California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
But the notion "good chance of being scum" itself is not well-defined. It is an entirely relative term. A "good chance" of being scum in endgame is vastly different than "a good chance of being scum" pre-Day/Scene 1. In this case, I would conjecture that the "good chance" of being scum means "slightly more than the default 25-33% based on conventional game setups."Bagel Eating Cowfrog wrote:
From his statement, "There's a good chance he's scum.", I assumed that he would be willing to lynch since I know that I would lynch someone who I thought there was a good chance was scum.elmosaurian wrote:People are scumhunting in the extremely early game, which is a good thing,and you seem to be jumping way ahead to "are you really willing to lynch him just for that?", which just seems odd; obviously no one is going to lynch yet, we can't anyway. So why are you trying to discourage people from scumhunting?
Also, as far as it goes, I think the attacks against Zwet make sense here. They're not especially strong, but they're logical.
As far as the On-Camera decisions / Off-Camera lynching goes: I believe that we should desginate, right now, either the Director of Photography role or Director of Audiography role to signal to the on-camera players when we have made an off-camera lynch.
I agree that we should take longer to make lynches rather than shorter, but at the same time I think that drawing each scene out three weeks will dilute the importance of what is said off-camera.
My ideal scenario would be this: On-Camera, people mill about and discuss the On-Camera decisions to be made, while Off-Camera, we play to lynch scumbaggoes. Once the Off-Camera people have arrived at a lynch, the Director of Photography (for example -- I really don't care which one it is) -- goes and googles up some (SFW, please) image of somebody dying, indicating that we have made our lynch decision. At that point, the actors On-Camera can make their choice and we can keep the game flowing reasonably.
In other news, I am confirmed innocent, and I'm 99% sure that Count de Morcerf is innocent.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Unless you're insinuating that there are 9 scumbags (John Locke, Valentine Wiggin, Count de Morcerf, Huey Lewis, Randy Jones, and the four people you chose), there would be "at least one protown player" in the scene anyway. I don't buy this as a worthwhile reason at all.MafiaJin wrote:
So that at least one town player will be in the Scene. Or at least that's my reason.Gaspar wrote:MafaiJin: The only question I demand you answer ASAP is why you chose to putyourselfon-camera. This indicates to me that you're more interested in choosing the On-Camera choices than on participating in Day One, which concerns me.
-SSK
By "Day One," I mean the lynching process that occurs on Day One. As far as I can tell, the choice we make On-Camera will be largely random, and will not necessarily enable us to find and kill scum. However, guaranteeing that you are participatingin a lynch Off-Stage on D1is what I would consider a far more worthwhile protown reasoning.
The point is, that the finding and lynching of scumbags -- which is ALWAYS the primary weapon of the town -- takes place Off-Stage. You chose to take yourself out of this process and protect yourself from a possible lynch (as we cannot lynch players On-Camera). I want to know what you think is so important about making these On-Camera decisions that made you believe that being On-Camera is more beneficial to winning the game than being Off-Stage.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
1) I am assuming that the D1 lynch is more important than the Scene One decision. I have a long and storied history of believing that Day One play is one of the most important parts of any mafia game, if not the absolute most important.
2) Ignoring a win condition? The only win condition I'm concerned about is the Innocent one, which states that one of us must be alive, and all other alignments must be dead (or guaranteed to die).
3) I do not also feel that lynching is random -- your conjecture is entirely baseless, and inherently flawed. Before Day/Scene One has even begun, I've already latched onto a player based on a non-random action taken. But the way I see it: No protown player (except possibly Locke and/or Wiggin) can know whether following Locke or Wiggin is a good idea. None of us know what the outcome of following either will be. However, we know exactly what the outcome of lynching a player is. You have indicated that you want to influence a decision which may or may not affect the town's ability to win the game. Instead, you could influence a decision which will directly impact the town's ability to win the game. Lynching scums helps us win. Period. It means fewer scums are around to make Decisions On-Camera, and it means fewer scums are around to mislead the town. There is a tangible, guaranteed benefit to lynching people by remaining Off-Stage, and you know you can arrive at a completely non-random lynch decision, even on Day One. As far as I can tell, there are no such guaranteeds by going On-Camera.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I have evidently chosen not to explain it at this time.Mighty Orbots wrote:
I'm still waiting for an explanation for this.Mighty Orbots wrote:
Wat.Gaspar wrote:In other news, I am confirmed innocent, and I'm 99% sure that Count de Morcerf is innocent.
-PZ
-PZ
I have read every part of the rules over probably a dozen times. I am aware that the On-Camera decisions will affect the setup at endgame. I have also read over the scene details repeatedly.elmosaurian wrote:
Have you checked the "Endgame" section under the Rules?Gaspar wrote:As far as I can tell, the choice we make On-Camera will be largely random, and willnot necessarily enable us to find and kill scum.
