California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)

[Gaspar]

/conform

[Gaspar]

Done

Pffft.


Needs more Deathmask Nezumi.

[Gaspar]

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.

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.

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."


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]

EBWOP: Hydras, please sign off on which one of you is making any individaul post, for EVERY post throughout the game. Transparency in hydras is important to me, and no protown hydra has any reason to hide who is making which posts.



kthxbai

[Gaspar]

TRIPLE POST!

Okay, so SL already made that request... I second it.

[Gaspar]

MafaiJin: The only question I demand you answer ASAP is why you chose to put

yourself

on-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.

[Gaspar]

Are you sure that being on camera means you can't even see the off stage thread? I can't tell from the rules and I would like clarification. If it does, then gaspar's suggestion is an eminently sensible one.

Quote removed. Do not quote the moderator. - Mod

[Gaspar]

Posting a song or photo to say "we need more time" should not be necessary. As long as the On-Camera plyers know to wait until you post "Closing Time," they should not choose.

[Gaspar]

MafaiJin: The only question I demand you answer ASAP is why you chose to put

yourself

on-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.

So that at least one town player will be in the Scene. Or at least that's my reason.

-SSK

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.

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 participating

in a lynch Off-Stage on D1

is 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]

Define "we." Does that refer to Might Orbots specifically?

[Gaspar]

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]

Also, this:

However, I see that you made your decision before this mod note, so I'm willing to discard that point entirely.

Quote removed. Do not quote the moderator. - Mod

[Gaspar]

In other news, I am confirmed innocent, and I'm 99% sure that Count de Morcerf is innocent.

Wat.

-PZ

I'm still waiting for an explanation for this.


-PZ

I have evidently chosen not to explain it at this time.

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

.

Have you checked the "Endgame" section under the Rules?

Confusing game is confusing. Not going to be useful until at least Tuesday, sorry!

Elmo

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.

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]

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]

You obviously haven't played a mafia game with me before, and you probably haven't read CT1 and CT2 closely enough.

[Gaspar]

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:

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

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?

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.

Either way I don't understand your point about the second and onwards scenes being

not

random, or at least

less

random 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 irrelevant

if

we 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]

Vote: Elmosaurian

, [Peoples], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

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]

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]

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

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.

[Gaspar]

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 say

something

to 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]

Oooh, that's actually a great way to communicate with those in-thread. We can make a list of messages we want to relay, make sure the Stuntsman copies them down, then switch the Stuntsman in every single day so that we can at least get a little feedback from the On-Camera players.

[Gaspar]

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 that

each Stuntsman can use the ability once

.


Reading is indeed tech.

[Gaspar]

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.

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:

MafaiJin: The only question I demand you answer ASAP is why you chose to put

yourself

on-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.

So that at least one town player will be in the Scene. Or at least that's my reason.

-SSK

@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

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.

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]

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.)

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.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, I think the second point was directed at you: He was saying that

you

were 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.

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 Innocent

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]

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]

You know, KY Krew could switch (actor) roles with Talilan to take her off-stage...

[Gaspar]

*Them. In my mind, I keep thinking "her" because the "Tali" just puts me in "Talitha" mode automatically.

[Gaspar]

I haven't made a case that one is scummier than the other. Elmosaurian stated that Talilan cannot be lynched today. I pointed out that techincally, she can.

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: Remember, if it were entirely up to me, KY would switch with MafiaJin, and we would be lynching scum anyway.

[Gaspar]

I know we can't lynch Talilan today, but I'm still pretty sure I've all ready caught a scum.

You know, KY Krew could switch (actor) roles with Talilan to take her off-stage...

Elmosaurian stated that Talilan cannot be lynched today. I pointed out that techincally, she can.

There's not really anything to "bring you up to speed" on.

[Gaspar]

Goofballoons: I didn't suggest that anything SHOULD happen. I said switching COULD happen. I was speaking only in the hypothetical.

[Gaspar]

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 that

THEY 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]

Gaspar: If MafiaJin is lynched, what do you feel about the fact that CKD who has ambiguous alignment would be taking over?

Better an unknown as director than likely scum.

[Gaspar]

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 them

little enough

to refrain from voting for them?

[Gaspar]

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 I

do

accept 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]

EBWOP: Also, I completely disagree with your listing of Shanba/Dahill/Hascow. I find them distinctly protown, based on what I've seen from dahill and what I know I saw in him when I played scum with him in the past.

[Gaspar]

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]

Gaspar, you're the one who's sure about hewitt; is that still true after what he's done in the on camera thread?

Actually, no. I haven't mentioned Hewitt yet. I have no opinion of him one way or another at this point. Wrong name, bucko.


I do have a question for you, though. Could you please elaborate on the quote below (particularly the part which I have italicized)?

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]

Balls. I meant to reply to Elmos and Orbots in one post, but I had different tabs open and accidentally hit
Submit." Oh well.

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?

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 your

Finish your sentence, much?

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.

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.

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.

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

Pfft. Predictability gets you killed.

[Gaspar]

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]

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]

I just looked at Hewitt's posts in isolation, and I see what you're saying. Hewitt talks about the "lesser of two evils." But the possible outcomes aren't "Bad" and "More Bad," so Hewitt's discussion serves only to distract the town from picking Valentine.

[Gaspar]

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.

Funny you should say that, considering I haven't mentioned MafiaJin in over two pages.

Um

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.

This was only two posts before my vote, glork. What do you mean you "hadn't mentioned mafiajin in 2 pages?"

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.

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".

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.

[Gaspar]

Also, a complete condorcet. I think three of my top 5 suspects are On Camera right now (Jin, Talilan, Hewitt), which really annoys me.

Unvote
Vote: Zwet

, KY Krew, [Seraphim, Thok], [Rawr Hydra, ShadowLurker, GoofballsandBaloons], [Orbots, Elmo, Bagel Eating Cowfrog], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

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.

I'd just like to point out that SL has done the same thing. (OOOOOOOH, DEFLECTION, RAJ!!!)

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]

Can we get claims out of Zwet and KY already? I'm bored.

[Gaspar]

As IH once said, fishing involves some degree of subtlety. But since I miscounted the number of votes on Krew, I'm cool with putting him back on 4.

Unvote
Vote: KY Krew

, Zwet, [Seraphim, Thok], [Rawr Hydra, ShadowLurker, GoofballsandBaloons], [Orbots, Elmo, Bagel Eating Cowfrog], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

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]

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]

Why was the OMGUS so unashamedly swift?

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.

- 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).

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.

- We never announced any intention of going through with a vote for Locke to drive.

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:
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]

Way too much hesitancy in that post compared to your earlier rantings for my lynch and a claim and such.

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.

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]

By the way, we still have nearly three FULL days to make a lynch. Not sure why you're being so fatalistic, but there's plenty of D1 left to be played.

[Gaspar]

Define "trends."

[Gaspar]

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.

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.

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.

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;

Please tell me how this is scummy and also how suggesting equals definitively advocating.

Gladly. You proposed that people follow Locke, so that he will switch alignments from Innocent to [Arbitrary Non-Innocent Alignment].

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.

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.

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".

"Scummy spin" my foot. Let's look, word-for-word, at what you said:

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.

Questions for you:
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:

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.

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."

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.

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.

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;

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.
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]

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]

Also, I'm going to bite on this:

My guess on the scumteam would probably be: Gaspar, Elmosaurian, zwet, KY Crew, hewitt and actually, ShadowLurker

Why six scumbags, and why Hewitt and ShadowLurker?

[Gaspar]

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 would be pretty upset with your horrendous use of mislogic.

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?

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.

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]

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

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.

[Gaspar]

"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."

This is exactly what I had in mind when I posted about Talilan's behavior on-stage:

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.)

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."

Thok came up with this possibility, which is massive ++ points for him. Apparently this wasn't Talilan's agenda, though.

[Gaspar]

FYI, the following people are very likely protown (in no particular order):
Rawr Hydra
Zwet
Orbots
Thok
Gaspar
BagelCowFrog
Locke (aka ckd)

I would say I'm wrong about at most one of those people... the rest of the scums can be found among everyone else, with the highest scum probability going to (again, in no particular order):
Krew
Hewitt
MafiaJin
Talilan

[Gaspar]

What makes you think it wasn't?

Well, I asked Talilan to explain their behavior, and in a lengthy conversation, Talilan didn't bring it up once. If Talilan were suddenly go "Oh yeah, that's another reason I was making alternate suggestions," I would not be inclined to believe them.

[Gaspar]

(Kore)

Perhaps I'm heavily biased towards it, because it was my own theory, but Talitha seems to have supported that she was essentially making conversation. Even if she didn't put it in so many words, the classic motivation for that is to get people talking and providing a chance to analyse them for their alignment, isn't it?

No. Based on the QuickTopic musings Ortolan (I think -- one of the hydra heads, anyway) posted, they definitely thought that turning Locke non-innocent in order to lynch known scum was something they thought about. What I was thinking was maybe, just maybe, they knew that Follow Valentine was the right decision all along, and that they just acted as though they didn't think so to get reactions from Valentine and Locke themselves. However, that isn't the case based on what I've heard from Talilan.

elmosaurian, I don't care that the odds of both Advocates being scum are theoretically "tiny." That's like me listing two people I think are scum, and being rebutted with "but the odds of both of them being scum are tiny."

Actually, there's a big difference between presumed randomization of alignment, and listing two players you think are scum based on game evidence, but I'm going to let that slide and butt out of this conversation now.

Also, I agree with RH that the "finish your sentence" tangent was a nuisance and a distraction on what I still consider an

extremely

minor brain fart on Elmosaurian's part. It's a good thing nobody asked me to finish a sentence, because I proba-


Even though I think he's town, Zwet should probably claim his actor name, and any other relevant information, because we're running extremely short on time, and I think he's still our condorcet leader. I for one am interested in his Secret Word. People haven't really divulged them in CT1 or CT2, but I kind of want to see if we can actually make use of them in this game.

[Gaspar]

In light of seeing Elmosaur's 480, and PJ's reply in 490, I'm going to unvote. I suddenly feel like I've played an extremly poor day one.

Unvote

[Gaspar]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 19#1843719

Paraphrasing what I wrote in our quicktopic on the 23rd:

"The only evidence against both getting the chance to defect is I'm fairly sure mith said the outcome was either good or bad. Which suggests there are two differing outcomes depending on who we choose to drive. But I guess that's sufficiently vague to perhaps maintain the possibility that they both could have symmetrical offers of being traitors.

I concur with you in that it doesn't seem bad play to just take ckd at his word, allow him to drive the bus then lynch him. At least we guarantee the lynch of scum- because either he's become scum or he already was scum and was lying."

I hope that has given you some insight into our thought process at the time. I would check with Grey to see if I'm allowed to directly quote from our quicktopic, I assume we can.

My gut still tells me that Locke and Valentine both know that following Valentine is the better decision for the town, and that at most one of them is scum, but the extent to which I thought Talilan and Hewitt were scummy because of their questioning has been reduced.

And to answer your earlier question, MJL, about why I haven't given you the same attention, I suppose it's because you haven't been in the game this whole time, and I'm looking for redeeming aspects outside of your Locke-concern before deciding whether you're scum or not. Hewitt's play has been bad in general, IMO, and you know I haven't been pleased with Talilan, so there's more than just them questioning Locke.


I guess I still think Talilan is a better lynch than Zwet, so

Vote:Talilan

, [people], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

If you think I am scummy

The thing is, I don't think you're

anything

yet. Like I said, I wanted to see more from you before deciding one way or the other.

[Gaspar]

If you think I am scummy

The thing is, I don't think you're

anything

yet. Like I said, I wanted to see more from you before deciding one way or the other.

You ignore me.

Sorry, I didn't know you expected a response.

I find gaspar scummy because of his unanticipated reversal of his point of view on me that everyone else seems to have ignored or missed.

My reversal was unanticipated because -- and see if you can follow this:

KY Krew a COMPLTELY UNANTICIPATED DECISION, which makes him very likely scum

. Like I've already explained, going On Camera and leaving you hanging out to dry makes it

MUCH

more likely that you're a victimized townie.

Of COURSE my reversal was unanticipated. I didn't expect Krew to do what he did, and I don't think anybody else did either. That was the DIRECT trigger which caused me to change my mind about you.

That's my explanation, and that's exactly what it has been all along. Somebody (Shanba?) said they saw that as being fairly protown, so not everyone has by and large ignored it. What I want to know, Zwet, is what YOU think of my explanation.

[Gaspar]

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."

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Please provide one way in which this is not exactly the same thing or entailed by "generating discussion and getting reads on other players", which is what we claimed as our goal multiple times.

No. This is bull. You quoted your own damned QuickTopic to say you thought following Locke actually had merit. Now you're saying you suggested following him merely to create discussion? I'm not even sure YOU know what you're trying to say here. You're either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or you're just vomiting nonsense as you go along.

I don't understand what you were referring to as your "poor play" considering you revoted us in 496.

I think I let myself get sidetracked by some assumptions I had made. Nevertheless, after stopping and thinking about it, I decided that your play as a whole (not just the fact that you wanted to follow Locke) makes you the most viable scum lynch candidate at this point. My play has been less-than-stellar, but there's also still a pretty solid chance I arrived at the right conclusion.

[Gaspar]

The choices are not equal however. You are putting one person in danger. The chances of KY Krew being town after his shenanigans in my eyes is virtually nil. And if MafiaJin and Talian are both scum, he could always go for hewitt or someone. Actually, now I wonder why KY Krew would not really try and screw up things by picking an advocate or the voice of reason sottyrulez. Is he protecting zwet maybe?

All I have to do is decide if you are the type of person who would put the poisoned player in front of me, or in front of yourself?

What part of this isn't WIFOM?

It is frustrating for me right now because I rely largely on meta reads and since I haven't played in a fair while, I have no meta read.

Been there, done... wait, doing that.

Looking at Off Stage in general, I really feel like most of the scum are On Stage. On Stage has been a clusterfuck today when it should have been a relatively straightforward situation and I feel like scum were definitely confusing that situation. Meanwhile Off Stage, I feel has been very insightful and protown in general.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Gaspar, who I really just completely disagree with

This probably stems from the above. Neither of us feel there are standout good lynch candidates Off-Stage, so we're looking at fringe cases, where we are more likely to differ.

Occam's Razor suggests it's easy because it is easy. If there is another reason, then it more likely is a mith-mod tell than a CKD/Panzer scum tell.

Bingo. (Boy, do I find myself agreeing with Thok quite a bit today.) If the Good Decision seemed obvious, it's because it probably is obvious. This is primarily why I have been so steadfast in grinding at people who want Locke to drive. It should have been apparent from Locke's VERY FIRST POST what the good decision was. In spite of Elmosaurian's "well one decision may be better short-term while the other is better longterm," I'm going to go ahead and venture that this is not the case. It's possible, but I find it unlikely.

A bit of a tangent to our earlier discussion, but:

- Uncertainty is not a scum-tell, particularly in this setup when scum know which is the correct decision, and innocents do not.

How do the scums know which decision is correct? Did I miss something in the rules that state that the scums have knowledge of Good/Bad decisions? I thought only the advocates (regardless of alignment) were given information on the decisions.

The only notable things I've seen you do all day are attack myself and MafiaJin. Which of these are less than stellar, and if you agree they are less than stellar why are you persisting with them?

You're obviously not looking very hard, because I've already responded to the "Gaspar is only attacking one person" argument once. I'm not going to go do it again, and I'm not going to sit here giving you cliffnotes on what I have and have not discussed.

And now I think of it I recall actually arguing with Gaspar saying the "day one decision is random" in contrast to later days, where it is affected by scum-WIFOM (which means he agreed with the above paragraph). Now, however, he is arguing, having no further information about the setup, that it is not random and that the advocates advice will reliably lead us to the correct decision.

Gaspar- please explain this behaviour

Thok- please explain why you are not suspicious of Gaspar for this behaviour.

Prior to the start of Day One, the only information we had on the decision was the following:
One decision is good, while the other is bad.
There are two Advocates On Camera, each of which has insight about which decision is good/bad.
Each advocate's alignment is both random and independent of the decisions which concern their leadership.

This argument, as Thok so astutely pointed out, was made prior to Scene One. Since it's start, the posting has obviously guided us towards a non-random decision, much in the same way that "random" votes at the start of a regular mafia game can lead to non-random interactions and non-random lynches. So in that respect, I stand somewhat corrected in having thought that Decision One would be largely random, but there are an abundance of reasons which contributed to my realizing this.

It is really frustrating that Gaspar is not a viable lynch today when everyone is letting him slide by on reputation when really he is acting as scummy as it is possible for one player to act, and elmo and Thok are both towing the party line.

What I'm getting out of this is that three people have strongly disagreed with you, and now you believe they are all the most likely scum candidates. This statement is obviously very simplified, but at it's root, that's the pattern I have noticed. Good to know my vote's in the right place.

Glork is such a good information lynch. If (when) he flips scum we can knock over all his buddies like dominoes.

Aha. Couldn't convince enough people to think I'm scum, so now you want to lead an

INFORMATION

lynch on me? You're really grasping at this point.

