at some point that he tied himself to BC so he's doing everything he can do to save egruntz right now.

[VP Baltar]

Hohum, what did you think of Octupis' last few posts?

Also, can you provide a list of all the players and rate them on a scale of town, null, scum.

[VP Baltar]

@Baltar: the hole in your logic is this: If charnel were scum and BC were town, it would be in charnel's best interest to let us lynch BC. It's a free kill, puts us in lylo tomorrow and has the added convenience of making me look ridiculously scummy.

Well, when a player like you is screaming about how the lynch needs to happen, I would most certainly distance myself from the lynch as scum. It most certainly does make you look bad and that is all the more reason for him to be nowhere near it. Isn't WIFOM fun? More actual scumhunting, please.

[hohum]

Hohum, what did you think of Octupis' last few posts?

Too much WIFOM.

Also, can you provide a list of all the players and rate them on a scale of town, null, scum.

No.

[hohum]

Hohum: there is no option I am going to get you into a lynch of someone else?

You don't need my cooperation to lynch someone else. There's 5 other people in this game that you can convince to vote along side of you.

[Light-kun]

Vote Count:

L-1
NONE

L-2
NONE

L-3
yabbaguy- (Charnel)
hohum- (egrunts)
egrunts - (hohum)


With seven alive, it is four to lynch.

[hohum]

@Mod: can we get a deadline please? Otherwise this debate is going to rage on until the end of time.

Already exists. I will add it to the first post.

[Charnel]

Hohum: there is no option I am going to get you into a lynch of someone else?

You don't need my cooperation to lynch someone else. There's 5 other people in this game that you can convince to vote along side of you.

but since I think you are town, and town needs 4 out of 5 on a lynch, it is a good idea to have you there too. and I really have doubts about BC.

[hohum]

Hohum: there is no option I am going to get you into a lynch of someone else?

You don't need my cooperation to lynch someone else. There's 5 other people in this game that you can convince to vote along side of you.

but since I think you are town, and town needs 4 out of 5 on a lynch, it is a good idea to have you there too. and I really have doubts about BC.

@Charnel: You seem to have done an about face in that last post regarding your stance on BC. Did post 266 strike a nerve, or what?