Confusing game is confusing. Not going to be useful until at least Tuesday, sorry!
Elmo
That said, I see nothing to indicate that any individual player has any knowledge or preference for one choice over any other choice during Scene One (or Scene Two, for that matter -- though there is a distinct strategy for the Scene Two decision). I currently see the Scene One choice as being random, and I see the Off-Stage/Day One lynch as being non-random. Thus, I would rather influence the D1 lynch over the Scene One decision. Scenes Two and beyond are a different story, because the Advocates are chosen by PNIA, not randomly.
If I'm mistaken on this reasoning, please point it out to me.
On a semi-related note: My best speculation is that the decisions will lead to some kind of C9 variant. Good decisions will award some kind of ability/role in Endgame, whereas bad decisions will either take away roles, or will give the scums abilities.
Nevertheless, I maintain that the seeking and rooting out of scums' is more important than worrying about endgame setup. Supposing there are 5/20 scums in this game, and we find all 5 successfully, who cares what the setup is? We win. This is exactly why I value Off-Stage play more than On-Camera play. Perhaps general behavior has changed over the past six months or so, but I have found in the past that too many people put too much stake in roles and not enough stake in good old-fashioned scumbusting.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Elmo/Yos: keep in mind, also, that if we get the scums down to 2, they will automatically be put in their "worst possible" endgame setup. There is EVERY incentive to keep Scumhunting as your top priority. Trying to make good decisions On-Camera is a fine and dandy backup plan, but it should NEVER take precedence over trying to kill the scums off.
Honestly, I don't even see why this is up for debate. I haven't seen a single person actually make a case as to why On-Camera decisions would be more important than killing scumbags, yet I've had three people question or disagree with me on this point. I would LOVE to see some counterpoints if you folks have them.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I misinterpreted an aspect of the scenes. I thought that when Scene Three said each advocate gets "partial information," that implied that the advocates in the other scenes did not get information.Talilan wrote:I am not sure if I am allowed to quote from the rules post, so I will avoid doing so for the time being, but:
It explicitly states in the on camera rules that the advocate gets information to help make the decision. Ergo, the first scene is not random at all. Did you just miss this or is there another reason you think the scene is still entirely random?Gaspar (115) wrote:That said, I see nothing to indicate that any individual player has any knowledge or preference for one choice over any other choice during Scene One
I'm not really sure what your last sentence means, but you answered your own question. On Scene One, the Adovcates were chosen completely at random. From Scene Two onwards, the Adovcates are chosen by a scumgroup. Unless the scums are to choose Advocates randomly (an assumption we cannot make), then Scenes Two and beyond would be inherently less random. I'm not really sure how you're not understanding this.Talilan wrote:Either way I don't understand your point about the second and onwards scenes beingnotrandom, or at leastlessrandom than the first. The difference is that the advocates are chosen by scum, rather than randomly. Just because it has a scum-WIFOM filter applied to it wouldn't somehow render it non-random if it was already random to begin with.
I'm well aware that each advocate could be Scum or Town, that their alignment is independent of each other, and that there is one Good choice and one Bad choice regardless of alignment. The fact that the Advocates were random, and that the Good/Bad nature of each choice is independent of their alignment makes the first Decision that much more random.Talilan wrote:Note that the choice isn't "to follow one or another advocate", that's only for the first scene. It doesn't mean that one advocate is town and another is scum, it means that one is the right advocate to follow; presumably independently of their alignment. Note in subsequent scenes the choices aren't tied to specific advocates, and e.g. in Scene 2 there are 3 choices and only one advocate.
This is ridiculous. You play to win the game. That is your top priority. Period. Saying "we should focus on the on-camera decisions, because we want to avoid the Town's worst possible Endgame scenario" is complete and utter bullshit. I've already said why the people off-stage are more important, and I'm going to sit here repeating this point until I can bludgeon it into your head.Lalilian wrote:
Well for example the result of the worst outcome in a scene might mean the scum get 5 nightkills that night rather than 1, or 0. We just don't know what form they're going to take. I don't understand why you'd assume that the on-camera action would somehow be irrelevant when it looks like it's designed to be the centrepiece of the game. The players on-camera are a minority whose every move is going to be under particular scrutiny and who can't scrutinise most of the other players. Furthermore there are several devices to relay information to them, albeit subtly. Why would you think the players with limited communication, who everyone can see, would be less rather than of equal or greater importance than the flock of people off-stage?Gaspar (116) wrote:I haven't seen a single person actually make a case as to why On-Camera decisions would be more important than killing scumbags, yet I've had three people question or disagree with me on this point. I would LOVE to see some counterpoints if you folks have them.The people off-stage are the ones who lynch (the scums, ideally), and that gives us the best shot at winning the game.