[Gaspar]

Well I am headed out for a long weekend (yay Labor Day), so I suppose I have no choice but to put in a self-preservation vote before I go. Sorry, Zwet.

(PS. Mod, this means I too will have very limited access this weekend.)


Quick responses to Talilan's new points:

- He announced intentions of meta'ing zwet but has made no attempts to meta my half of the hydra; even though his primary and most important interactions over the last few days have been with us.

Digging for "I typically only vote when it's a hammer" is very easily verifiable, though thanks for reminding me that Zwet never provided those links, and I didn't follow up. (By the way, this is an example of less-than-stellar play. In my hayday, I would have been all over this until I got my links.)

- He has not in any way reconsidered his position (or simply acted indidgnantly, as I might expect him to according to meta) since we came off-stage and started attacking him for his opportunistic attacks on us. Instead he is entirely acting like scum afraid for their life and dug his heels in.

That's because you haven't behaved any better since coming Off Stage and attacking anybody who even looks at you funny. Mass OMGUS is a pretty significant scumtell for me, and you have exhibited it since you first came offstage, even going as far as to accuse Elmosaurian of omgusing YOU. Your behavior in-thread was bad, I haven't liked your explanations for your behavior, your logic and decision-making have been unsound, your suspicions amount to "people who have attacked me", and you just tried to push the fallback "let's lynch him for information." That's like five good reasons to suspect you outside of my initial read.

Furthermore, I'm going to use a Talilan quote to explain why meta is much less significant when dealing with you (as a hydra) than an individual player.

Have you ever been a mason or a hydra, Thok? When you have another person to bounce thoughts around with, it makes you play differently.

Ortolan is calling me scummy for failing to meta them, while Talitha is saying "well we're a hydra, so we are playing differently than we normally would."

Derp.

Unvote, Vote: Zwet

, Talilan, [people], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

DGB says that Krew conveniently ended it after I switched to Zwet, but two things here:
1) As SL said, Zwet was leading the condorcet before I switched my vote over to him. In the context of "Gaspar vs Zwet," I already had Zwet ahead of me in my condorcet, so there was no functional change. My vote was largely symbolic to say "I'd rather have someone else lynched than me."
2) Krew had to know that we would react against his switch and behavior, and he hammered before Zwet or Orbots had a chance to confirm that he is dirty scum and that noboy offstage likes or believes him. Perhaps he was hoping to rush a mislynch for the Off-Stage people, too. Now granted, the lynch ended up being between two protown players, but

FYI, I would still like the director changed during the off-scene. I still think that MafiaJin was behaving out of self-interest, as he put himself on camera for Scene 1 and was guaranteed to be on camera for Scene 2. I realize that

someone

probably has to be on-camera twice in a row, but I don't like that anyone would offer themselves up for the job when our more important business is off-stage still irritates me.

For what it's worth, MJ, I want to be left off-stage if possible. There was a significant push towards me at the end of the day, with Talilan and DGB both jumping onto me, and that gives me pause for concern. I do NOT like when people try to deadline lynch me, so this is something I want to look into personally.


-----


In unrelated news:
Thok, you've stepped in and answered for me three times (give or take, I haven't been counting) in the last 48 hours or so. Are you buddying up to me? The first time or two, I was like "whatever, that's just Thok being Thok" but your most recent defense of me has taken you off my list of very likely Innocents.

Hewitt, could you please explain your On-Camera behavior -- that is, could you explain to us why you pushed following Locke for so long? I'd like you to detail your thought processes behind each of your posts during Scene One.

I'm not following the logic behind believing that scums can communicate at all times during the game. Could you folks please elaborate on that? I acknowledge that it's possible, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is likely.

[Gaspar]

Last point before I read new posts but Gaspar, before the game you claimed Count de Morcef was 99% innocent. Yet then when Orbots questioned you about it, you said that it was not Hewitt you were claiming it about and that Orbots had the wrong name. However, a look at the cast shows that it is indeed Hewitt who is Count de Morcef. Clarify that please. (I don't believe Orbots ever followed up on this"

Is this directed at me? Either way, I have no problem explaining what I said.


In both CT1 and CT2, I was of the same alignment as Count De Morcerf. (In fact, in CT1, I WAS Count de Morcerf.) In both games, Morcerf and I both survived. I made a completely baseless, joke comment about Morcerf being almost certainly protown because I know that I'm protown, I wanted to reference CT1, and CT2, and I wanted to see what people actually said about such a statement by me.

That's really all there is to it. I never actually had any reason to believe that Morcerf is innocent; I was basically making random statements about alignment during the equivalent of "start of Day One."

[Gaspar]

Super duper quick early morning post, then I really AM gone for the weekend.

This is so bogus. Glork is actually flaunting his scumminess, I bet they are rofl'ing in their quicktopic about how reluctant people are to lynch Glork even when he's obv-scum.

How is what I said bogus? How does asking Thok why he defends me in any way "flaunt my scumminess"?

I will be very, very, very displeased if Gaspar somehow lives through day two.

You'd rather have someone else lynched over Krew? Enormous Gigantor FoS.
Seriously, if you're protown, you're going to get an extremely long and extremely angry rant from me after this game. If you're scum, I suppose you're doing your job by CONSTANTLY making an enormous ruckuss in the wrong direction so I wouldn't be able to fault you there.

Also, I read the thread but I'm not sure if the reason Gaspar is 100% confirmed innocent ever was explained. Does anyone know what happened with that? Is he indeed 100% confirmed with hewitt? I would really like an answer to that before people end up on stage.

Actually, I just answered this in my last post:

Last point before I read new posts but Gaspar, before the game you claimed Count de Morcef was 99% innocent. Yet then when Orbots questioned you about it, you said that it was not Hewitt you were claiming it about and that Orbots had the wrong name. However, a look at the cast shows that it is indeed Hewitt who is Count de Morcef. Clarify that please. (I don't believe Orbots ever followed up on this"

Is this directed at me? Either way, I have no problem explaining what I said.


In both CT1 and CT2, I was of the same alignment as Count De Morcerf. (In fact, in CT1, I WAS Count de Morcerf.) In both games, Morcerf and I both survived. I made a completely baseless, joke comment about Morcerf being almost certainly protown because I know that I'm protown, I wanted to reference CT1, and CT2, and I wanted to see what people actually said about such a statement by me.

That's really all there is to it. I never actually had any reason to believe that Morcerf is innocent; I was basically making random statements about alignment during the equivalent of "start of Day One."

[Gaspar]

I fail to see any evidence whatsoever of MafiaJin being scummy. Gaspar's push on him has always been scummy and baseless. MafiaJin also voted that Valentine drives almost instantly after hearing the advice of Locke, which as Thok and Gaspar and elmo have said any good townie in that situation should have done, and which we are scummy for not doing; but apparently MafiaJin is still scummy for it (if any more evidence was needed of Gaspar using tells entirely selectively and arbitrarily).

[If you can find one shred of evidence that I said "MafiaJin is scummy for immediately wanting to follow Valentine," I will honestly eat my hat. I swear, I'll even YouTube it, too. And I like wearing my hat on my head.

This is not just a gross misrepresentation of my dislike of MafiaJin; it's a complete and utter

LIE

. I NEVER said ANYTHING of that nature.

Honestly, Ortolan, I have to know. Do you have any idea what any of my arguments over this game have been, or do you insist on just throwing a bunch of words at me in the hopes that you'll trick someone like Goofballs into thinking I just might be scum?



Goofballs, what do you have to say about the quoted post and my response?

[Gaspar]

I said that Glork has attacked us for not going with the follow Valentine decision all along; but he is also attacking MafiaJin who DID go with the follow Valentine decision all along. Seeing as it's the only scum-tell he produced on us before we counter-attacked him, and yet he was so confident we were scum because of it, presumably he should be equally confident that MafiaJin is town

NO. No, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Remember when I said I'd be pissed at your horrendous use of mislogic? This is EXACTLY the type of thing I'm talking about.

If A, then B

DOES NOT IMPLY

If not A, then not B

In this case, let's call A "X suggested/advocated following Locke." Let's call B "X is scum."

My argument is:
"If X suggested/advocated following Locke, then X is more likely to be scum."

The statement:
"If X did not suggest/advocate following Locke, then X is not scum" DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY FROM THE ABOVE.

The fact that I thought you were scummy for pushing Locke DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLY THAT I DID THINK, OR SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT VALENTINE-PUSHERS ARE INHERENTLY PROTOWN.

This is inherently FLAWED LOGIC.

Ask the other mathematician in this game, Thok, to confirm that your logic is flawed. Ask Thesp, or PJ, or ShadowLurker, or anybody who FUCKING KNOWS HOW PROPER LOGIC WORKS, and they will tell you that you are FLAT OUT WRONG. You claim that everything I say is "baseless" when your arguments are COMPLETELY INVALID.


--------

Obviously I wasn't considering KY Crew at the time (considering he starts the scene on-stage and all) and have been calling him obv-scum for a long while now. This is either a joke FoS which I wouldn't expect from you, or simply a totally baseless one.

Joke? Baseless? You stated that I was the person you most want to see lynched on Day Two, even though Krew has very obviously shown to EVERYBODY that he is like 99.999999% to be scum. Your defense ("I forgot about Krew at the time I said that") is NOT obvious, which is why I called you on it, and now you are backpedaling after you got caught trying to press that I should be lynched over YOUR scumbuddy.


--------


As of now, unless you (Talilan) have new, concise, and logically sound points to make against me, I'm done with this back-and-forth. I think that everyone else has gotten all they can out of our discussion, and to continue it any further is a waste of everyone's time. At this point, we are both very obviously set in the opinion that the other is scum.

[Gaspar]

Super duper quick post. I am enjoying my weekend, by the way, despite a terrible cold.


I've only barely skimmed the thread since my last post, but the post just above mine caught my attention. So I just wanted to reply to this:

Switch to the other door and end the scene: Cake, "Sheep go go Heaven (Goats go to Hell)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mx5ERj1eI

Stay with the currend door and and the scene: Cake, "Stickshifts and Safetybelts": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3i7EFYk-_c

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

This shouldn't matter.

Everybody, PLEASE look at the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem


Today's decision should yield a 2/3 chance of picking the Good door no matter what. Our chosen advocate will pick any door of their choice. One of the BAD doors will be revealed, and then our Advocate

MUST SWITCH DOORS TO ENSURE THE BEST CHANCE OF PICKING THE GOOD DOOR

.

I'd like everybody guaranteed to be on-stage (as well as Talilan, whom I assume will be switching out with KY after a week or so) to confirm this in-thread. Once MafiaJin makes his decision who to add, but

BEFORE SENDING THOSE CHOICES IN TO THE MOD

, he should let us know who he plans on sending so those people can also confirm the contents in Orbots' post and in this post. I want 100% clarity of information from Off-Stage to On-Camera.


Enjoy the rest of your weekend, folks. I am off to buy some cough drops and a gallon of orange juice... gotta get my Vitamin C.

[Gaspar]

If an advocate knows a door is bad for SURE, then make sure you guys pick it, and then switch when the other bad door is revealed

Yeah, this evening two thoughts occurred to me. One was basically the above, where our Advocate has limited information, up to and including the result of one or more doors.

The other is that if the scums can choose a scum advocate (I'm not clear on whether this is possible, but I didn't see anything in the rules to suggest that it is impossible), then they could just pick the Good door and assume that we will follow the Monty Hall problem.


So in spite of my last post, I have no idea what the players on camera should do.

[Gaspar]

If scum choose a scum advocate in that situation, then we'll know because the outcome of the choice (good/bad) is revealed post-scene. So they have to sacrifice a scumbag in order to mislead us there. I'm willing to take that risk, as we're a little bit ahead of the game on the on camera department anyway.

-Shanba

That's a silly notionn. Even if a protown advocate uses the Monty Hall problem and switches, there's still a 33% chance that the outcome will be Bad. Ending the day with a Bad outcome does not imply that the Adovcate was scum. Moderate FoS for blatantly terrible reasoning. I expect you to have common sense enough not to say this, Shanba.

[Gaspar]

Only if the advocate has no information at all. However, I think the rules are pretty clear that he does, so he should do significantly better then a 66% chance correct.

So, yeah, if we end the day with a bad outcome, I think there's a pretty high chance the advocate is scum.

-Yos

Yos: post 4 has a rundown of the first few scenes.

Gaspar: what Yos said. Plus, I do not believe the on camera stuff will be a crapshoot, so we must be given enough information to come to a decision. Furthermore, I think we need to hold advocates accountable to avoid scum abusing their ability to pick them. An advocate who unequivocally leads us wrong ought to be lynched.

Actually, wait. Gaspar, that post was in reference to both your and SL's posts - in other words, that the advocate has info for sure. You took that out of context to attack me there, and your logic is specious anyway.

:\

-Shanba

Whoops, you're completely right. I really have no idea what I was thinking there. Probably nothing, considering I've been sick as a dog most of the weekend. I did take your post entirely out of context, but I assure you that was completely accidental. It's your choice whether to believe me here or not.

I guess I take slight issue to the assumption that the "partial information" known to the Advocate is "Door X is Bad," but that's pretty insignificant. Still, we should wait and see what our advocate says he knows abou tthe choice.


And for the record, I am 100% in favor of the advocate telling us EVERYTHING they know about the day's On Camera decision. I am much more in favor of the Locke approach than the Valentine approach from yesterday. If the scums choose a scum advocate, we can at least force them to fake "partial information" and catch them in a lie.

Interesting. Elmosaurian is under some heat so you whisk them off to the safety of the On Camera thread?

In all fairness, a bunch of people are under 'some' heat. I assume MafiaJin's reasoning here is that he doesn't want to leave everybody scummy-looking Off Stage, because that makes a mislynch much easier. Furthermore, we already know that we're lynching KY Krew tomorrow, so it doesn't really matter whether Elmosaurian is left Off Stage.

[Gaspar]

Thok

Curiouskarmadog

ShadowLurker

Elmosaurian

Bagel Eating Cowfrog


Well I am submitting this list. Failure for very little feedback. I tried to take a mix of some scummy and some townie people to me, leaving the ones that a majority seem to think are scum/have not contributed.

This may sound dumb, but aren't you supposed to submit only four names to join those already in the scene?

[Gaspar]

Of course the scums made Krew the Adovcate. I had a strong suspicion they would. I think Krew should be pulled after approximately 48 hours, unless the other players on camera request that we get rid of him sooner.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, Talilan hit the nail on the head. With a known scumbag choosing Door One immediately, we really can't make ANY guess as to whether he chose a good door or a bad door. So, basically our Scene Two decision really IS a 50/50 crapshoot, unless anybody else has a bright idea. It was the obvious play for scums to mkae, DGB.


Over the next day or three, I'm going to re-read Dau 1 post-Scene-One and see if I can realign some of my thoughts and feelings. My top suspects are still mostly intact.

Also, I'm trilled about CKD being the Director now. I am MUCH more confident of his towniness than MafiaJin's, obviously, though I don't suspect MJ quite as much as I used to.

[Gaspar]

Also, my gut/crap-shoot/wanna see if I'm right later pick: We should stay with Door 1.

Unlike Talitha my gut actually says he will be double-bluffing and thus we should switch as per usual Razz

I would really like to hear explanations as to why each of you feel the way you do.

I find it more than a little interesting that a hydra would actually both sit here and make gut calls and actually disagree, so I want to know if either of your "guts" have any thought processes behind them, or if you just flipped coins or something.

[Gaspar]

I find it more than a little interesting that a hydra would actually both sit here and make gut calls and actually disagree

I'm pretty surprised you'd call that into question as the whole point of a "gut" call is an instinctual thing rather than something that has for example been reasoned through or in the context of a hydra for example, discussed with your partner. I'd be more inclined to think the scum-team is double-bluffing with the correct decision and in fact the correct move is to switch as it usually is. I tend to give people more credit that way. "Hmm, well they know we're trying to sabotage them, therefore let's put the wine in its usual position and leave it for them to out-think themselves". Of course the level of "bluffing" is infinitely abstractable and Talitha might not think of them as single-bluffing but rather triple-bluffing or quintiple-bluffing or somesuch.

I'm calling into question its point because I don't see how it helps arrive at a decision to have one hydra head say X while the other says Y. That combination of posts, to me, makes it feel like you're pushing indecision rather than decision -- espeically because this is something I would expect you two to have discussed in your QT before coming into the thread about it. (At least, it's the kind of thing I would discuss with my hydra-mate beforehand, if I had one.) In my humble opinion, it'd have been more reasonable to say that Talilan, as a hydra, doesn't know which way to go on the KY Krew stance due to WIFOM.

Cow's most recent post is massive plus points. Pretty sure I've maintained that they are fairly protown all along (aside from misinterpreting that one post by Shanba), but still worth mentioning that they're obvtown.

I have a thought or two on CKD's timing, but like with Talilan/Jin from Scene 1, I'm not going to sit here and feed him potential explanations by posting in here about it now. This is more of a "Note to self" once we get between scenes again.

I'm either really disappointed in Thesp, or he's trying to be sly scum. Either way, I'd like to hear him talk about me more. I like the attention.