You sit here arguing that we need to avoid making a streak of bad decisions to avoid the town's worst-case scenario. But even if we make every Good decision possible, if we continually mislynch in here, we'll end up in the worst case scenario anyway.
Furthermore, I don't think I ever stated or implied that on-camera decisions are completely irrelevant. I said that we don't know the outcome of said decisions, and that they can be rendered irrelevantifwe can find and lynch the scums (or if the scums get us to mislynch down to 5 town). I even stated that the On-Camera decisions are a useful backup plan, but I maintain that our focus should be on THIS thread, working to find and lynch the scums here and now, just as we would in any game which took place in a single game thread.
.....aaand it just occurred to me that you can't respond to this in real-time, because you're On-Camera. Meh.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Oh, in largely unrelated news:
Does anybody else notice that not only did our Director, MafiaJin, put himself into the scene, but also put the Assistant Director (curiouskarmadog) into the scene as well? CKD has the ability to fire Jin and take over the Director job for himself, yet MJ has severely mitigated CKD's ability to do so by putting CKD in the scene as well. This gives Jin the ability to pick actors for another scene, unless we can relay the "You're fired" message to CKD during the day today.
I feel that, between MafiaJin's self-placement into the scene, his move to protect his Director's position by putting CKD in the scene, and his justification for his self-placement ("I want to guarantee a town player in the scene"), and his bringing up of alternate win conditions (SUPER DUPER MAJOR RED FLAG), he is almost certainly scum. Or, at the very least, not a standard Innocent.
I would like to relay to CKD that he should fire/replace MafiaJin as soon as possible, and I want MafiaJin lynched tomorrow. I propose that our Director of Photography transmits a message of Donald Trump in his "You're Fired" face to hopefully get that point across.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Oh, my mistake. Pah.
Still, I have an alternative solution. Waiting on one point of clarification from the mod, but to take MafiaJin off-screen, we might be able to have the Stuntsman take his role on-camera. I really want MafiaJin dead.
Also, the Elmosaurian vote was largely arbitrary. I just love Elmo and Yos so much.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I already mentioned this. SSK's justification for putting himself makes zero sense whatsoever unless he thought he could put 9 scumbag in a scene together, and one of them mentioned "ignoring a win condition." Putting himself on-camera has nothing to do with the Innocent win condition, so my conclusion is that MafiaJin has some alignment other than the standard Innocent alignment.Bagel Eating Cowfrog wrote:Gaspar, why are you so interested in MafiaJin?
Is it not a possiblity that he could simply just be a player with just bad logic?
If so, why is bad logic scummy?
Thok, why is zwet below No Lynch? Is it simply because you dislike GoofballsAndBalloons' push on him? If so, why is no lynch preferable to losing a player who is, based on meta, usually a distraction to the town?
-Cow-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
EBWOP: To clarify the first point, the "at least one protown player" isn't just bad logic. To me, it sounds forced and made up. I believe SSK was just trying to saysomethingto cover them up.
At the very least, I'd like to see the Stuntman put himself into the Scene and bring MafiaJin back to the land of the lynchable. He can also relay what the Songs mean, and remind CKD (who probably hasn't read Off-Stage since he confirmed) that there is to be no decision-making until the Director of Audiography posts "Closing Time."-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Two things, SL:
First, it talks about choosing a new Stuntman once the original uses his ability, which would be useless if the ability as a whole could be used once ever.
Second, it later says in the Job description that the ability can only be used "Once per scene" which indicates thateach Stuntsman can use the ability once.
Reading is indeed tech.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I am dead-set on this. And I have no information that anybody else does not have. All I'm going off of is based on the given Innocent win condition, the fact that MafiaJin chose to put himself in the thread, and his responses to my inquiry about that. For the record, here they are:Mighty Orbots wrote:Gaspar, you seem so dead-set on this that I'm kinda wanting to test your theory about our beloved Director. That said, I'm also a bit wary that you seem to have so much game knowledge that I don't.
MafiaJin wrote:
So that at least one town player will be in the Scene. Or at least that's my reason.Gaspar wrote:MafaiJin: The only question I demand you answer ASAP is why you chose to putyourselfon-camera. This indicates to me that you're more interested in choosing the On-Camera choices than on participating in Day One, which concerns me.
-SSK
SSK's given reason makes zero sense whatsoever. I've explained this twice -- there aren't going to be 9 scumbags in a scene together, and if this game is the least bit balanced, it's EXTREMELY rare that there would be 5 scumbags in the opening scene.MafiaJin wrote:@Gaspar answer my previous reason, since you originally asked the question of me anyways. I agree that SSK's reason is weak by itself. Doesn't hurt though.
Your ignoring a win condition. If the advocate decision is as random as you feel, then you must also feel lynching is random. Both are based on an informed minority and a majority deciding on a path.
We cannot win this game with lynches alone as the endgame will be played on camera with impact made by decisions. By the same token we are unlikely to win with decisions alone as we will be put into endgame at disadvantage. We need both.
-Sajin
Saijin's first paragraph basically agrees with me that his partner's reason is very weak.
Saijin's second paragraph mentions "ignoring a win condition."This is HUGE.Endgame rules state that no matter what, we will have 2 people with alignment [Something Else] (presumably Primary Non-Innocent Alignment?) and 5 Innocents. Any win condition other than the Innocent one (which I most certainly did NOT ignore) means the player is a threat to us Innocents. That's why I want MafiaJin in here to explain himself immediately.
Saijin's last point is invalid. We CAN win this game on lynches alone. If we lynch all but two scumbags before Day 7, they will automatically be put in their Worst Endgame Scenario, which I would assume is our BEST endgame scenario. From there, we just have to lynch the last two scumbags. I have acknowledged that Decisions aren't completely irrelevant, but I've been explaining for two solid pages now why lynching is more important to us.
So from where I'm sitting, I asked for an explanation and I got three complete crap points. MafiaJin is, at best, not a simple Innocent player. At worst, he's a direct threat to all of us.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I haven't decided. My current instincts say "0-1 other scumbags" because I wouldn't expect any half-brained scum to put all their eggs in one basket. Of course, it also might depend on how many preselected On-Camera actors are scumbags. I think the worst thing we can do is assume that the Scum-to-Innocent ratios On-Camera and Off-Stage are the same, or even close to one another. Fact is, we don't have any way of knowing that information until we see some corpses.Thok wrote:Gaspar, if MafiaJin does come up some form of scum, what do you think that says about the other three people he took with him on stage?
(I realize that the mafia probably wouldn't be so blatant as to move as many members as it could off stage.)-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting the phrase "win condition." Go to your role PM and look at the last line. It says, in bold, "Win Condition:" then lists your role's win condition. Better yet, go look at the very end of this post. It describes, word-for-word, the InnocentMighty Orbots wrote:Gaspar, I think the second point was directed at you: He was saying thatyouwere ignoring one of the potential win conditions. I disagree on this point in the sense that our win condition isn't determined by what happens in any one thread but a combination of the two.win condition. Saijin said that I'm ignoring "a win condition" which means he is apparently dealing with a win condition other than the standard Innocent win conditon.
This is why he needs to explain himself or die.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Just chiming in to say that I don't like Talilan's badgering of Locke either. I should think that anybody with half a brain would know that Following Locke is the Bad decision, and Following Valentine is the Good decision. Whats worse is, I'm almost certain Talilan will pass it off as flavor/acting, which is entirely unprovable one way or another. (There's one other explanation they may provide, which I don't want to give in advance. I want to see if they come up with it themselves.) We'll tell them to knock it off if they ever play in a scene again, and that will be that.
Note to Hydras: Vote after you sign off at the end of your posts.
Also, SL -- it's not that I think that all scums are On Camera (in fact, I explicitly posted that I don't think scums would put all their eggs in one basket); it's that I think the single player most likely to be scum is MafiaJin. I've always been a big fan of taking out the big, bad, known scumbag as soon as possible, rather than mucking about and possibly missing out now, or giving them the time and circumstance to worm their way out of several lynches.
That said... For now, I am kontent to hop on this budding Krew wagon.
Unvote
Vote: KY Krew-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Elmosaurian wrote:I know we can't lynch Talilan today, but I'm still pretty sure I've all ready caught a scum.Gaspar wrote:You know, KY Krew could switch (actor) roles with Talilan to take her off-stage...
There's not really anything to "bring you up to speed" on.Gaspar wrote:Elmosaurian stated that Talilan cannot be lynched today. I pointed out that techincally, she can.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
No, it would not be a better message, because the explicit request Talilan made was "give us thumbs up if you trust Locke, or thumbs down if you do not."
If we say we trust Locke, then picking Valentine is the obvious choice.