Another note-to-self: I expect MASSIVE input from the MrBuddyLee half of the hydra once we get off-stage again. Unless I missed something (distinctly possible), he didn't post at all since they entered the game.

One explanation I

will

throw out is for the hidden Assistant Director, whomever that may be. Perhaps Thesp was chosen because he isn't required to be On Camera for scenes three or four. From a sheer gameplay perspective, you want your Directors of Photography and Audiography to be Off-Stage as much as humanly possible. Of the people currently off-stage, the only ones who will also be off-stage for the next two scenes are Thesp, Hewitt, and StarKiss. Of the three, Thesp is, I think, the least suspected overall, so it makes sense that Thesp would be picked over the other two.
So there. No more fishing for information from Mystery Assistant Director. May their identity and their innocence be safely hidden away forever more.

Mufasa's most recent post was decidednly worthless. I echo DGB in saying "Uh?"

Yes, I am using it as a town-tell in this case.

Yeah, he didn't say "in this case." You've used agreement/disagreement as a town tell in nearly all of your suspicions (if not every one). Buddying up to people who agree with you is a good scum tactic, and a terrible town tactic, so BEC's skepticism here is spot on.



There. That post feels more like the Gaspar of old. And aside from a lingering cough, I feel human again. The scums ought to be shaking in their boots by now.

[Gaspar]

Goofballs: Nobody is voting because Krew is still On Camera, and we can't vote for On Camera people.

Talitha: I suppose your opinion is fair enough. But before I continue with this line of thought, I want a poll from everyone Off Camera:

Which door would you vote for right now if it were up to you?
A) Door 1
B) Door 2
C) Undecided

If you've come to a decision, reasons for your decision would be much-appreciated.

[Gaspar]

Oh, and as far as MBL goes: MBL and I have a bit of a history, and a very unique meta with each other. PJ is a tough nut to crack, and while MBL is no slouch himself, we read each other very differently from most people. So my reasons for wanting to hear from MBL specifically are about 95% meta-based, and 5% nostalgic indulgence.

[Gaspar]

Goofballs: Nobody is voting because Krew is still On Camera, and we can't vote for On Camera people.

Last time I voted MafiaJin while he was ON camera, my vote was counted.

-DGB

Wait, what? Really? Can you link me to a post? I PMed the mod pre-Scene 1 (or at the very beginning of Scene 1) and he told me that people On Camera couldn't be voted for. It might have been a clerical issue, or there's something strange going on with MafiaJin and/or the Director job.

I want a poll from everyone Off Camera:

Which door would you vote for right now if it were up to you?
A) Door 1
B) Door 2
C) Undecided

Isn't the whole door selection a great big knot of WIFOM to begin with? Are you setting up a WIFOM trap that you can use to later accuse people on false premises, while pretending to hunt scum?

No, I'm not setting up a trap. Just wait and see. I'm working my Gasparian magicks here, and they are most certainly protown. I know you don't believe me now (even though you really should; I'll bop you atop the head after the game), but I'm testing something.

Pre-Post Edit: Mod did clarify. I am assuming he made a clerical error on your earlier vote, DGB.

Sotty: I want the usual -- that is, detailed reasons for supsicion of me. Also, answer my poll, please.

Mod Note:

Clerical error corrected.

[Gaspar]

Of the people currently offstage, a condorcet:

Vote: [Talilan, Hewitt], TheBlade, [Thesp, StarKiss, Sottyrulez], Panzer, [G&B, BEC], No Lynch, Gaspar

[Gaspar]

Of the people currently offstage, a condorcet:

Vote: [Talilan, Hewitt], TheBlade, [Thesp, StarKiss, Sottyrulez], Panzer, [G&B, BEC], No Lynch, Gaspar

Why aren't you voting KY Krew? We can. The second he comes off stage, the votes count.

Are you certain that On-Camera votes become real votes the second they are moved Off-Stage? I'm not voting Krew because I'm under the assumption that until they come offstage, we can't vote for them. I will update my condorcet (taking off Talilan and putting Krew on) at the time. But until then, this is my order of lynch preference for people

who are currently Off-Stage

. If some ability were to end the day right now, without a switch, I would want Talilan and Hewitt at the top of my condorcet.

Why do you find hewitt as scummy as Talilan? Do you think they are scum together?

Already been through my earlier dislike of Hewitt, but his most recent contributions seemed all to sheep onto existing arguments. No new insight stood out to me, and sheepy sheeps are more likely to be scummy scums. I don't see why Hewitt and Tally wouldn't be scum together. Hewitt can say Tally looks worse in her argument with us, but Krew is obviously the lynch of the day, and I appear to be the flavor of the month. It seems like a very reasonable distancing tactic to me.

Why is Mufblade above [Thesp, StarKiss, Sottyrulez]?

See his last post, and see your and my reaction to it. TheBlade re-read the entire thread, and all he had to say was "interesting, let's lynch Krew." That's enough to put him up on my list for the time being.

Do you think Mufblade is scum with Talian or hewitt? Do you see connections between the players that top your list?

I don't see why TheBlade couldn't be scum with either of them, but I don't notice a strong connection between him and either Talilan or Hewitt. That's one of the reasons he is slightly below both of those players.

Right now it has a lot to do with your vote for Zwet and how KY Krew rushed the end of the day. I can't believe the two aren't linked in some fashion. DGB was right, at the time things were starting to turn for you. I don't think it was a coincidence

I have no defense to the timing other than to say that the scums set me up, and that once I'm lynched as an innocent, look strongly at the people who first proposed the KY-Gaspar connection.

Then there is the whole back and forth you had with Talilan. It just feels needlessly over blown to me and the fact that I have read the thread but can sit here and not remember your actual points against them isn't good.

Can you remember Talilan's points against me? Also, look at the very last line of this post where I was actually the player to stop and say "we're clearly set on our opinions, and we're going to be a distraction to the rest of the town if we keep going." I think that will soften your current stance on this point quite a bit.

Also you seem to be thinking more about yourself than the town. You aren't going to be lynched today but you seem overly concerned about making the day about someone else over KY Krew. Zach did have you listed slightly lower on our list, but he now agrees more with me after your reaction. He doesn't know why you would be so worried about it when todays lynch is KY Krew.

This is how I always play. I ALWAYS want to know why people suspect me, because I want to pick out those reasons and examine them. I typically find it easier to find scum who are running ME up than scums who are running OTHER people up.

ANYBODY who has played with me in the past can tell you this. Sadly, most of the people who know me best (PJ, MBL, Thok, Yosarian, Pooky) are currently On Camera. I understand where you're coming from, but I have always been a self-interested bastard.


I do like your response to me, though. It seems reasonble enough.

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: That "Talilan" quote should read "sottyrulez." Brain fart because it dealt with the Gaspar-Talilan discussion. Sorry.

[Gaspar]

Why aren't you voting KY Krew? We can. The second he comes off stage, the votes count.

Are you certain that On-Camera votes become real votes the second they are moved Off-Stage?

That's my understanding. We're read the same mod comment, obviously, we differ in our interpretation.

Is there a reason

not

to stick KY Krew in with the lot?

If some ability were to end the day right now, without a switch, I would want Talilan and Hewitt at the top of my condorcet.

Say you put KY Krew first, and Talilan second, and every player does the same. The KY Krew votes don't count. Then Talilan is lynched. Is there a downside to that as far as your suspicions are concerned?

Thank you for answering the other questions, I'm satisfied with the answers.

-DGB

Initially I didn't type it because I thought it was pointless to do so. I didn't change it in my last post because I still don't think it makes a difference, and I didn't want to bother re-typiing my condorcet. Now I'm going to leave him off until the switch just to be stubborn towards you.

Plus, if everybody token-puts Krew on their list, he may be autolynched as soon as he arrives. I want to keep KY Krew at exactly Lynch -2 all day until we are certain the On Camera players have made their decision. We saw him switch off to save his own skin, then hammer On Camera to frame (or "save" for those who are idiot/wrong/scum) me. I'd put cash monies that if we put him at Lynch -1, he will self-hammer at the least opportune time.

[Gaspar]

Ortolan: There is one MASSIVE difference between what I've said and what you've done. I have asked for explanations behind people's suspicions of you, but you have almost universally (Elmosaurian, me, Hewitt) fought to convince others that your attackers are scums. Note that one of the people I find most protown (G&B) is someone who really wants me dead. Do not try to liken your behavior to my playstyle, because there are some very large fundamental differences between the two.

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: Add Thok to that list. Seriously, it's ridiculous.

[Gaspar]

I have no defense to the timing other than to say that the scums set me up, and that once I'm lynched as an innocent, look strongly at the people who first proposed the KY-Gaspar connection.

I want it noted that I never thought KY Crew's activities

alone

necessarily implicated Glork. It's true that KY Crew, as scum, had motivation to do that then regardless of whether Glork is scum.

What exactly provoked you to respond to this statement, which was made in response to Sottyrulez?

[Gaspar]

They don't counter Hewitt's stance, because OMGUS is accusing your attackers of being scum, not asking them to explain themselves. Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

[Gaspar]

No, I'm sorry, but I 100% agree with Hewitt here. Maybe if you had looked at one of your four biggest attackers and found any one of them to be reasonably protown, but you don't. You have done nothing but try to discredit all four of us, and that's a gigantic red flag when it comes to scumbags. From the moment someone disagrees with you, they're scum, and from the moment their top suspicions coincide with your top suspicions, they're protown (i.e., Thesp, G&B).

DGB is the first person that hops into mind. I'm pretty sure she was the first to suggest that link. Who else would you put here?

Honestly, I'd have to go back and look at it. One sec...

Okay, here's the timeline as I see it.
DGB first brought it up in Post 559
SL came to my defense in Post 560
DGB reiterated her stance in Post 563 and Post 566. She is very married to this theory right off the bat.
Talilan makes a very interesting take on the issue. First, she dances around the issue in Post 580, noting that Krew's move is good "irrespective of whether you think this incriminates Glork or not."
In her very next post, Post 594, she inexplicably says that I instructed Krew to drop the hammer before I could be the condorcet leader. Note that this was in direct response to CKD's question: "Wait, why was CKD lynched all of a sudden?" Her explanation is 100% speculation, yet she presents it as fact. This is also the post in which she conveniently forgot that Krew is confirmed scum and said that I needed to be lynched D2.

That's all I can see for a few pages, and it's late. DGB first proposed it, and pushed it pretty hard, and then Talilan took over as flagbearer. I still think G&B's behavior overall is fairly protown, but yeah, I'm like 99.9999% sure that Talilan is scum.

And truth be told, this exploration makes me feel MUCH better about probably being lynched on D3 or D4. As long as Talilan dies as scum the very next day, I'll trade me for a scumbag anyday.

[Gaspar]

Pretty sure we answered this in the same post. Barring some divine intervention, the lynch for the day is KY Krew. Gaspar appears worried that he is going to get lynched and so is making the day about someone who isn't KY Krew. Or at least attempting to. This is harmful for the town because it could serve as a distraction to the town.

Bzzt. Let me quote a handful of my posts since Krew's put himself On Camera during Day One, and into the OffStage and into Day Two.

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.

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.

Furthermore, we already know that we're lynching KY Krew tomorrow, so it doesn't really matter whether Elmosaurian is left Off Stage.

My reversal was unanticipated because -- and see if you can follow this:

KY Krew [made] a COMPLTELY UNANTICIPATED DECISION, which makes him very likely scum.

Like I've already explained, going On Camera and leaving you hanging out to dry makes it MUCH more likely that you're a victimized townie.

I will be very, very, very displeased if Gaspar somehow lives through day two.

You'd rather have someone else lynched over Krew? Enormous Gigantor FoS.

Of course the scums made Krew the Adovcate. I had a strong suspicion they would. I think Krew should be pulled after approximately 48 hours, unless the other players on camera request that we get rid of him sooner.

I think it should be quite apparent that

FROM THE MOMENT KREW PUT HIMSELF ONSTAGE, I WANTED HIM TO BE THE DAY TWO LYNCH

. That has been a done deal in my mind for like a solid week now.


The reason I'm talking about other people is because IMO, there's very little to discuss about Krew. He is absolute, definite scum. Zero doubt in my mind. More certain of it than even Talilan. What I'm doing, Sottyrulez, is trying to get something ELSE useful out of this day as well, by asking critical questions of several players. That's just basic Protown Play 101. What do you want me to say? "Hay guys, I still think Krew is the lynch of the day?" If that's what you want, I'll say it for the dozenth time. But after making all of the above statements, I didn't think anybody could be so stupid enough to accuse me of "making the day about somebody else."

I suggest you stop and think very long and very hard about what I've said about KY Krew. Especially look at the post where I absolutely rip into Talilan for saying that I should be lynched Day Two. And then I want you to tell me if you really think this is a valid argument at all.

[Gaspar]

This whole comment by Glork [about the Count being 99% innocent] to begin with was entirely ridiculous. Especially considering the roles aren't our actual roles anyway.

This is a really good point and completely did not occur to me. How the hell can you say a role is innocent when different actors can occupy that role? Gaspar may go way up in scumminess depeding on the answer to this (as if forgeting who hewitt was playing in the first scene wasn't bad enough). If it's already been answered sorry, but I needed to note this.

I've already explained this, but you probably haven't gotten to my explanation yet.


This is the third installment of the California Trilogy. In each of the first two, the rolename Count de Morcerf was on my team, and my team won the game. I made a joke/throwaway that since I'm innocent, obviously Count de Morcerf "must be innocent" as well. At the time I hadn't even looked at who was playing Count de Morcerf, so when someone brought up Hewitt I was like "wtf, I didn't say anything about Hewitt." I was making a random, Start-Of-Day-One post that referenced a past game. It's the exact type of comment one might make on Page 1, at the very start of any other mafia game.

Yer I'll believe you're willing to lay down your life tomorrow when I see it.

Oh, I'll fight like hell to make sure you get lynched instead. I'm just saying, seeing you die next is a perfectly acceptable consolation prize.

I agree with this entirely. I'm also not wild about the attack on MafiaJin (where I think him putting himself in the first scene is arguably legitimate as town), and I'm not thrilled with what appears to be condescension seething through many of Gaspar's posts. I'm also not wild about the "let's give KY Krew 48 hours before we pull him offstage" bit when he became the advocate. The suggestion was reasonable, and immediately after this suggestion, KY Krew does the damage. (Of course, I say this knowing that if I was there, I'm not sure I'd have a grasp on the mechanics enough to recognize that KY Krew would be able to do what they did.)

Okay, the MafiaJin thing has gotten pretty out of proportion. As I remember it (and I'll admit that my memory may be skewed), I asked why he put himself on stage, and I attacked him based on his answers, which were, quite frankly, garbage. It's true that I think a protown player should have left themselves off stage, but the bulk of my suspicion was based on one head's response of "well I wanted to guarantee that at least one protown player would be on camera" and the other's mentioning of me "missing a win condtion," which I

still

don't fully understand. For what it's worth, Thesp, what did you think of the "I wanted at least one protown player on camera" defense?

As far as the 48 hour suggestion -- how does Krew's doing damage immediately have anything to do with me or that suggestion? Have you considered either of the following cases (both of which have nothing to do with me being scumbuddies with Krew):
1) Krew's scumbuddies told Krew to do as much damage as soon as humanly possible no matter what
2) Krew's scumbuddies saw me post "pull after 48 hours" and then told Krew to do his dammage ASAP before he could be stunted off
It is JUST as likely that a non-Gaspar scumbuddy told Krew to WIFOM the decision ASAP, but somehow you've turned "I want Krew offstage before he can do too much damage" into "Gaspar told Krew to do damage." Smoke and mirrors, Thesp, and I don't like it.

[Gaspar]

My reasoning for wanting to stick with Door 1 was that I could see the scums' reasoning going something like this:
1. Usually the town would switch to the other door
2. BUT the town don't trust KY AT ALL
3. So they won't switch!
4. But they'll know that we know that they don't trust KY!
5. So they'll switch!
6. Therefore we should pick the right door to start with.

So the secret to choosing correctly is guessing exactly how many iterations of "I cannot choose the wine in front of me" they would've gone through. Or maybe they flipped a coin and we should too.

In conclusion, I have absolutely nothing. But I give townie points to all who have favoured one door or the other. Scum would be more likely to stay silent I think.
Ready to switch whenever.

~Talitha

This is actually the best answer given so far.


We cannot outthink this problem. It is impossible to do so. So let's just pick one and go with it. I'm all for flipping coins, if need be.

[Gaspar]

Why give him 48 hours?

Two things:
1) I figured Talilan would have plenty to say before hopping back On Camera
2) I figured there would be things we would want to relay to those On Camera through Talilan

I seem to be right on both accounts.

[Gaspar]

I disagree that the Assistant Producer is scum. For one, the job name is

explicitly listed as being Innocent

. Secondly, Krew is OBVIOUSLY going to be lynched (in fact, by my count, G&B's vote was the hammer), so the Assistant Producer will be able to choose a new Stuntman once Krew is dead. Which will be as soon as Mr. Grey comes in to wrap up the day.

On the super duper extreme 0.000000000000000001% chance that Krew was town, the AP benefits by not having to commit to naming a new Stuntman yet. Furthermore, the AP can listen to whom our Director wishes to put On Camera in Scene Three, and can choose a Stuntman who will definitely be left Off Stage.


Again... common sense, folks. The AP's decision making process all game have been very logical and natural, for anybody who has bothered to pay attention.

[Gaspar]

I should probably explain that more. We have had pre-game, scene 1, and post-scene 1, unless I'm missing something.

This is correct, though for Off Stage discussion, I've been using "Scene One"/"Day One" and "Post-Scene 1"/'Night One" almost interchangeably. Krew is still a lying sack of crap, but the terminology is closely paralleled.

[Gaspar]

Well, considering this was resolved several posts ago, I'm not sure what you're shitting a brick over.

I responded before I actually read the last page. I skimmed and saw a bunch of votes for Krew, but I hadn't read the content of the other posts when I offered the AP's reasoning.

That said, if you'd read the job descriptions, or the earlier posts in which the AP's confirmed innocence (but hidden identity) was discussed, you wouldn't have freaked out over nothing. So, I guess what I have to say is:
Considering the AP's innocence was resolved several pages ago, I'm not sure what you were shitting a brick over.

[Gaspar]

Does Elmosaurian's Post 244 in the other thread bother anybody else as much as it does me? "If we were confident that KY Krew was not trustworthy"? That sounds like an awfully terrible reason to choose Door #2 over Door #1. The odds of Krew being trustworthy are astronomically small.

[Gaspar]

And I obviously agree with the KY Krew lynch so yeah that was good.

Good thing you parked your vote on Panzer and were away for the main event then.

In all fairness, Krew went from "Stunted Off Stage" to "lynched" in about 18 hours. I was busy for one day and missed the entire lynch, too. Hewitt's response is exactly appropriate here, and your snarky comment serves no real purpose here. I suggest you stick to looking for scums and not making throwaways.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we told everyone we would use a "Green Light" picture when we said they were free to choose a door. Might want to doublecheck that... I think it was one of Orbots' posts.

[Gaspar]

NO. Leia with a noose makes no sense, because Talilan is Leia now. If anything, do a picture of the state of Kentucky with a noose. (But remember, no words... no capitals, state name, etc.)


READ ORBOT'S POST, DGB:

Picture: Green Light: http://www.goldenspikespeedway.net/Gree ... plight.jpg

It says NOTHING about switching or keeping doors. It just says "you are free to make your decision.

Why the hell do we bother deciding these things beforehand if nobody is going to follow them? This is ridiculous.

It should be a green light. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gaspar]

To reiterate/clarify -- LEIA with a noose might make them think that we decided Talilan needs to die. While I wish that were the case, it is not. We would be sending VERY unclear signals, and it wouldn't help the people On Camera understand that they are free to choose a door.


I know that Thok/PJ/Elmo/Yos should recognize mikeburnfire's Flash Intro to Mafia. If you want to make it clear that we don't know what his alignment is, maybe use the "mafia" and "townie" roles to convey that we don't know which one he was:

Tags removed. - Mod

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: Whoops, I meant URL tags, not IMG tags. Habit. >.<

The picture

[Gaspar]

That's fine... I was just throwing out a suggestion as far as "we don't know what alignment he was." I don't have any other ideas on how to convey that message, but I like KY-Noose much better than Leia-Noose.

[Gaspar]

I have a quick request for everybody from here on out.

I don't know about anybody else, but I personally am having a hard time keeping track of which players go with which roles. This has been made doubly difficult due to the fact that On Camera, some players are using first names ("Carrie," "Clarence," "Lance," etc.) while others use last names ("Ms. Fisher," "Mr. Obody," "Mr. Ito," etc.)


From now on, can we please just stick to titles/last names when speaking On Camera? (I pick this, because of the existence of Mr. Green, who seems to have no first name.) For those of us with only one name ("Angel"), that name will suffice.

[Gaspar]

The flavor makes it sound like Tom Cruise wasn't supposed to be there. Does that mean he was scum of some kind?

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

In the last few days, you've skyrocketed right near the top of my likely scum list.

I'm not trying to figure out "gee, are there scum in the game". I'm trying to figure out if the guy we lynched was scum, or was cult, or was town, because it's not entirely clear from the role name.

He's obviously not Innocent, because the alignment of Innocent players is explicitly defined as "Innocent" per the rules.

I can't imagine either of you as scum not having a carefully detaled plan for exactally what would happen when town saw their main suspect show up in thread as the advocate.

Wait, what? "If Gaspar/MrJellyLee were scum, they would have a plan if the suspect showed up as advocate" is evidence that we are scum?
Run that one by me one more time, because I'm not getting it.

It's been explained already, but it's worth reiterating:
KY Krew was made Advocate because he had already been outed as scum, and it reduced the Scene Two decision to complete WIFOM.


I'm not even exaggerating when I say that no player has ever been more apparent scum than KY Krew was. Like most others, I was shocked when you started to talk about him possibly being trustworthy.

NONE

of his actions in the game have been remotely protown. They have caused chaos and confusion, he refused to explain himself properly on multiple occasions, and he deliberately disobeyed the general public's wishes.

If you can reason out why KY Krew's behavior was protown, I'm willing to listen. But Occam's Razor states that when a player looks like scum, they're probably scum. I want none of this "he looked so lost he couldn't possibly be scum" garbage. If you want to explain why you thought he was scum, you have to do so by showing how a significant portion of his posts/actions/behaviors were protown.

The fact that you tried to use "well if he's trustworthy, we should switch to Door #2" as reasoning to vote for Door #2 (and the fact that Door #1 was the right choice) strongly make me feel that you were looking for an excuse to push people towards the wrong choice. You've overstepped your bounds, and now you're at the top of my list.

The question is, why did they fail?

I ask a player to pick Heads or Tails. If the player is right, they win. If they are wrong, they get nightkilled.
The player picks Heads. It was the correct pick.
Why did my attempt to kill fail?

Think about this, DGB, and apply it to the WIFOM situation. Even though it was WIFOM, we still had a 50% chance of getting it right. We happened to get it right. That's why they failed.

[Gaspar]

So, I've been thinking about the "Scientology" and "SMG" alignments, looking at the rules, and musing on the previous CT games, and I have some thoughts.

In the first CT game, BALCO was a third-party alignment, whose sole member had to sell 'roids to three different people. In the second CT game, there was a "Zodiac killer" which didn't actually exist. It was but a red herring.

The rules state that there are "two main alignments: Innocent and [Something Else]." Based on that and what CKD said, I believe that one of two scenarios is likely:
1) CKD is also a Scientologist and simply lied about the mafia group's name. His mentioning of the mafia name "SMG" came after Krew's Scene One debacle, which could usefully serve to create this kind of confusion as we look in the wrong directions.
2) Krew/Cruise was a Scientologist, there is in fact a Screen Mafia Guild, Kruise was probably operating alone as a third party. If this is the case, we probably won't be able to find out anything useful about him unless he was in fact a cult-ish role. But as others have stated, I don't think he'd say "there's a cult" if he were a cultist/cult leader. It seems particularly self-destructive.

Right now, I think that #2 is the more likely scenario, mainly because I still think that CKD is fairly likely to be protown. This does, however, change a few of my thoughts around... If #2 is the case, it also explains why Krew was so universally revilied and would shed light on previously unknown voting/bandwagoning patterns.

Well see, you'd figure, if we had enough scum on-camera, that they would exploit the inherent WIFOM of the situation to push their agenda. What is interesting is that there was so little interest in the wrong choice, door #2.

Now this is an interesting question. On Camera, Elmosaurian was the only one who actually voted for Door #2. Even if they were "flipping coins," the scums could have "hunched" or "randomed" their way onto Door #2. It could be that most of the scums were left Off Stage during Scene Two. It could be that the scums who were On Camera acted largely disinterested (such as Pooky, ShadowLurker).

[Gaspar]

Bullshit. I thought he probably wasn't in the scum group pulling the strings, and unless you have some other explanation for the whole "screen actor's guild" thing, it looks like I was right. So don't pull that "oh how could you possibly think that" stuff with me; I used deductive logic to come to what was probably correct conclusion.

It seems to me that you're changing your tune. In your Post 244 of the other thread, you said (italic emphasis mine):
"Door #1 would be preferable

if we were confident that KY Krew was not a trustworthy chap and that he had planned all this out

, but I don't really know if I believe that right now. It just seems too obvious, like a setup. I'm leaning towards door #2. "

In clarification, you said:
"I am...conflicted.

Not long ago, I was quite confident she was not trustworthy. But when those who are not good people pick, as their advocate, the one who we all distrusted the most, it makes me wonder if perhaps we were not SUPPOSED to trust her. Perhaps I should just drink the wine in front of me, but...I am not confident of any train of logic that start by assuming those who are working against us made the most obvious choice possible."



BOTH of these posts indicate that you were starting to believe Krew was

trustworthy

. If that doesn't mean "protown," please enlighten me.

Furthermore, your current tune is

I thought he probably wasn't in the scum group pulling the string

IF YOU THOUGHT KREW MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF A THIRD PARTY, YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID SO AT THE TIME.

After the fact, you are saying "no, I just thought he wasn't part of the same scumgroup that made him an Advocate." But your posts at the time you "leaned towards Door #2" say "I think he might be trustworthy." There is an OCEAN of difference between these two. You're trying to cover, and I'm not buying it.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, but I think she makes a valid point because of the 50/50 factor. It would have been the ideal situation for the scum to influence town toward the wrong decision and take zero blame for it because they were just "flipping a coin". Scum knew what the right and wrong doors were, so we do need to look at why it was a reasonably easy decision to pick the correct door. We also need to look at those who were excessively trying to cloud the decision and pick the wrong door (elmosaurian).

Yes, in my Post 974, I mused on the same thing. I think it's probably our biggest point of interest right now. After DGB's explanation, I understand what she was saying, and I'm curious about it myself.

[Gaspar]

I will fully admit: I wanted the town to focus more than they were on curiouskarmadog and Panzerjagger, because I honestly thought both Advocates were probably lying and I was flabbergasted that nobody was really talking about them Off Screen (where the focus was instead MafiaJin, Talilan and Hewitt).

Here's the issue I have with believing that both Panzer and Locke were scum.

If I were teamed with the two of them, as scum, on Scene One, I almost certainly would have thought up a way to allow the "partial information" to lead the town to the wrong decision. I know there's a degree of WIFOM in this matter, but it makes no sense to me to have two scumbags both push the Good decision when we could construe a term as vague as "partial information" to lead the town to the Bad decision.

If Panzer and CKD are both scum, they are almost certainly of different alignments from one another. And right now I don't believe that there's a second Scientologist in this game (though I will readily admit that if there is, it's probably CKD).

[Gaspar]

It's been explained already, but it's worth reiterating:
KY Krew was made Advocate because he had already been outed as scum, and it reduced the Scene Two decision to complete WIFOM.

Eh. Yeah, that would be the simplest solution. Which is why I didn't buy it, it seemed too obvious.

Occam's Razor means nothing to you, I take it?

I would also like to see Elmosaurian taken off-camera by the stuntman. I think he's scum, and even if he is town, I no longer trust him to reason through any decisions that could affect endgame setup.

[Gaspar]

He referred to the recruiting faction as mafia? Interesting.. to be fair, I will wait and see what the name of this 2nd faction is before coming back to CKD's comment.

CKD called the [Something Else] group the "Screen Mafia Guild" in this post

There are plenty of actors & actresses who are scientologists. What makes you think he's alone or [if you consider the cult-scenario] didn't recruit during phase 2?

Hunch, based in part on past CT games and the fact that I don't think a Cult/Mafia/Town would be balanced given how endgame is chosen. The rules state that endgame will consist of 2 [Something Else] actors and 5 Innocent actors. That goes completely out the window if there's a full-fledged cult, and I don't think the rules would deliberately mislead us like that.

The rules description of Endgame is the main thing that has me even considering my first scenario, where CKD is among the Scientologists.

What if this was to make them both look good/pro-town/trustworthy? Wouldn't that be a reason to make two scumbags advocates?

Not worth giving up a decision, IMO. Slight suspicion can be written off if the faked "partial information" is good enough, and the town makes a bad decision. Also, the Scene One advocates were chosen independent of alignment. Unless I'm mistaken, those were the only pre-selected Advocates (i.e., not chosen by scums). Given the astronomically small odds of Locke and Valentine both randomly being scums, and the passed opportunity to lead us to the wrong decision, I just cannot believe that they are both on the same scumteam.

But ortolan once said that you should never allow ignorance to influence your play

Ortolan cautioning against ignorance? How ironic.

[Gaspar]

I did. I thought that was pretty clear; I did think Krew was probably pro-town. Not so much because of his actions, but because I thought that the scum wouldn't make him the advocate if he was one of their own.

So what you're saying is that you speculated on Scums' behavior rather than using a player's own verified anti-town behavior to make a decision on his alignment?

This sounds very unlike you, Yos. Can you see why I'm suspicious of you?

If we're assuming "Scientology" was not the "something else" group, like you apparently think now, then he probably didn't actually know which was the right door and which was the wrong door. If so, then that means there was only a 33% chance door 1 was right, and we just got really, really lucky there.

Not true, considering he still got partial information as an Advocate. You're assuming he did pick randomly, when I believe that was defintiely not the case. At the time, we thought he was anti-town. We know now that he was, at the very least, not Innocent. (I would go as far as calling him anti-town, personally.) So he was still not acting in our best interests. He didn't pick randomly, he was going to act against us because we were going to lynch him, and there is a very reasonable chance he DID know which one was right. Your argument here fails completely and utterly.

I thought he wasn't scum, BECAUSE I thought he wasn't part of the scum group pulling the strings. At the time, I was assuming there was probably only scum and town, so I was assuming that meant he was likely town.

Again, see my above point. I would never expect you to actually flip-flop on your stance based on trying to outguess what you think the Scums are doing. Seriously, this sounds completely contrived to me. ALL in-thread evidence suggests that Krew was not protown, yet you are telling us that you WIFOM'd yourself into thinking he was protown. Have I mentioned that I've got a bridge to sell you?

I will admit that the thought of a third party scum group did cross my mind, considering how anti-town he had been acting, but I didn't really think it was that likely.

I'll bite. Three questions:
1) How likely (rough percentage) did you think of the existence of a Third Party?
2) Why didn't you bring it up regardless how how "unlikely" you thought it was?
3) Did you consider Krew's actions/motivations if he

was

of a third alignment? If so, what were those actions/motivations?

[Gaspar]

Me again -- didn't see the posts on the new page, and I want to respond to MrJellyLee here.

The more I think about it, the more I think CKD is probably scum. I just can't get over the fact that the Advocates for Scene One were chosen "at random." Now, I am willing to say that the

characters

chosen were not random: Mr. Grey probably chose John Locke and Valentine ahead of time. But I still think that who got what role and what alignment would still be random.

I think that's what most of us believe.

For clarification purposes, here is the terminology I will be using:
"Character" refers to an On-Camera persona, such as Mr. Locke, Mr. Ito, Ms. Blue, etc.
"Player" refers to a MafiaScum account. Gaspar, MrJellyLee, CKD, etc.
"Alignment" should be self-explanatory.
"Role" refers to a complete description of a given player's part in the game -- Actor Name, Alignment, abilities, if any. It does NOT include Job information (as Jobs are not tied to individual Players/Roles).
"Actor" refers to the Actor Name in a role.

Here is my impression of how Characters and Alignments were chosen.

The Scene One characters (including Advocates) were chosen non-randomly. I believe that the Peter Wiggin/Locke vs Valentine connection is evidence enough of this.

Players were assigned Roles randomly.
Independent of Roles, Players were assigned Characters randomly.
The Assistant Producer Job was randomly assigned to someone of Innocent alignment. All other Jobs were assigned randomly. (This assumes that Grey is not the AP, which I must admit is an intriguing theory, though I don't consider it all that likely at the moment.)
These assignments can come in any order, with the notable exception that the Assistant Producer must be assigned after Roles were handed out (so the AP could be made Innocent).

No idea if this is actually how Mr. Grey set up the game, but that's how I would do things, and it seems to fit with what Grey laid out in the rules.

If the Scientologists are a Cult, then why would Mr. Grey also allow the "Screen Mafia Guild" to get a recruit on Day One as well?

Interesting question, and it gives credence to the idea that Scientology is the only scumgroup, and that CKD is lying scum.

Even if there is an answer for that, what would have happened if a Scientologist got CKD's offer to become a member of the Screen Mafia Guild? I just can't see Mr. Grey allowing for that to actually be a possibility.

If Krew was the only Scientologist, I don't think it would be that big a deal. "Third Party Alignment" becoming "Scumbag" seems reasonable to me.

I also think the same problem would arise if a member of SMG were given an offer to become a member of the SMG (which I have been talking about for forever and a day).

You asked me about this, and I presented a reasonable alternative. P'raps they would be able to recruit a player of their choice, or choose from a list. My biggest problem is that I don't see how that would necessarily affect Endgame, as Decisions are supposed to.