The other reason I want to send KY Krew into the game is so that they can remind everybody thatTHEY ARE NOT TO MAKE A DECISION UNTIL OUR AUDIOGRAPHER POSTS THE SONG "CLOSING TIME."I know at least one person (MafiaJin) was active during the thread, yet they voted early on. Sloppy play all around, in my opinion.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
For whatever it's worth (which probably isn't too much), I could totally switch over to a Zwetwagon. I'm not nearly as sure about Krew, Jin, or Talilan as I am about MafiaJin being scum, but I'd be willing to throw down a Day One lynch on any of the four, really.
It might be because we started Pre-Scene-One with mechanics discussion, but a lot of people, I feel, are being tentative about voting. Elmosaurian and Krew aren't voting, which seems atypical to me, and Zwet just stated he suspects Krew, but doesn't seem to be interested in pressuring Krew by joining the wagon. Zwet's reluctance in partciular says that he's more interested in playing observer and/or he doesn't want to be the dreaded "fourth on the wagon."
Zwet: For what reasons do you suspect Krew? Why do you suspect themlittle enoughto refrain from voting for them?-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Elmo/Yos, and SL are exactly right. You can conveniently take yourself out of voting patterns with this silly policy. I would argue that it's distinctly anti-town in any game, but it's several times worse here. However, if somoene else can verify that you have a consistent history of not voting unless it's a hammer, I can tentatively accept your explanation.
BUT. Even if Idoaccept that explanation, you can condorcet-"vote" without actually voting. say "Vote: X, Y, [A, B, C], No Lynch, Zwet" (or whatever) without actually bolding anybody. At the very least, it grants us transparency into your thoughts and actions, and it contributes to the possibilty of a condorcet lynch even if we can't obtain a majority lynch.
I find Yos's use of meta more amusing than anything else, considering I haven't looked at a mafia game in, what... over five months? Nothing else to say on that matter, because "he feels more scum-Glork than town-Glork" and "Elmo has bad feelings, too" holds zero actual substance. Come back later and try harder, you lazy bum.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Actually, Zwet, forget "someone else" confirming this. Please link me to the last five completed games you have played. I want to see this for myself.
(Also, before anybody else brings it up, I do realize the irony in calling CowBagelFrogThing town based on meta, after laughing at Yos's use of meta towards me. But there is another reason for me being a little tentative, which I don't feel like exlpaining at this time.)-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Actually, no. I haven't mentioned Hewitt yet. I have no opinion of him one way or another at this point. Wrong name, bucko.Mighty Orbots wrote:Gaspar, you're the one who's sure about hewitt; is that still true after what he's done in the on camera thread?
I do have a question for you, though. Could you please elaborate on the quote below (particularly the part which I have italicized)?Mighty Orbots wrote:Papa Zito hasn't posted here today so I'm going to break one of my hydra rules and actually do my own voting.I don't have any reason to think that zwetschenwasser is town,if he's scum he's in a spot that can actually do us harm with the flow of information.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Balls. I meant to reply to Elmos and Orbots in one post, but I had different tabs open and accidentally hit
Submit." Oh well.
Finish your sentence, much?elmosaurian wrote:
Yeah, well, that last game we played together I had a gut feeling you were scum there as well, and didn't follow up on it as much as I should have. We all know how that turned out, heh. My suspicions on you aren't really meta based; it's more about how yourGaspar wrote: I find Yos's use of meta more amusing than anything else, considering I haven't looked at a mafia game in, what... over five months?
Funny you should say that, considering I haven't mentioned MafiaJin in over two pages. Since then, I've weighed in on KY Krew, Zwet, Talilan, CowBagelFrogThing, and the On-Camera Decision situation in general.(elmo)Yos wrote:Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.
But hey. If you want to ignore others' lack of contribution in favor of accusing me of focusing too much on MafiaJin, that's cool.
Pfft. Predictability gets you killed.(elmo)Yos wrote:On a side note, I am pleased to see that Elmo was wrong about you; he was sure you were going to OMGUS us right away for that, hehe.
-Yos-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Oh. Bahahahaahahahah. The fact that I didn't know that should tell you something about my statement.
Like I said, you clearly don't know me well enough, and you it doesn't look like you read CT1 or CT2.
I'm going to let you stew on this a while longer, because it amuses me, and because you basically can't do anything about it. Yes, I'm a buttass.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
It's pretty much the fact that Talilan was very active... was posting during the Audiography discussion, seemed to be interested in exploring game mechanics. I feel like Talilan had a much firmer grasp of what was going on, and really ought to know that there is one Good and one Bad decision, yet still wanted to draw out this whole Locke thing.
I also didn't like Talilan's suggestion of "well we could have Locke drive, then just kill Locke." While the argument of "we will lynch known scum" is technically true, it is far better to keep a town than to turn him into a scumbag and kill him. In that discussion (especially this post), Talilan posits that both Valentine and Locke have been given equal choices... which is stupid, because we are explicitly told that one choice is Good, while the other choices is Bad. The outcomes of the decision must necessarily be different, yet Talilan posits them as being the same.