Yeah, I'm definitely starting to buy into the idea that Scientology is the only scumgroup, and that CKD is a Scientologist and was lying. If this is the case, though, I would have to disagree with your opinion of Elmosaurain and say that he was of the same alignment as Krew.

[Gaspar]

If this is the case, though, I would have to disagree with your opinion of Elmosaurain and say that he was of the same alignment as Krew.

Ignore this. I thought PJ had said that he believed it likely that Elmosaurian was of a different scum alignment than Krew. I just rechecked his post, and he only "wondered" about that possibility.

But I'll ask PJ straight up:
What do you think Elmosaurian's alignment is?
What do you think CKD's alignment is?

Reasons for both, please. <3

[Gaspar]

I am personally not convinced there are two scum groups to begin with. I think all that matters is that I think both Elmosaurian and CKD have a good chance of being scum. I don’t see why it matters what type of scum they are if our job is simply to lynch down to 2 [Something Else]’s.

I myself am trying to decide whether there are one or two scumgroups. Furthermore, I think it is relevant, because [Something Else] is described as the "primary non-innocent alignment," though it is noted that there "may or may not" be other alignments.

If our job is to lynch down to 2 [Something Else]s, and "Scientology" is of a different alignment, then knowing whether Elmo/CKD are "Scientology" or "[Something Else]" is EXTREMELY relevant. It absolutely matters, because [Something Else] refers to the PRIMARY Non-Innocent Alignment, not "EVERY Non-Innocent Alignment."

So I'll ask again.

Do you think Scientology = [Something Else]?
What alignment do you feel Elmosaurian is?
What alignment do you think CKD is?

[Gaspar]

That makes no sense to me at all. I can't imagine in a million years a scum CKD randomly inventing the whole "I could turn scum" thing if he was scum. And to top that off, you're suggesting that not only did he lie about that, but he lied about that and then used the WRONG SCUM ROLE NAME in his claim, even though you think he HAD that scum role name, and even though he would basically be caught lying as soon as we lynched a scum?

Since you are apparently so fond of outguessing the scums, consider this scenario.

CKD and KY Krew are both Scientologists, which is the only Non-Innocent alignment. During Scene One, CKD proposes the whole "recruit me to their team" idea, knowing full well that a cult-like recruitment fits in with the flavor, and gives his fake "Parital Information" credibility.

Krew bungles up Scene One by stunting when asked for a role claim, and tries to get everyone to follow the wrong decision. Basically, he outs himself as scum, and everyone knows it.

AFTER this happens, CKD makes up a different Scumgroup called the Screen Mafia Guild, knowing that KY Krew is likely to be lynched as "Scientologist" during Scene Two. Meanwhile, his scumbuddy Krew says "I think there's a cult" knowing full well he will be lynched as a Scientologist.

During Scene Two, KY Krew is lynched as a Scientologist while the town goes "what about the Screen Mafia Guild"?

Expected Outcome: General confusion with the seeds of a cult firmly planted in the general town's minds. I think that the Scientologists expected us to buy into the three-party system much more than we actually have.


Everything makes sense. Scientologists made Krew an Advocate so he could WIFOM the crap out of the Scene Two decision, because they really didn't want to give the town an easy Scene Two. His alignment, which directly conflicts with CKD's alignment, confuses the town into not knowing what to believe -- which is EXACTLY what has happened.

I'd bet my left foot that not one single townsperson can say for sure that they know:
A) How many alignments there are
B) Whether "Scientologist" is the [Something Else]/"Primary Non-Innocent Alignment"

In this respect, the proposed scenario is not only plausible, but has worked nearly PERFECTLY for the Scientologists.

[Gaspar]

No, I don't think it's relevant because I sincerely doubt that we would think somebody is scum and yet not lynch them in the hopes that they are scum but not the "primary" [Something Else]. All I really care about is lynching scum.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. If I were certain that "Scientologist" and "Screen Mafia Guild" were both anti-town alignments, I would much rather go after an SMG than a Scientologist. I think that if there are three alignments, it is also necessary to seek to know what nature each alignment is. Whether Krew was an SK-like role, an other Neutral role, an alternate Mafia group, or a leader/member of a Cult drastically changes how I would look at the game, no matter what. If you're telling me that you'd play a setup with Mafia/SK the same way you'd play a game with Mafia/Cult, I will seriously go to Mississippi (It's Mississippi, right?) and throttle you.

[Gaspar]

I'm practically tearing my hair out here, because suddenly the setup seems blankly obvious to me, yet PJ appears unwilling to consider setup implications, while Yos is just pointing his finger and going "You're scum if you think this." I feel like I've made a major breakthrough, and nobody seems to be willing to listen to me.


Two other responses to Yos:

Now, I do like to lynch people acting in a really anti-town way, on the theory that they're either scum or else they're a townie VI who's doing more harm then good. If I was off stage, I very likely would have ended up voting to lynch him, for just that reason. That wasn't the choice I had to make here, though.

You didn't have to decide "lynch Krew or not," but the matter of Krew's alignment has a direct and very significant impact on how he treats the whole Door #1/Door #2 thing. I realize you said you'd take Door #2 regardless, but the fact is that you used "Krew may be trustworthy" as reasoning, and I don't buy that at all. It's complete bull.

Are you kidding? I flip flop more often then John Kerry at the pancake-cook-off.

I didn't say I don't expect you to flip-flop. I said I don't expect you to place hypothetical speculation over hard evidence. The "based on trying to outguess the scums" qualifier is essential to my point, and you just completely ignored that.

[Gaspar]

I knew people, and probably you, were going to go after me today no matter what; I realized that my posting in the other thread looked strange, even though it was probably right.

This is interesting, considering I don't think I expressed any anti-Elmosaurian sentiment before I got irritated at your On Camera Post 244.

Elaborate on what you mean by "no matter what." What scenarios are you referring to, and why would each one lead players to go after you specifically? Why did you specifically feel that

I

would attack you?

[Gaspar]

Pre-Post Edit:

If you're telling me that you'd play a setup with Mafia/SK the same way you'd play a game with Mafia/Cult, I will seriously go to Mississippi (It's Mississippi, right?) and throttle you.

For this particular game

, that

may

be the ideal play. All we are playing for is the 7-player endgame.

I personally think if we continue to hit scum at a reasonable pace, and continue to get [Good] results On Screen, we will be in a very nice position by the time we get to Endgame. If any kinds of [Something Else] count for the [Something Else] trigger, then I just want to focus on killing scum. If worse comes to worse, all we

really

have to do is make sure we keep 6 townspeople alive.

Okay, this makes immense amounts of sense, and I really can't argue that as long as we're making good decisions, "Keep six Innocent people alive" is a reasonable goal.

My current philosophy is "I want to try to figure out the setup as soon as possible while lynching players who appear scummy in general."

At the very least, I do not think that if there is a Cult it is the only scum-group. That would essentially require the Cult to have started the game with 4 players.

I'm not sure why this is unreasonable. A cult with limited ability to recruit is plausible. You yourself pointed out that a lone scumgroup with a limited set of abilities has been done, and CT1 had a handful of roles with two-shot abilities. Guessing the exact, specific setup is nigh-impossible, but I think we can definitely work towards the nature of the setup... and that knowledge can be invaluable to us.


Elmosaurian, a question: Given what the rules describe about Good/Bad Decisions impacting Endgame, and given what CKD claimed about the outcome of the "Bad" decision, how do you feel about "becoming an SMG" reconciles with "altering endgame"?


----------

My current thoughts on the game setup/alignments.

Right now, I don't think that there is both a Mafia and a Cult (even a limited one). Like I said, it doesn't reconcile with what I believe the rules state about setting up Endgame.

If

Krew is an SK/Neutral, and there is a Screen Mafia Guild, I think that Elmosaurian is a part of the SMG, and I'm on the fence about CKD's alignment.

If

Scientology = [Something Else], then CKD is definitely a Scientologist, and Elmosaurian is very probably a Scientologist. In this case, I have no idea whether I think they're some kind of Mafia or Cult. I'm not sure I can arrive at a conclusion on this without progressing the game further.

In either case, I guess my other suspicions largely hold. I haven't actually thought about how these new setup revelations impacted my earlier suspicions, but I'll work through that over the next days/next Scene.


Right now, I defintiely want to see either Yosarian or CKD lynched tomorrow, with a fairly strong preference towards Yos. Naturally, I feel that Talilan makes a reasonable other lynch, but our focus should be on figuring out this Scientology/SMG business.

[Gaspar]

I'll admit that I never really even looked at it, because I was extremely concerned with first lynching Krew, then trying to make sure that Talilan got lynched instead of Zwet or myself. IIRC, that was also when I was very ill, so my head wasn't in the game.

I'm going to have to go back and look at his actual posts before I can properly respond to you. Remind me to do it tomorrow, or I might really forget.

[Gaspar]

Oh? Based on what, exactally? Just because I thought KY was town, and argued that in a situation where he was obviously going to get lynched no matter what? Or because I voted for the wrong door?

It goes back to the whole "I think Krew might have been trustworthy, which would make Door #2 the obivoius choice" thing. Basically, regardless of whether there is a Screen Mafia Guild or not, your behavior in the latter half of Scene Two, and your explanation thereof, reeks of scum. I STILL cannot work my head around the idea that you'd choose hypotheticals over hard evidence.

As scum, you would prefer mislynching me first. You lynch me and I flip town, you can still claim you think CKD is scum and go after him the next day. You lynch CKD and he flips town, your whole case on me falls apart.

I can't imagine why you would want to lynch me first if you were town, though, since your whole theory about me being scum seems to be based on your (unlikely) theory that CKD is a lying scientologist.

Not true. Like I just said, I think you're scum regardless of the setup.
If CKD were lynched and flipped town, I'd say "Yep, Elmosaurian is DEFINITELY a Screen Mafia Guild member."
If CKD were lynched first and flipped up SMG, I'd say "Yep. Elmosaurain is DEFINITELY a Screen Mafia Guild member."
If CKD were lynched first and flipped up Scientologist, I'd say "Yep. Elmosaurian is probably a Scientologist."


The reason I want you lynched first has nothing to do with ordering. It has to do with the fact that I think you're almost certainly scum, and that I can see a scenario where CKD could be protown.

[Gaspar]

The scientologists being the mafia doesn't really fit in the flavour, really. I mean, I've never heard of Tom Cruise militating agaisnt the production of movies that don't spread the scientologist philosophy. I'm more tempted to believe the cult alternative (it IS a recruiting group IRL after all) or at the very least a second mafia, although how that works with the good/bad options is beyond me.

~Dram~

3) Tom Cruise, the Scientologist, is a member of the Screen Mafia Guild.

Unlikely, at best. I see no incentive for there to be two names given to one Alignment. Tom Cruise's alignment is very clearly "Scientologist" and CKD very clearly spoke of a "Screen Mafia Guild." I won't deny that it's possible, but I stated my two most-likely-scenarios, and this definitely isn't one of them to me.

Where have I displayed ignorance?

Not going to get into this whole debate again, but the whole "horrible logic and mass OMGUS" is what I had in mind.

Jelly Lee off-stage as he wants to be and need some backup defending against bad attacks from Gaspar/elmosaurian

You are delusional. I have not attacked MrJellyLee yet. In fact, I think he is demonstrably protown. I guess you can add this to the "ingorance irony" department.

I don't agree with my other head (actually, I'm not sure which one it is.) about Gaspar. I had a very bad gut feeling about him day 1 but that's fading fast. Gaspar, what's your read on MafiaJin?

He's fallen off my radar for the most part. I will say that I don't feel he's contributed as much as I think he could/should to the major points of discussion, but I can also say that about a bunch of people (such as Thok, Thesp, and Panzer)

The scientologists being the mafia doesn't really fit in the flavour, really. I mean, I've never heard of Tom Cruise militating agaisnt the production of movies that don't spread the scientologist philosophy. I'm more tempted to believe the cult alternative (it IS a recruiting group IRL after all) or at the very least a second mafia, although how that works with the good/bad options is beyond me.

~Dram~

This bothers me for a number of reasons. I understand that a "religion" such as "Scientology" can lend itself towards thinking there is a "cult," but there is evidence against that -- such as the fact that cult members don't generally say "I think there's a cult" when they know they're about to be lynched. Furthermore, I feel that eliminating an alignment as being "mafia-like" based on flavor is ridiculous. Where in the rules of Mafia does it say that a Mafia has to be "militant" in flavor?

It bothers me when people make arguments in favor of flavor (tee hee) while being unable to explain how it fits in with game mechanics. All else being equal, I think that game mechanics should generally trump flavor, and I've already explained why Town/Mafia/Cult flies in the face of game mechanics as outlined in the Rules.


Regarding the "On Camera" and "Stuntman" assignments... I'm honestly completely ambivalent. I don't even know why. I have a feeling that I know the types of Advocates that will be chosen (at least, I know the types of Advocates I would choose if I were scum), and I'm more concerned with dealing with that than anything else, as I'll be On Camera for at least the first part of Scene Three. I don't think we should pre-assign "Make X player the Stuntman" on the unlikely-but-possible occurrence where our prospective Stuntman is actually the AP. I also believe that the AP will choose the Stuntman after On Camera players are chosen, in order to ensure that Stuntman will remain Off Stage.

I guess I'd like to see Pooky left Off Stage, because I think he replaced into the game while On Camera and hasn't had a chance to read this 42-page monstrosity. Aside from that, I don't really care.

[Gaspar]

This bothers me for a number of reasons. I understand that a "religion" such as "Scientology" can lend itself towards thinking there is a "cult," but there is evidence against that -- such as the fact that cult members don't generally say "I think there's a cult" when they know they're about to be lynched. Furthermore, I feel that eliminating an alignment as being "mafia-like" based on flavor is ridiculous. Where in the rules of Mafia does it say that a Mafia has to be "militant" in flavor?

But we also have evidence agaisnt Scientology being the mafia, what with CKD's claim. I doubt he'd have given a fake name to the mafia, it's a master plan to get himself killed <<

Not really. I don't think anybody suspects CKD for saying "There is a Screen Mafia Guild."

And if CKD is a Scientologist, claiming the existence of a Screen Mafia Guild has already spread misinformation among the town, which is :goodposting: for the scumbags.




Guys, when you say "X wouldn't do this, because it would get themselves killed,"

STOP AND THINK ABOUT ENDGAME SELECTION AND MECHANICS.

No matter how many [Something Else]s are alive when Endgame hits,

ONLY TWO OF THEM CAN BE ALIVE IN ENDGAME

.

So saying "This person wouldn't do this as scum because it would get themselves killed" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT if they would have to die because their scumbuddies are the ones headed into endgame.

[Gaspar]

DGB, I think it's silly to assume that the people who voted for Door #1 are necessarily protown. You seem to be treating them as infallible non-scums, when "scums pushing the right Door" -- while sub-optimal -- is not out of the question.

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: I want to clarify my own stance. I am inclined to believe that at least three of the people who voted for Door #1 are protown for a variety of reasons. I feel that scums voting for Door #1 is a poor play because when I put myself into the mindset of the scums, I can't think of a reason to push Door #1 other than "to look more protown." However, I don't know what the scums know about the game, setup, decisions, and endgame, so I'm trying not to discount the possibility that "Scum voting for Door #1" is a reasonable (even good) play for the scums to make.

I hope that made things clearer, and not murkier.

[Gaspar]

Bleh. Not the answer I was hoping for.


I asked Mr. Grey if the alignments of Living-Players-Not-Chosen-For-Endgame would be revealed to those who are in Endgame. That largely invalidates my previous point about suicidal scums. I have to stop and think about this for a few.

[Gaspar]

Not necessarily, CKD.

If we leave all the scums Off-Stage, they could lead a series of mislynches. Remember that regardless of what Decisions we make in Scenes, if all but five Innocents die, we wind up in Worst Possible Endgame.

[Gaspar]

[PJ Posting]

Actually, no, that's stupid. I stick by original thought: try to keep On Screen and Off Screen as a good mix. I think we might as well try to get the best result in both threads.

Bingo.

Your thought processes in your long post just now are nearly identical to what I went through last night. I also noted that CKD claimed the name "Screen Mafia Guild" after KY Krew mucked up Scene One, and I reasoned out that Krew has no reason to claim that there's a Cult if he's part of a Cult.

Like I said, I think either:
Cruise was acting alone and there is an SMG; OR
CKD (as a Scientologist, aka [Something Else], aka the only scumgroup), and made up the idea of an SMG to confuse the town after Krew's screwup and claim that there may be a Cult

The idea of trying to push a Cult, then passing off Mafia kills as "Vigilante Kills" intrigues me. It's an excellent ploy by scums to make. Keep in mind that just because there wasn't a kill Pre-Scene-Two, doesn't mean the scums can't kill.

I'm still leaning towards the idea that [Something Else] is Scientologists, and that CKD and Elmosaurian are both part of this group.

[Gaspar]

Okay, I must have misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying that the act of voting Door #1 itself was protown, which would have concerned me.

I do understand your point about "Why was there zero initial momentum towards Door #2?" I am inclined to believe that a large portion of the players On Camera for Scene Two are Innocent, though I'm very hesitant to say that Elmosaurian is the only scumbag who was On Camera based on this issue.

[Gaspar]

CKD, I'd like to see the list simply because I want to know exactly what you think of the five people. You may have already commented on how you feel about their alignments, but getting to see it before I get shunted On Camera would be nice.

[Gaspar]

The reason I asked for the information ahead of time is solely so that I'll have definite, last-second opinions from you before I can no longer see this thread.

If you just want to give me a rundown of what you think of every player in the game, so that you can hide the identities of the 5 you selected, that's fine. In fact, that's better, because I get your thoughts on EVERYONE instead of just five people.

[Gaspar]

Sure, Pooksters. Tell me who the scums are and I'll lynch them.

[Gaspar]

Bagel Eating Cowfrog (hasdgfas/dahill1/Shanba) - Protown
curiouskarmadog - Scum
elmosaurian (Yosarian2/Elmo) - Scum
Gaspar (Glork) - PROBABLY PROTOWN
GoofballsAndBaloons (DrippingGoofball/BridgesAndBaloons) - Protown
hewitt - Neutral to slightly Scummy
MafiaJin (MafiaSSK/Sajin) - Neutral to slightly Scummy
Mighty Orbots (Papa Zito/Zorblag) - Protown
MrJellyLee (MrBuddyLee/petroleumjelly), replacing Seraphim S1 - Protown
Panzerjager - Neutral to slightly Scummy
PookyTheMagicalBear, replacing Rawr Hydra S2 - Neutral to slightly Protown
ShadowLurker - Neutral to slightly Protown
sottyrulez (Sotty7/Zachrulez) - Honestly, no gut impression. I guess neutral to slightly scummy
StarKiss (Starbuck/Kise/dramonic) - Neutral to slightly Scummy
Talilan (Talitha/ortolan) - Moderately scummy
Thesp - slightly to moderately scummy
Thok - slightly to moderately scummy
VP Baltar, replacing ThebladethatkilledMufasa S2 - Moderately protown

[Gaspar]

Shadowlurker, ScottyRulez, Starkiss are all scum.

let's kill them all.

This is in no way an attempt to get me on top of Tali.

Not good enough.

F--

Please see me after class.

[Gaspar]

Actually, put sottyrulez in my "Slightly Protown" category. I remember my discussion with him early during Scene Two now. While his point was erroneous, there was a fairly protown, "I'm looking for scum" feel to it.

[Gaspar]

PJ's right, and I've already explained why Pooky needs to stay Off Stage. This Pre-Scene 3 is the only chance Pooky's had to read. If he gets put back On Camera, I will be very upset.

[Gaspar]

Oh man. Bonus points to SL for using the term "Scumbaggos."

It's a Glorkian classic.

[Gaspar]

Right. You don't actually care if I was right or wrong, you just want me dead, am I right? You even changed your theory about what happened yesterday in order to invent one that makes it easier for you to try to lynch me.

What theory are you referring to, and how did I change it? Also, the point of what you just quoted is to say, "I think that based on Elmosaurian's play -- not any given setup speculation -- that he is scum." I see nothing wrong with this. Your behavior towards Krew yesterday was unnacceptable.

Not really. I don't think anybody suspects CKD for saying "There is a Screen Mafia Guild."

...didn't you, like, just say that you did?

Not exactly. The nature of CKD's claimed information doesn't jive with Panzer's, it references a "Bad Outcome" which only makes sense if the Advocate is of Innocent alignment (which wasn't necessarily going to be the case), and it doesn't lead to a tangible "Worse Endgame" for the Innocents if chosen.

IF CKD is full of crap, which I do believe, it makes sense to me that he lied about the "Screen Mafia Guild" was contrived, since I don't believe there to be two different scumgroups in this game.

And if CKD is a Scientologist, claiming the existence of a Screen Mafia Guild has already spread misinformation among the town, which is :goodposting: for the scumbags.

No, glork. It would not be. Not even a little bit.

Elaborate. How would spreading misinformation not be a good thing for the scums?

Guys, when you say "X wouldn't do this, because it would get themselves killed," STOP AND THINK ABOUT ENDGAME SELECTION AND MECHANICS. No matter how many [Something Else]s are alive when Endgame hits, ONLY TWO OF THEM CAN BE ALIVE IN ENDGAME.

Fact 1: From the rules, it sounds like it's quite possible we might trigger endgame early by lynching all but two scum. There might only BE two scum left when we get to endgame, no way in hell would a smart scum set up a situation that would be 100% guaranteed to screw him over if he gets that far.

Fact 2: If CKD was pulling a gambit to "get partially confirmed" like you were claiming, then he would have been trying to make himself look townie. The whole reason for a scum doing that would be to set himself up for a endgame.

1) You're missing my point here. Let me try to explain a general case.
---Suppose [Something Else] chooses Player X to do something which will probably eventually get Player X lynched, but will mislead the town before then, leading to one or more mislynches. Player X will be lynched before Endgame, and will not be alive during Endgame.
---Suppose [Something Else] chooses to have all fo their players (including Player X) play for survival. After a bunch of mislynches, there are only 5 townies and (for argument's sake) 3 [Something Else]s left. We hit endgame, and the [Something Else]s can only put two of them into endgame, so they decide to exclude Player X. Player X will not be alive during Endgame.

The net result of BOTH CAESES is that

Player X does not participate in Endgame

. The argument that "every scum is trying to stay alive" falls through, because not all scums can be alive and participating in Endgame. If I'm scum and I can gain ground by sacrificing one of my 4 or 5 or 6 or however-many scumbags, I'll do it. No questions asked. Why? because those fourth and fifth and sixth scumbags won't be in Endgame ANYWAY.


To address Fact 2: I never implied that CKD claimed to "get himself partially confirmed." I said that CKD claimed to spread misinformation among the town. The only time I talked about "looking more protown" was in relation to Door 1/Door 2. You've gotten your wires crossed here. Try again, Yos.

Glork is quite clearly scum here trying to set up multiple mislynches. There is just no other way I can explain his bizarre logic involving CKD here, and it's even scummier that he then takes that bizzare and unlikely assumption CKD is lying and the conclusion he draws from it is "we should lynch Yos first"

You don't seem to understand this, so I am going to make myself abundantly clear.

I am very certain that you are scum.
INEDEPENDENTLY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT, I am nearly very certain that CKD is scum.

Because I think that both of you independently are scum, with you being slightly more likely, I would rather lynch you first. You being scum and CKD having scum are not based on one another. I separately find both of you to be scummy for completely unrelated reasons. WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY "GASPAR THINKS CKD IS LYING THEREFORE HE WANTS TO LYNCH ELMOSAURIAN" WHEN I HAVE SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT?

You're not even making any SENSE when you post anymore, Yos.



I have a busy day tomorrow, so this will probably be my last post before I go back On Camera.

[Gaspar]

Okay, one more post, because I just noticed MafiaJin's request in his most recent post:

So...does anyone want to comment on my previous large post? I think by far our best path to victory is on camera. I particularly want Gaspar's opinion of it.

I ranted and raved about this for like six pages early in the game.

Our best path to victory is lynching scums. Period. I think we have the best control over our own destiny when playing Mafia, not when playing Let's-Make-Some-Decisions. My whole point during my ranting D1 is that,

if we can find and lynch all but two of the scums, then any Decisions we made won't matter. We will AUTOMATICALLY be in the Best Possible Endgame.

I argued then, and will continue to argue, that finding and killing scums must come first, and that making good Decisions is little more than a fallback option should we generally fail at scumhunting.

[Gaspar]

Yay. I was actually expecting that the game would be back into Scene Three by this afternoon, so I'm pleased that I get to ramble at you more.

Nearly every time the Talitha half of Talilan posts, it gives me hope that they might actually be protown. Maybe I just have an issue with Ortolan's gameplay in this game. I don't know. That's mainly why I find the Talilan hydra "moderately Scummy" right now. I am trying to decide if Ortolan's just an idiot townsperson, or if Talitha is saving face for a bad scumbag.

It's "unnacceptable" to have doubts about someone's alignment? It's "unacceptable" to have a gut feeling, based on stuff that's happened in the thread, that I might have been wrong yesterday and that the guy I was trying to lynch yesterday might actually be town?

Or is it unacceptable for me to say things you don't agree with, no matter if they're right or not? Because you don't seem to care if my logic came to the right conclusion or not, you just want to use it as an excuse to lynch me.

It is unacceptable to me to believe that you, as a protown player, would use another player's general mood to trump their obvious and repeated anti-town actions. It's a stance that I cannot and will not get over. It has me convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you are scum. I'm not even sure why we keep going in circles about this, but you seem to want to rhetoric me into some kind of submission. Ain't gonna happen, Yos.


With regards to my General Case, you missed my point again. I'm going to spell it out one last time, and that's it. Read the following bracketed part of my post carefully, and respond to it all at once rather than taking each scenario out of context of the general picture.

------------------------------------

There are two possible cases for the size of the [Something Else] group when we reach Endgame. Either there are two [Something Else]s left, or there are more than two [Something Else]s left.

Let Player X be an arbitrary member of [Something Else].

If Player X plays "sacrificial lamb" for group [Something Else] -- for ANY reason (to lead a mislynch, confuse the town, because they made a terrible move by stunting themselves onstage rather then claiming during Scene One, etc.) -- then they will very probably be lynched before Endgame. Thus, when Endgame hits, Player X will not participate in Endgame.

If the mafia players do not have a "sacrifical lamb," they might reach endgame with more than two [Something Else]s left. In this case, an arbitrary Player X could be chosen not to participate in Endgame, because only two [Something Else]s can. Thus, when Endgame hits, Player X will not participate in Endgame.

This applies to each individual scumbag. Either they will be lynched down to two left, or they will have to choose some of their own to be excluded to endgame.


My point is this:
[Something Else] has ZERO REASON to play to have ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS SURVIVE, because they will have to exclude all but two of them anyway. Like I said in my last post, if I'm scum, I would totally use at least one of those extra players to confuse the town for several days, even if it meant they would eventually get lynched.

Thus, the idea that "Player X wouldn't make a play because it would get them lynched" falls through. If Player X will not participate in Endgame even if they play to survive, why not use them in a manner which will confuse and mislead the town?

The ONLY manner in which this fails is if Player X is offered up as a sacrificial lamb and somehow manages to NOT GET LYNCHED, while the town lynches all but one of his friends. THEN he would be a "sacrificial lamb" who made it to endgame. However, I see this scenario as being EXTREMELY rare.

------------------

Now, read that all at once, as one point, and stop and think about it, Yos. Then read it again and stop and think about it some more. I hate having to baby somebody who's been around as long as you have, but you're completely missing what I'm saying, and thus making arguments that don't make sense due to lack of proper context.

Ok, so you said "partial information credibility" instead of "partially confirmed", but it means the same thing.

Another example of you not understanding what I post. Read it again:

During Scene One, CKD proposes the whole "recruit me to their team" idea, knowing full well that a cult-like recruitment fits in with the flavor, and gives his fake "Parital Information" credibility.

This gives credibility to

his "recruit me to their side" Partial Information

. It is NOT intended to make CKD look more protown. They are NOT the same thing. Not even remotely.

If I post "Partial Information" that looks credible, it does NOTHING to confirm my alignment one way or another. Scums can give credible information just as easily as Innocents can give credible information.

[Gaspar]

ps.

Was KYCrew inHim and raj? That's sad.. I didn't even get to say hi.

Yes, they were. That reminds me. Did Elmosaurian ever respond to this:

Go back and read his posts, carefully, and then tell me if you think he was "playing dumb" or if he actually had no idea what was going on. I got a very, very strong vibe it was the second one.

Question: Have you played with inHimShallibe or raj previously?

I think it's a damned good point, and I don't believe Yos ever responded to it. inHim/Raj is about as sneaky as a Hydra to get, so to suppose that those two can't "play dumb" is absurd.

PJ gets to be the chick in this Hydra.

Lies. PJ always wears the pants. I may or may not know this from experience.

[Gaspar]

Oh, one other thing. (Yeah, I've been multiposting a ton in this game. Don't care. Sue me.)

Nice lists. But I think they are completely bad to post and particularily bad for this game. If my theory is correct and we reach endgame with 13 people alive or so, then scum will be allowed to pick of half the group the people they think they can manipulate the best to vote off each other. Lists just help scum at this point. I would advocate to not have anyone post more lists.

I was actually thinking about this while driving home from an interview this morning. While I disagree tha tit's "completely bad to post" in the general case, I have to say that I agree that they are bad in this particular game, because of how Endgame is set up.. I'm seriously considering not posting condorcets at all anymore, because of Endgame rules. Condorcets let the scums decide who the most collectively suspected Innocents are, so that they can be preserved to Endgame.

So yeah. Seriously major bonus points to Saijin for pointing this out. I'd expect scums to keep this point close to their chests, so Saijin bringing it to light is a megabonus.

[Gaspar]

But, yeah, I am 90% sure. If this was a betting game, i'd be willing to bet on him being scum at anything up to 10:1 odds.

I'll take that bet. Your $100 to my $1000?

Town glork does not play like this. Generally when I play with town Glork, he goes on the offensive against scummy people bascially from the start of day 1, and I tend to agree with almost everything he says. Something is badly off kilter with his play this game, and I'm pretty sure it's his alignment.

I was suspicious of Glork this game from day 1, when he was focused on mafiajin almost to the exclusion of everything that was going on in the game. Elmo also told me he had a strong gut read on Glork being scum, and I trust his judgement. His responses today have completly convinced me; I really can not imagine Glork being town here.

Wow. You already brought up this erroneous point once, and I already responded to it:

Since then, I've weighed in on KY Krew, Zwet, Talilan, CowBagelFrogThing, and the On-Camera Decision situation in general

Your response was essentially "but you seemed to focus mostly on MafiaJin."

So, let me see if I've got this right.

I go after a scummy-looking player at the start of D1, while weighing in on other relevant topics, but this doesn't fit what you JUST NOW SAID:

Generally when I play with town Glork, he goes on the offensive against scummy people bascially from the start of day 1, and I tend to agree with almost everything he says.

The only difference I see is that you don't agree with me. If there's more, please tell me. If not, then you're falling into the same pit of despair that Ortolan has exhibited all game.

Try yet again, Yos. I'm still not buying what you're selling.

Well they do pretty much already have lists like that by using just the condorcet voting system.

This is exactly why I said I'm considering not using Condorcets anymore. It's a curious line to walk. On one hand, I typically request complete transparency from players, since Innocents have nothing to hide. However, the mechanics of this specific game make that a bad idea. It is inherently frustrating.

How do you know what Panzer’s PM said…what we got for him was pretty vague. Why do you instantly assume that I am full of crap, but Panzer was telling the truth? Werent you in the first one of these trilogies? Wasn’t there other alignments other than “mafia”…funny you seem to be forgetting that. Why is that?

It may be my interpretation, but the tone/nature of Panzer's information just didn't match with the tone/nature of yours. I obviously have no hard evidence of this, but it's just how I feel about the matter. As far as the previous games, go, yes I was in both of the other ones, and I've already talked about how they have impacted my opinion of this game. My biggest thing is that I do not believe that there are three factions, based on Endgame, which I am now repeating for the third time, I think. It does not make sense to me. I believe that there are only two group factions, with POSSIBLY a single individual.

Because of the description of "entering Endgame," Krew's behavior, Yos's reaction to Krew, and the timing of your "it was called SMG" coupled with Krew's "I think there's a cult," I am reasonably certain that SMG is but a red herring, which makes you a liar, which makes you scum.

As far as when you should be eliminated -- I would like to see Yos lynched during Scene Three. If he comes up Scientologist, I definitely, 100% want to see you lynched during Scene Four. If he comes up SMG, I want you alive (at least for the time being). If he comes up Innocent, I think I would want you lynched during Scene Four, but I'm not sure about that.

And yes, I am prepared to deal with the consequences of you possibly being protown. I think that people should generally be held accountable for leading mislynches. Your last question is silly, pointless, and rather obtuse. Threats of "Oh yeah, well what are you gonna do when I flip town" or "What happens when an SMG flips" make it sound like you're trying to browbeat people into rethinking themselves with fear tactics. This does not reflect well on your character, or your alignment.

3) The SMG and scientologists are one in the same? There is a bunch of actor scientologists that could be the role names here. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_s ... ogist.html or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientologists They could also be part of the SMG.

Possible, but unlikely in my opnion. I posted the two scenarios that --- and I quote myself DIRECTLY --

I believe...[are] most likely

. I never said they were the only two possible, which two people now have tried to insinuate.

[Gaspar]

If there's 5 scum offstage, then there is zero chance the town lynches right tommorow; and if there's 5 scum onstage, then there's zero chance the town picks the right option tommorow.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean here?