It just doesn't add up at all. I feel like there is significant, genuine substance with a player who I am almost certain isn't ignorant enough about the game and its mechanics to make these kinds of mistakes. With Hewitt, I'm not sure. Do I think it's worth exploring his behavior down the road? Absolutely. Would I be willing to pull Hewitt into this thread more than Talilan? Definitely not.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I swear, I filtered my posts and did a Ctrl+F and it skipped straight back to a post I made several days ago. I don't know what happened there, but my mistake.elmosaurian wrote:
UmGaspar wrote:
Funny you should say that, considering I haven't mentioned MafiaJin in over two pages.(elmo)Yos wrote:Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.
This was only two posts before my vote, glork. What do you mean you "hadn't mentioned mafiajin in 2 pages?"Gaspar wrote:I'm not nearly as sure about Krew, Jin, or Talilan as I am about MafiaJin being scum, but I'd be willing to throw down a Day One lynch on any of the four, really.
Interesting that you choose to mention this ahead of time. If you were to bring up that argument, I suppose I would bring up two counterexamples. In CT2, I was town and went after MBL as scum nearly every single day, but I always ended up sliding onto someone else. In that one game where Elmo/Patrick/Ether were scum, I kept coming back to Elmo, but kept sliding away from him towards the end of the day. Latching onto one person but settling for another lynch is something I've done in the past. Sometimes it has helped, and sometimes (such as in these two cases), it has not.Yos wrote:Even when you talked about your suspicions on other people, you still seemed to be focusing on mafiajin in a way that seemed strange to me; the way you worded that post, I wonder if you were setting up for something like this tommorow: "Well, I was wrong about X being scum, but that's ok because I was more sure about mafiajin the whole time, vote:mafiajin".-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I'd just like to point out that SL has done the same thing. (OOOOOOOH, DEFLECTION, RAJ!!!)Bagel Eating Cowfrog wrote:According to Thok's list, he'd rather not have a lynch at all than lynch zwetschenwasser, gaspar or elmosaurian. I'm not really comfortable with that. I'm also not comfortable with the fact that he hasn't done any scumhunting since his condorcet vote/post thing.
KY Krew might want to claim. SL's vote put him at Lynch -1. I have moved off temporarily because I don't want Zwet to just drop the hammer prematurely, but I'm not unwilling to hop back.
Thok, you have been much quieter than I would like. What's going on inside that head of yours?-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
KY is so getting lynched tomorrow, it's not even funny.
I would be okay with an image that has inHim/Raj/KY Krew's avatars with BIG RED Xes through them (or something like this over them).
I mean, KY was at Lynch -2, with Zwet likely to vote them last I checked (correct me if this is wrong, Zwet). He was obviously in "you need to claim" territory, was leading the condorcet, and decided that he apparently had to jump onstage and share information with everyone. Bad news bears.
In the meantime, I can't wait for Talilan to respond to the posts I've made regarding her.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
So, in the last post I made, I didn't read the last page at all... didn't even know it existed.
I'm getting cold feet about the Zwetwagon in the face of KY's switch. It makes me feel that one was on scum (KY), and the other on town (Zwet). Talilan's vote for Zwet doesn't please me either, considering how scummy I believe she is.
Vote: Talilan, [people], No Lynch, Gaspar-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Actually, if Elmosaurian and I could have voted for you before you entered the thread, I'm quite sure we would have done so. You're accusing Elmosaur (and myself now, I assume) by OMGUS on a mere technicality, when it's apparent that we suspected you long before you had read a single one of our posts, much less stated you think we're scummy.Talilan wrote:Why was the OMGUS so unashamedly swift?
Actually, you just answered your own question, I think. You decided that voting for Valentine was the inevitable correct choice. What that tells me is that aside from Hewitt, you couldn't drum up enough support to get the town to make the wrong decision... so you said "yep, we'd better vote Valentine" to try and save face.Talilan wrote:- View e.g. Post 102 by us (me) on-stage. Gaspar and yourself's scenario of us being scum relies on us intending to subvert the overall opinion despite the knowledge the advocates provide. If this were the case you cannot explain why we changed our mind to saying that voting for Valentine to drive was inevitable, and that there was really no alternative (this alone means you should have adjusted your opinions of us, but apparently you're still tunneled down the same path without recognising that if you were town you should have changed your suspicions in response to our actions).
This is largely irrelevant. You very seirously questioned a decision which should be completely obvious. You also (as I pointed out in Post 315) did the following:Talilan wrote:- We never announced any intention of going through with a vote for Locke to drive.