(By the way, the reason PJ asked whether you thought Krew was a mislynch is this: You are insinuating that a mislynch tomorrow puts us in a practially unwinnable situation. I believe PJ is going to contest that if that is true, then the nature of the setup means that

two total mislynches puts us in a near-unwinnable situation

, which is horrendously unbalanced setup. Did this thought ever cross your mind when you claimed that a mislynch tomorrow screws us over?)

Also:

Go back and read his posts, carefully, and then tell me if you think he was "playing dumb" or if he actually had no idea what was going on. I got a very, very strong vibe it was the second one.

Question: Have you played with inHimShallibe or raj previously?

I think it's a damned good point, and I don't believe Yos ever responded to it. inHim/Raj is about as sneaky as a Hydra to get, so to suppose that those two can't "play dumb" is absurd.

This is the SECOND time you have completely ignored the "do you really think inHim/Raj couldn't play dumb?" question. The first time, I thought maybe you just missed it. Now it just looks like you are deliberately avoiding answering.

And finally:

I was pointing that out because it seems like Glork is trying to convince the town now that the lynch dosn't really matter here, and that's a dangerous idea.

Absurd. Have you EVER known me to think of any lynch as unimportant? For that matter, have you ever seen me try to convince anybody else that a lynch is unimportant?

[Gaspar]

I guess I have to look at everyone who sheeped onto Elmo after the initial attacks (Talilan, PJ, me). I will re-read the Scene-Three part of this thread during the weekend, hopefully, before I leave town.

Anyway, it's cool, we can lynch Gaspar now. It would be highly disrespectful to disregard the

wishes of the four dead townies.

Nice blatant lie, considering neither PJ/MBL nor BagelCowFrog found me scummy. The rhetoric is getting old, Ortolan. (Ironic, n'est pas?)

I still don't like the ease with which Crone was voted.

At least

one of the wagoners is scum. That's almost certain.

Ortolan: I didn't have any way of

knowing

it. I

thought

it. Don't accuse me of being scum because I guessed right.

First, I've been on scene for 2 scenes straight; I hardly had any time for attacking people.

NOT an excuse, in my opinion. Everybody is responsible for reading on what they missed and commenting on what is relevant. I don't care if you were on stage for all three scenes (like CKD). I still expect you to read and contribute plenty, and I feel that you have severely underperformed in this regard. No dice here.

On Stage, I give my opinions and vote on them. The fact that you think posting more than lurkers Thesp/Thok actually makes me scummier is complete craplogic.

It's not crap logic at all. I feel that your posting in this game is more consistent with SL-Scum than Thok's posting is with Thok-Scum or Thesp's posting is with Thesp-scum.

"Posting" vs "Scumminess" is not a linear curve -- ESPECIALLY not in the general case. Don't even try to pull this kind of bullshit with me.


I'm not sure how I feel about CKD. I'm still pissed about his hammer (which apparently was not a hammer on a techincality on Pooky's post). However, my

gut

is telling me that CKD is town now. Small flip-flop, and I don't really know why. I'm honestly floored that Elmosaurian was protown. I had the rest of my life laid out so beautifully if he was scum.

Elmo being protown also pushes me more towards Talilan being scum (again). That's probably because I thought to myself "well, Ortolan's play has been bad, but he's most likely right about Elmo and Thok, so maybe I'm just pissed that he's tunneled on me." Unfortunately, Elmo was protown, so now I'm back to where I was before. Ortolan has also been ultra-defensive/paranoid all game.

Thok and Thesp (if you haven't done this already), once Scene Four starts, I want detailed explanations of how you feel about EVERYBODY else in the game. I'm talking, 3-5 sentences on each player, if not more. You two are longtime veterans that I'm used to being able to get information from, and I feel as though I have almost nothing from either of you. I don't care if you're put On Camera during Scene Four. Break character, and break down the game for me.

Also, minor FoSes to Baltar and CKD for their reactions to the news. I like my classic scumtells the best, sometimes.

[Gaspar]

EDIT:

"Posting" vs "Scumminess" is not a linear curve -- ESPECIALLY not in the general case. Don't even try to pull this kind of bullshit with me.

This should read "Lurking" vs. "Scumminess," just to clear up any confusion. I was talking about posting frequency, but obviously didn't make that clear.

Also, both the last post and this post were made by Glork, obviously.

[Gaspar]

Hewitt, did it EVER occur to you that this ENTIRE game, Ortolan has been taking his own personal opinions and presenting them as absolute fact? Ortolan even said

in the post which got deleted

"I would vote Crone." Not "everyone Off-Stage would vote Crone."

You're either scum with a terrabad excuse, or you are a complete fucking idiot.


Pardon my language.

[Gaspar]

CKD, can you please explain the logic behind each person you chose to go On Camera for Scene Three, and the order in which you chose them?

[Gaspar]

Also, I PMed Mr. Grey to ask about the circumstances that potentially lead to ckd ending up on-stage. I asked "what happens if there are 4 people required for a scene, the director picks 5 and then two die, does the director automatically go on?" He said he couldn't answer.

I actually asked the same thing, hoping to possibly catch CKD in a lie. My disappointment with Mr. Grey's lack of answer is expressed in Post 393 of the On Camera thread.

Glorky- please explain how Mother was "so obviously the right choice". Please also explain how you were sure the information elmo (who you were sure was obv-scum) was providing was correct. I would like to hear who elvis suspects.

I've answered BOTH of these questions already, and I've answered the latter one at least three or four times. Go back and read it for yourself.

[Gaspar]

I would like to hear who elvis suspects.

You!

So Glork explained the rules to me and caught me up on some stuff, like the fact that KY Krew outtedhimself and that elmoyos was strongly implicated. I haven't talked to Glork since elmoyos flipped town, but I know he strongly expected elmoyos to flip scum.

I haven't read up on everything yet, but I just couldn't help coming in here to say that Talilan is fucking scummy.

Also Gaspar's "Mother was so obviously the right choice" stuff is still really scummy (in fact according to my diagram if Crone is bad then Mother was indeed the "good" choice, but he (should have) had no way of knowing this at the time.

This is a ridiculous argument. Glork argued for the right choice, and that's scummy? So we're scummy because we wanted to do something that was pro-town? That is so backwards it's not funny.

And also, I have made similar arguments when I am scum -- that "nobody could have known that townie was town unless they were scum who know everyone's allignments!!!11" That's how you shift blame off the people who argued for the mislynch, or in this case, the bad decision. That's how you blame the people who were actually right and arguing for the right thing. "Who could have actually figured out the right thing to do! OMG!"

It's a horribly scummy argument.

I will be posting more in the coming days as I get caught up. And I will be taking the reigns in a few days when Glork goes VLA.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

hey gaspar...you attacked me when you thought that I was hammering the crone.....because I didnt give enough people a chance to change the vote.

yet, have you said jack about DGB doing it?

1) I left work like five minutes after I made my post, and by the time I got back from work and dinner, the thread was closed and everything. I didn't have time to say anything. Now I'm back here and trying to read up on the thread while answering questions about current events.

2) DGB has done

plenty

of other things in this game to convince me that she is protown. I basically won't ever vote her, so telling her off to get a read on her reaction seems silly and pointless to me... and telling her off to get her to play smarter... well, let's just say I know how fruitless that can be.


-Glork

[Gaspar]

good to see elvis towing the party line, thus giving me no reason to change my scum-read of Gaspar

- ortolan

good to see ortolan ignore my arguments in favor of vague blanket accusations that have no basis in reality

~elvis

[Gaspar]

Whatever dude you can't blame me for a majority decision.

But one can blame you for shameless bandwagoning.

[Gaspar]

SL, what are your thoughts on Talilan (and Ortolan's posting in particular)?

[Gaspar]

I'm up to page 15 and wanted to write a few things. Maybe they're old news, but maybe they can relate to more current things.

Foundation for the zwet wagon was built before scenes started:
47 - Talilan went uber-serious on taking DGB's assesment that zwet confirmed in a scummy way. I hate this.
66 - Hewitt expresses how he likes the attacks on zwet and finds them funny because zwet is a weak player. wtf.
83 - Talilan asks "what do you think dahill's downplay of zwet tells says about his allignment?" Which I hate. Again. Because they're assuming zwet is scum already. If zwet is not scum, nothing he has done is a tell, and therefore analyzing dahill's reaction to it doesn't matter that much. You cannot connect the scums when you don't know if anyone actually is a scum.
119 - Talilan throws a fit and misreps glork. Glork said that the on-camera decision is not more important than lynching scum. Talilan says Glork was saying the decision was "irrelevant."

Throughout most of the day, I swung between finding DGB town and then suspicious, but Glork has said he finds DGB town, so I guess I'll trust him a bit on that one.

One thing I thought was really important to note is how a few people mentioned sending KY Krew onstage in the midst of him being one of the highest vote getters! WTF! That was horrible. MightyOrbots did it in 254, Thok says it in 272, and there were possibly others mentions of it. Did you guys talk about this later? Because that was really really scummy, especially now that we know KY was scum.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

One thing I thought was really important to note is how a few people mentioned sending KY Krew onstage in the midst of him being one of the highest vote getters! WTF! That was horrible. MightyOrbots did it in 254, Thok says it in 272, and there were possibly others mentions of it. Did you guys talk about this later? Because that was really really scummy, especially now that we know KY was scum.

I don't think that we ever did talk about that later. It could be a reasonable topic I suppose. Why was it that Gaspar brought it up as something that was either an option or explicitly something he desired in posts 240, 244, and 256 right around then? I think I can guess at the motivation but I don't mind hearing your take. I know that I expressed my reasons for wanting to consider a switch when I brought it up in 254 but it'd be fine to talk about it if people would like.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

The motivation is obvious. I wanted Jin stone cold dead at the time, as I loathed what I saw as an act of shameless self-preservation. I must sound like a broken record by now, but I hated (and still hate) the whole "I wanted to guarantee a protown player On Camera" reason. It was pure, unadultured crap. It

still

bothers me, even as I post right now.

One thing I will note: If we are assuming that the scums can talk at any time (which I think a significant number of us have decided is very likely), then I would NOT have made Post 240 as Krew's scumbuddy. It'd be beyond stupid to publicly make myself a scapegoat for "Krew switch with Talilan" when I could theoretically tell Krew that in the secrecy of a PM or QT post or whatever.

Pooky, please add yourself to my list of "People who need to describe their opinions of everybody once Scene Four starts." Quit roleplaying and start playing, or please request to be replaced. I love you to death, but I'm not even joking a little bit. I feel like you're being obstinate and difficult for its own sake, and not as a gameplay strategy, and that bothers and disappoints me. Don't make me make EK scold you.

-Glork

[Gaspar]

Gaspar are you going to completely ignore the fact that I asked you to explain why you decided to pick out the thing I said about zwets at the start of the game?

Hi, my name is Glork. If you are asking about Elvis' readthrough of the game, she can't come to the phone right now. Please leave a message after the beep.








Beep.

[Gaspar]

Thok fails to conclude that Gaspar looks just as scummy as the other players that did the same actions.

Did you guys talk about this later? Because that was really really scummy, especially now that we know KY was scum.

~Elvis

First of all, Gaspar (your role) also discussed the possibility of KY Krew going onscreen, in the time frame you were discussing, even while voting him.

Methinks you need to get your eyes checked, G&B. The first point of Thok's defense was "Glork did it, too."

[Gaspar]

I haven't re-read the context of the Zwetwagon foundation, and I haven't talked to Elvis about it. So I don't really have any comment on the matter, but I'll let her answer you as she sees fit.


I'm basically letting EK do her own readthrough of the game, so that my preconceptions won't taint her reading. At the time I replaced in, I explained to her that I suspected Elmosaurian a whole bunch, and that I suspected CKD to a certain degree, based on how Elmosaurian would flip. Beyond that, I don't

think

I told her any of my other likes or dislikes.

I think that getting a fresh perspective from someone I know I can trust will probably help me settle some of the internal flip-flopping I've done over the past scene-and-a-half or so.

-Glork

[Gaspar]

Like, the scum know who you suspect anyway

Wait, wait, wait, wait.



WHAT?

[Gaspar]

Do I, the alleged "scum," know who Thok or Pooky suspects?

[Gaspar]

But go back and look at your counteragument.



1) Baltar said "we shouldn't post full scumlists before the scene starts, so that the Scums can't swindle us with the Good/Bad decision-making."

2) You told Thok to give us a list of who he suspects and why.

3) You said "I don't think hiding that information helps. The scums know who you suspect anyway."

4) You then stated that I am scum, and that I do not know who Thok suspects.



Please explain how Statement 4 holds.

[Gaspar]

oh, I missed a statement in there:

2b) Baltar said "why are you asking Thok for a scumlist after I just said it's a bad idea?"

[Gaspar]

Here's my imitation of Thok:

"blah blah blah

sit on fence

blah blah blah

50% grey

blah blah blah

nonsense

blah blah blah

some safe crap

blah blah blah

Glork can do no wrong

and oh yeah, vote: G&B"

Thok, you've stepped in and answered for me three times (give or take, I haven't been counting) in the last 48 hours or so. Are you buddying up to me? The first time or two, I was like "whatever, that's just Thok being Thok" but your most recent defense of me has taken you off my list of very likely Innocents.

Oh believe me, DGB. I noticed this towards the end of Scene ONE. Obviously, you also see one reason why Thok's been on my "Makes Me Uneasy List" basically all game.

[Gaspar]

oh, I missed a statement in there:

2b) Baltar said "why are you asking Thok for a scumlist after I just said it's a bad idea?"

Glork? Elvis?

Please demand that Thok to produce a scumlist. He'll listen to you.

Thanks.

Thok and Thesp (if you haven't done this already), once Scene Four starts, I want detailed explanations of how you feel about EVERYBODY else in the game. I'm talking, 3-5 sentences on each player, if not more. You two are longtime veterans that I'm used to being able to get information from, and I feel as though I have almost nothing from either of you. I don't care if you're put On Camera during Scene Four. Break character, and break down the game for me.

I'm like 3 pages ahead of you, DGB.

[Gaspar]

Not quite sure what you're asking Glorky, but my position is that I think you are scum, Thok could be too, but this is irrelevant to the argument.

Basically I counter VP Baltar's "we shouldn't post full scumlists before the scene starts, so that the Scums can't swindle us with the Good/Bad decision-making" with "the scum have a good idea of who most people suspect anyway from what they've said in previous scenes (which isn't a bad thing as it's automatically entailed by people being clear about who they suspect), therefore there's no point holding back between scenes"

I understand what you are arguing.

I am countering with "The scums have no more or less idea of who people suspect than the other townspeople."

Normally, I would agree with you 110%, that holding information back is a terrible idea. However, the whole Decision/Lynch mechanism -- combined with the fact that the scums choose Advocates (where applicable) -- means that they have unnatural control over "daytime" decisions.

The point is that, supposing I

were

scum, I would have no idea who ThokTown or PookyTown suspected, and I'd have relatively little idea of other hypothetical Innocents. The scums managed to swindle us away from the Mother/Maiden/Crone decision, because we tipped our hands re: Elmosaurian a bit too quickly. Baltar is cautioning against doing that again, and you're sitting here saying "nah, it's not that important." Yes. It is

that important

. We probably lost a decision because of it.

[Gaspar]

If you think that the director (currently CKD) has a reasonable chance of being scum, then yes. It makes all the difference in the world. Due to previous deaths, CKD is choosing SEVEN players to go On Camera for this scene. If he's scum, that gives him immense control over who can be lynched, and who will be making the Scene Four Decision.



Maybe we should make condorcets not of people we necessarily suspect, but of the order in which we would like to see people go On Camera. We can use Mr. Grey's magickal plugin forumla to see who the leading "votegetters" are, then force CKD to send Grey a list of players in that order. If anything goes awry, we lynch CKD plain and simple.

[Gaspar]

gaspar, you would love it if you could tell me who to send wouldnt you?

Of course I would. I am a power hungry lunatic. I wouldn't be Glork if not.

But seriously, I was suggesting that the

collective

tell you who to send, not me personally.

--------------------

This is one of the most anti-town approaches to the game I've ever read. Basically you're saying you'll completely ignore anyone you don't like.

I know Thok already answered this, but I have to say that I agree completely.

You cannot be reasoned with one bit, Ortolan. You are completely unwilling to consider that you might be wrong about ANYTHING.

EVEN AFTER ELMOSAURIAN WAS LYNCHED AS AN INNOCENT, YOU POSTED THIS:

It was because he was obv-scum (who somehow turned out to not be scum).

Elmo died as an Innocent, and even AFTER THE FACT, you're still referring to him as "obvscum."

If you are protown, you cannot be reasoned with. Even when faced with being wrong about a player, you sit here and obstinately state that the Innocent player was "obvscum."

I'm not trying to say you're a terrible person or that I dislike you, but if you're protown, and you are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are wrong, you need to find a different game. Everyone is going to be wrong more often than they are right, and the ability to adjust your worldview based on current events is what makes a player even mediocre at mafia as a game.


--------------------------------------

I can't find anything to fault him, so I'd lean town.

So, let me get this straight.


You went off on Orbots for one post:

Damnit, you guys were supposed to switch out the obvscum glork and lynch him. What the hell?

We're lynching the obvscum elmosaurian instead.