1) You suggested that the players On Camera follow a plan which you are told will turn a townsperson into a Scum, in order to spend a future day lynching that player;
2) You tried to steer away from the "Follow Valentine" consensus by suggesting that following Valentine would lead to a similar (if not equal) result, which is preposterous considering one result is Good, while the other is Bad.
Your discussion early on was very much geared towards making people question the idea of "Locke is town, Valentine is town, and they both know that FOLLOW VALENTINE is the GOOD decision." When you couldn't find people to sway to your side, you abandoned the idea and decided that Follow Valentine was the necessary decision.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I wanted claims because I suspected both you and KY approximately equally, they were two rivaling wagons, and we were approaching a deadline. I wanted some way of distinguishing between these two wagons, so that I could make a firmer decision. That's why I moved to put KY at 4 votes, and continued to press for a claim from him.zwetschenwasser wrote:Way too much hesitancy in that post compared to your earlier rantings for my lynch and a claim and such.
Of course, KY has taken an action which very clearly made up my mind as to which of you two is more likely to be scum. He took himself out of the equation with a sloppy and useless post, and that makes it MUCH more likely that he's scum leaving a townie (YOU) out to dry. Combine that with the fact that Talilan -- who is obvscum -- came in and basically put the nail in your coffin, and there's no hesitancy whatsoever... I've flat-out changed my mind about you based on KY's and Talilan's behavior.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I never said it was a point in my favor. You accused Elmosaurian of OMGUS, when it's evident that Elmosaurian thought you were scum before you voted for him. I'm debunking your accusation, you ignorant cad.Talilan wrote:Attacking someone who is not in the thread and is therefore not able to defend themselves is not a point in your favour.
I would attack anyone for the scummy tunnely attack you made on us (and of a similar nature to the one you made on MafiaJin). You conveniently pick your targets off camera then after forming contrived plans to pull them off-stage suggest that they are scum for pointing out the several flawed logic you're using makes you scum.
Again, this is the privilege you get when you're off-stage, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a point in your favour.
By its very definition, OMGUS is voting for someone because they voted for you. This is not the case -- the suspicion existed long before you put Elmo and me at the top of your condorcet. You're trying to turn this into some different argument, but the fact remains that you made a completely invalid accusation. You're trying to reduce a very signifcant case into mere OMGUS, which I won't let by.
Gladly. You proposed that people follow Locke, so that he will switch alignments from Innocent to [Arbitrary Non-Innocent Alignment].Talilan wrote:
Please tell me how this is scummy and also how suggesting equals definitively advocating.Gaspar (429) wrote:You suggested that the players On Camera follow a plan which you are told will turn a townsperson into a Scum, in order to spend a future day lynching that player;
THE PREMISE WHICH YOU MUST ACCEPT HERE IS THAT LOCKE WAS INNOCENT TO BEGIN WITH.This is an assumption I can't see any uninformed (read: Innocent) player making. Furthermore, you are suggesting that you would rather spend a Decision and a Day's Lynch to kill a person whom you have accepted as being Innocent if you are to use such a plan.
Stop and think about it for a second. Your suggestion was this:
Locke is innocent.
If we choose A, Locke will turn Scum. If we choose B, Locke will not turn scum.
You suggested that instead of leaving Locke alive (as innocent), that we turn Locke into scum and kill him.
Net result of Choosing A and then lynching Locke: One less innocent in the game, one dead player.
Net result of Choosing B: Same number of innocents, and the potential to lynch scum elsewhere.
Your suggestion was terrible. It was crap from the very beginning, and I challenge you to sit here and maintain a straight face while claiming it was a reasonable suggestion.
The fact that you say you didn't "definitively advocate" it is irrelevant. You're backing down from a HORRIBLE, COMPLETELY ANTI-TOWN suggestion by saying "oh, but I was only making conversation, not saying we should actually DO this." It's bull. You are scum.
"Scummy spin" my foot. Let's look, word-for-word, at what you said:Talilan wrote:
No, we didn't. This is your scummy spin coming in again, maintaining that "we intended to steer them away from following Valentine all along".Gaspar (429) wrote:2) You tried to steer away from the "Follow Valentine" consensus by suggesting that following Valentine would lead to a similar (if not equal) result, which is preposterous considering one result is Good, while the other is Bad.
Questions for you:Talilan wrote:Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one who knows but has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.
1) Do you believe that Valentine had the same offer of "turn scum if the town follows you."
2a) If not, why would you even bring this up
2b) If so, how can "Innocent turns Scum" possibly make either decision GOOD for the town?
Note you signalled intentions to tunnel on us and ignore any town-signals as early as 238:
How on earth does "flavor/acting" mean "lying about our behavior"? I have used flavor as an explanation for things when telling the truth, and I've used flavor to lie before. You're trying to force me into a circular argument, when all I'm saying is "this is how I believe she's going to explain it, and we won't have any way of proving whether she's lying or not."Talilan wrote:Being "almost certain Talilan will pass it off as flavor/acting" means being "almost certain" that we will deliberately lie/deceive about our behaviour, which guarantees we are scum. I'm curious as to how you got such a strong read on us right then. I'm also curious as to what that other explanation we were supposed to provide was.
If you look at the vote count when you asked for the poll, TWO peopele were voting for Valentine at the time, and ONE ADDTIONAL PERSON (MafiaJin) had just unvoted because we asked everyone to slow down and give us time to make a lynch. The decision was both obvious and nearly made, and you wanted to draw in another element. You want to use "asking for a poll" as a sign of fariness, when I saw it as a distraction, a way to try to appeal to yet another set of players who might bring Locke into question.Talilan wrote:The other point is that you totally ignore that we asked for a poll of the off-camera crew (yep, it doesn't factor into your consideration of our alignment at all, which is completely ridiculous) which effectively forces our hand even if we had been trying to derail the game.
THIS IS COMPLETE HORSESHIT, TOO. I could probably find a hundred times where I was posting and simply forgot to finish a sentence because I got distracted by something else. For all you fucking know, whomever made that post had a phone call, and returned to the thread to start a new point. You are reading WAAAAYYYY too much into nothing, and just grasping at straws here.Talilan wrote:his failure to finish a crucial line in Post 315 which looks like he was trying to think of a valid reason to post rather than giving an honest response;
Honestly, how can you accuse me of tunneling on finding excuses to call you scum, when you horribly misrepresent an incomplete sentence? I laughed it off, because it's something that just happens.
Dear god, people. Just kill Talilan already.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
Wait, wait, wait. So, pick player X. Any player in the game.
You would rather turn X into scum than possibly have X remain innocent?
Turning X into scum is the right play, because that guarantees that X isn't acting in our best interests?
Guranteeing that X is scum is the right decision, because that might be the GOOD decision for the town?
No. There is so much awful logic in your acceptance that I can't even put into words how irritated I am right now.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
I would be pretty upset with your horrendous use of mislogic.Talilan wrote:Glork: if you were successful in getting us lynched and we flipped town what would you say subsequently? Just: "oh, damnit, I thought they were incredibly scummy" or "oh my god how what terrible town-play" or what?
I don't think that the character names were selected at random (it says they were pre-selected). However, the Script Outline states they were chosen "with some chance of one or both being scum." Even if Locke and Valentine were determined to be the characters primed to make a decision, for all intents in purposes, their alignment (the only thing I'm concerned about) is seemingly random.MrJellyLee wrote:PJ Posting.
Quick post: Gaspar, do you believe the Advocates were truly chosen at random? If so, what would you say if a [Something Else] received John Locke's offer to turn scum?
My thought on if Locke were Non-Innocent is that he would allow some other player to turn Non-Innocent, rather than himself. Whether that other player would be predetermined or of Locke's choosing I cannot begin to speculate. This way, the game isn't determined by the randomness of Locke's character being evil or not, and it presents a clear "Bad" choice.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
This is pretty much just WIFOM. You're trying to guess at another player's intentions when presented with two equal choices. Plus, it's entirely irrelevant if Krew is town, or if MafiaJin and Talilan have the same alignment.GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:If KY Krew is scum, and he wanted to switch places with a townie that might be lynched, it's pretty interesting that he would have picked Talilan.
That's because the most likely player to be lynched in such a switch would have been MafiaJin. However, if MafiaJin is scum, then KY Krew (again if KY Krew is scum) would not have picked MafiaJin.
Does that make sense?
In any event, consider us extremely unlikely to vote Talilan today.
-DGB-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time
This is exactly what I had in mind when I posted about Talilan's behavior on-stage:Thok wrote:"I think it's clear what decision to make, however I think we need to force more information out of the advocates to help assess their scumminess/not scumminess."
When I said that I thought Talilan would give an "flavor/acting" explanation for her behavior, I thought to myself "it would actually be good if she said she needed to put pressure the decision to force the On-Camera players to provide her alignment insight."Gaspar wrote:Whats worse is, I'm almost certain Talilan will pass it off as flavor/acting, which is entirely unprovable one way or another. (There's one other explanation they may provide, which I don't want to give in advance. I want to see if they come up with it themselves.)
Thok came up with this possibility, which is massive ++ points for him. Apparently this wasn't Talilan's agenda, though.-
-
Gaspar Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: The End of Time