Well, except MafiaJin, since Sajin apparently has insights into things that the rest of us mere mortals don't.


-PZ

vote: elmosaurian

BIG RED X.

While knowing his alignment might be influencing my read, elmosaurian's posts were coming from a genuine perspective. That post is completely encouraging groupthink and stifling discussion.

Yet you "can't find anything to fault" Ortolan posting like this, pre-D2 (when Krew was slated to be lynched):

I will be very, very, very displeased if Gaspar somehow lives through day two. [/quote[

I think the important thing is we agree we should lynch Gaspar

Or this:

Anyway, it's cool, we can lynch Gaspar now. It would be highly disrespectful to disregard the wishes of the four dead townies.

Or this (by Talitha, not Ortolan):

I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts before I go:

1. Lynch Gaspar

Or this:

btw cee kay dee, please leave Gaspy off-stage so I can lynch him/her (and leave me off too).

Cheers darl,

orty

All game, Talilan has been trying to "stifle discussion" and "encourage groupthink" by mindlessly posting "we need to lynch Gaspar" -- even when Krew had outed himself and was clearly the correct lynch. Yet while you find Orbots'

LONE

"we're lynching you because you're scum" post to be shady, you don't find any fault with Talilan?

As you would say:

BIG RED X.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar: There is a huge difference. First, you've never seriously been a lynch target. elmosaruian was an easy lynch target, and scum were going to try and get enough momentum moving on him that there would be no other course of action soon enough. Talilan and GoofballsandBalloons have been pushing on you from the start of the game and posting in that style. I've become accustomed enough to their pushing from you, that it's not out of the ordinary for them. However, from Orbots, who I had a town read on Scene 1, it is inconsistent with his past behavior, and raised skepticism of him.

The thing is, if Elmosaurian was already stunted off, then it was kind of a done deal -- roughly akin to saying "We're lynching obvscum Krew." It looks to me that the decision was already made by the collective, and Orbots was just telling Elmosaurian that.

I said "we're so lynching Krew tomorrow, it's not even funny" earlier in the game, and nobody seemed to find that shady then or now. Why? Because I was just stating what the collective had already agreed upon. From what I can tell, Orbots did basically the exact same thing.

There *is* a difference between what Orbots did, and what Talilan did, but I'm coming to the exact *opposite* conclusion as you, which is why I want to know more about what you're thinking. Orbots' post seemed fine to me, and Talilan's constant badgering has turned Talilan/Gaspar into a major distraction for a number of people.

[Gaspar]

One thing I thought was really important to note is how a few people mentioned sending KY Krew onstage in the midst of him being one of the highest vote getters! WTF! That was horrible. MightyOrbots did it in 254, Thok says it in 272, and there were possibly others mentions of it. Did you guys talk about this later? Because that was really really scummy, especially now that we know KY was scum.

I don't think that we ever did talk about that later. It could be a reasonable topic I suppose. Why was it that Gaspar brought it up as something that was either an option or explicitly something he desired in posts 240, 244, and 256 right around then? I think I can guess at the motivation but I don't mind hearing your take. I know that I expressed my reasons for wanting to consider a switch when I brought it up in 254 but it'd be fine to talk about it if people would like.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

I did notice Glork talked about it too but I don't need to figure out my own allignment so I wasn't contemplating why Glork said that. It seems clear he wanted Talilan or MafiaJin to come back so we could lynch them.

I know I agree on Talilan, but not so much on MafiaJin. I have played with SSK recently and have found out that he is unable to explain the simplest things even when he is town, and that he doesn't put a whole lot of thought into what he does, and doesn't put a whole lot of effort into defending himself. So basically, my expectations are really really low for him and I'm not so hot about thinking he's scum.

I think you, MO, possibly had no ulterior motive for wanting to send KY Krew onstage because you seemed pretty obsessed with the onstage people screwing up. I think I believe that you were very concerned with them being confused about the decision. Was Talilan trying to float the idea that maybe both ideas were bad or something like that? (Another reason Talilan is scum, BTW).

Although, why did you want KY specifically to send the message to them? Was it role related? I wasn't sure. Could you have sent someone else?

But my guess is that there is a good chance that atleast one of the people wanting to save KY Krew and send then onstage was a fellow scumbuddy.

And that sounds like Thok to me since I see MO having a valid reason for wanting to send KY.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

66 - Hewitt expresses how he likes the attacks on zwet and finds them funny because zwet is a weak player. wtf.

What is that even supposed to mean? Why even point that out? Like what's the problem with that? Don't just go quote me and then say what the fuck. Explain how that's significant.

I don't like your expressed glee at seeing people attack a person you see as a weak player.

What kind of person finds it funny when everyone gangs up on a weak player? A scumbag.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

One thing I thought was really important to note is how a few people mentioned sending KY Krew onstage in the midst of him being one of the highest vote getters! WTF! That was horrible. MightyOrbots did it in 254, Thok says it in 272, and there were possibly others mentions of it. Did you guys talk about this later? Because that was really really scummy, especially now that we know KY was scum.

~Elvis

First of all, Gaspar (your role) also discussed the possibility of KY Krew going onscreen, in the time frame you were discussing, even while voting him.

Secondly, at that time, there seemed to be a real chance that the on-stage people would vote for what was relatively obviously a poor decision to the off-stage people.

Thirdly, the KY Krew wagon at that time was mostly a lurker wagon (and at the time you were discussing, he was at 3 votes, with 6 needed to lynch.) Bagel Eating Cowfrog described it as merely being a decent wagon, for example. Then KY Krew kept lurking and said some stupid stuff, got wagoned some more for that, and then he jumped off-screen rather than defending himself and outed himself as obvscum.

As for Glork discussing it too, I addressed this already.

As for your worries about the on-stage people, did you express your feelings elsewhere? I saw MO seemed genuinely concerned and kept talking about it. Did you?

Even if it was a lurker wagon, they and zwet were the best you had at the time. Why did it seem like a good idea to get rid of one of your top two suspects, even if they weren't that strongly suspected?

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

Still reading...

Uhhhhh, there is just so much I hate about Talilan and their arguments. I really hate how they try to say elmoyos/gaspar are scum because they were "distancing." That is a horribly weak reason to condemn people as scum because you see a possible "distancing" relationship between them. You can call "distancing" a million different times in a game, it's so vague. Also, I really really hate when people use connections/relationships as a basis for calling a person scum. Until a person flips scum, this is not very useful and too open to manipulation.

The only thing that is making me think Talilan might be town is that KY Krew chose to switch with them. Would a scum KY chose their buddy to switch with or a townie? It's ripe with WIFOM, but it does give me pause. I would like to note that DGB and MO noted this conundrum in favor of seeing Talilan as town (information will only be useful here if Talilan is scum).

I am not sure I am willing to forget all the MANY reasons I think Talilan is scum just because KY KRew chose ot stunt them back here, but I am trying to be fair about it.

I wonder how the stunt ability works though. Is it possible KY Krew wanted to switch with a person of his same allignment? That the scum would want to keep numbers the same for some reason?

It's possible I just want to make this fit because I hate most of everything Talilan says.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

Up to page 31, not sure I can read any more today, it's getting hard to pay attention...

It was good to have the between scenes stuff where more players commented, because most of d1 was a bunch of players who are now dead town, with Talilan being scummy next to them.

So far I am suspicious of:
Talilan
Hewitt
Thok
Starkiss

I thought it was funny how Hewitt ISO's himself in post 622, and does an uninsightful cliffnotes of his play as a way of defending himself.

I also think a number of people are pretty town. I would normally say who these people are but I think some people have been saying to keep that to ourselves? Maybe just during the in-between night time here?

I also wanted to say about mafiajinn, I think lynching him would be pretty much a crapshoot. My recent experience with SSK is that you cannot put any type of scummy behavior down as him actually being scum. And as for sajin I consider him much more competent, but I have seen him fake claim as town and get himself lynched, so I'm not sure if I can hold him to normal standards either. I know Glork said a bunch he wants mafiajinn dead, but I just think mafiajinn is a headache and I would rather concentrate my time on people I think I can actually read and deal with mafiajinn later.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

@Elvis- correct me if I am wrong but before I died with that fake claim I moved my lynch onto you as scum which was correct. I just could not sustain the fake claim the next day. I find it interesting that you are trying to shade me as a bad town player. Glad you remember me for it though.

Your last statement is curious as because recently Glork had changed his stance in the thread.

No I got you were lynched first then I was lynched the next day. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 73&start=0

Also, sorry if I said you were a bad player. I don't really mean that. I think I'm just letting my SSK frustrations out on you.

Also, me and Glork haven't discussed anything beyond when he thought elmoyos was going to flip scum, and he thought it would mean something about ckd. What it was supposed to mean, I don't remember. I'm just going by what I read him say in thread, and the first part of the game he wanted you deaddeaddead. If that changed I haven't gotten to it yet.

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

In my read I also noticed sotty had MRJellyLee down as leaning scum. That seemed odd to me but maybe that's because I already know he was town. He just seemed very good at strategizing and trying to help people think about the decisions and also to help analyze what the on-stage people were doing. He seemed to try to bring everyone's attention to possible scummy moves on-screen, stuff that others weren't paying attention to.

Was it reasonable to find MrJellyLee scummy?

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

I just told you he seemed town to me but I may be biased since I KNOW he's town since he's dead. That's why I'm asking others what they thought... like before he was revealed town.

And, FTR, it was post 689 I'm talking about, which was page 28.

I really don't like how you are downplaying the importance of this read on MrJellylee, like since it was your fourth post it was so early in the game you shouldn't be held accountable. It may have been your fourth post only because you were onstage for scene one. When you came back and read the thread there were over 20 pages of info for you to read, which is a lot of info and should not be a preliminary read at all. And you put jellylee at "leaning scum."

~Elvis

[Gaspar]

well, I think we need to use the stuntman ability today...

but if it isnt asigned it isnt assigned.

well, fuck I didnt really consider that in my picking who stays and who goes. I really dont have an urge to lynch any of you.....

at this point, I would prefer a GnB, Gaspar, Might Orbits, or starkiss lynch.....in that order.

I'm confused, partially may be a rules/mechanics thing.

But why did you put everyone you think is scummy onstage? You said you thought all the above are scum and they won't lynch each other so you put them onstage? That doesn't make too much sense to me.

Shouldn't you keep the people around for a lynch that you (and more importantly the players in the game as a whole) think are scum? Otherwise you can't lynch them. They are not available. I could understand you not wanting to put all scummy players offstage since you want townish players to drive the lynch, but putting all scummy players offstage seems idiotic.

Also, were you wanting to have the off-stage players decide who they wanted to lynch from the on-stage players and then stunting that person back offstage for the lynch? If so, that strikes me as ridiculously scummy since you're discussing and mostly deciding the lynch while the person isn't even there and can't defend themself. It seems like it's much easier to get a mislynch on a person who can't even defend themself, and easier to manipulate townies into thinking a person is scum. I dislike this so much.

~elvis

[Gaspar]

Well it does seem like you guys used the stuntman on other days so it would be normal to assume there would be one. I don't even understand what happened with that...?

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.
~elvis

[Gaspar]

No, that's not what I said. I'm still reading the day and unless mafiajinn stopped posting then I'm sure he had the opportunity to defend himself since he was offstage with you guys. (I mean mafiajinn is an easy target but that's a whole other topic).

I'm talking about how you guys wanted to decide which player from onstage you wanted to lynch and then planned to stunt them offstage to lynch them. That would be deciding the lynch when the person isn't there to defend themself.

Or am I misunderstanding?
~elvis

[Gaspar]

Well it does seem like you guys used the stuntman on other days so it would be normal to assume there would be one. I don't even understand what happened with that...?

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.
~elvis

Obviously the mindset we've been going at this with is faulty, and our dependence on the stuntman has been exposed the moment we didn't get one for the last scene.

Obviously we need to go about this with a different, and more alert mindset.

So was this the agreed-up strategy? To decide among the off-stage players who to lynch from the onstage players and then stunt that person in to string them up?

That seems horrible but if everyone agreed on that, I guess that's sort of okay. Although I would like to know who came up with that horrible idea, and who championed it the most -- as I would say they're scum.

[Gaspar]

I'm talking about how you guys wanted to decide which player from onstage you wanted to lynch and then planned to stunt them offstage to lynch them. That would be deciding the lynch when the person isn't there to defend themself.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Well, I think the general concensus early on was that the people everyone could generally agree on as the scummiest were all on stage and a lynching one of the off stage persons would have been sub-optimal.

But ckd did that on purpose. He put people he said he thought were scum onstage. It wasn't some random predicament you found yourselves in. And I disagree that there were no good lynch targets offstage last scene. Hewitt for example was excellent and I don't really understand why you went for mafiajinn who was clearly an easy target.

I think you are reaching a bit to say that whoever may have been stunted off stage wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves because you have no idea what would have happened.

You would have all agreed who you thought was scummiest to stunt them offstage for the express purpose of lynching them. I can't believe that you would actually changed your mind in favor of lynching one of the others who you already agreed were "suboptimal."

However, you should also note that we can only use the stuntman once per scene, so essentially the people off stage have to predecide who they think is scummiest without that person being there beforehand. I don't see any way to work around that.

How about we discuss between scenes who EVERYONE thinks is scummy and then we keep around 2 people that we think are scum (or whatever ratio is good for the number alive, so as not to let scum run the lynch)? Then we can still stunt in someone if we don't like any of the choices.

Also I fail to see how it is a good strategy to put all the "scummy" people in one place when we have to lynch right AND make good decisions.

[Gaspar]

that was me, elvis again.

[Gaspar]

Basically my point is that we should use this time between scenes to reach a consensus of who we think is scummiest, because being divided is really hurting us. Last time between scenes I was reading up and not really understanding everything and I think people were advising against giving overall reads between scenes. I think that was a bad idea. We should be using the time between scenes to get everyone's POV and reach some kind of overall consensus. That should help the director(or whatever role, not sure) decide who to put on and who to put off. That should also help the off-stage people know who to lynch and help the onstage people know who they shouldn't trust. We are divided during the days, so we have to hash this stuff out NOW. There is no other time.

Scum probably can talk all the time, right? Which means they can coordinate much better than us anyway. And we severely handicap ourselves by holding back our thoughts during the between scenes times.

Everyone should be playing their hardest between scenes, and letting others know what they think. Personally, I will be working on deciding what I think of everyone. I have already have people I think are definitely town: MO, sotty. I also have people I think are scum: Talilan, hewitt, ckd. But there are a lot of people I'm not as sure on, so I want to narrow that down. I am still trying to get through a bunch of pages in this thread, so that should help me decide. And discussing with glork always helps!


~elvis

[Gaspar]

I'm never said it was good decision by ckd. I simply said that I don't agree it was scummy. Also, I think discussing who everyone thinks is scummy because it allows the scum to manipulate advocates, as I said before.

Also, read the whole thread before reaching any decisions. You making blanket statements such as "MJ was an easy target" after the fact without even reading the thread furthers the marks in your scummy column.

MJ was an easy target because the hydra contained SSK and suffered from his taint even after it looks like he stopped posting. Any hydra with SSK is going to look bad, and that type of thing lingers. Thus he was definitely and easy mark. I tried to tell you guys how fail he is and you can't judge him like a normal person.

Also this is word one I have heard of you calling me scummy. Is it because I have pointed out the flaws in your "decide the lynch and then stunt in the victim" plan, or because I attacked ckd?

[Gaspar]

MJ was an easy target because the hydra contained SSK and suffered from his taint even after it looks like he stopped posting. Any hydra with SSK is going to look bad, and that type of thing lingers.

SSK wasn't posting in it for a long time. Any other facts I can enlighten you on since you continue to not read the thread?

Stop being a pain. SSK posted in the beginning and that is enough to taint the hydra until doomsday. Also, as I said previously, I have seen sajin fake claim as town and get himself lynched because of it, so yeah, I think they were an easy mark.

~elvis

Tags removed. Use bold only for voting. - Mod

[Gaspar]

I think people were advising against giving overall reads between scenes. I think that was a bad idea. We should be using the time between scenes to get everyone's POV and reach some kind of overall consensus.

Well, you're wrong. Clearly you didn't see how the scum pwn'd us on the Yos lynch because of this.

I need you to hold my hand on this one. How does it help the town to keep our opinions to ourselves? Seriously, if there is a reason, lay it on me.

~elvis

[Gaspar]

well, I think we need to use the stuntman ability today...

but if it isnt asigned it isnt assigned.

well, fuck I didnt really consider that in my picking who stays and who goes. I really dont have an urge to lynch any of you.....

at this point, I would prefer a GnB, Gaspar, Might Orbits, or starkiss lynch.....in that order.

I'm confused, partially may be a rules/mechanics thing.

But why did you put everyone you think is scummy onstage? You said you thought all the above are scum and they won't lynch each other so you put them onstage? That doesn't make too much sense to me.

Shouldn't you keep the people around for a lynch that you (and more importantly the players in the game as a whole) think are scum? Otherwise you can't lynch them. They are not available. I could understand you not wanting to put all scummy players offstage since you want townish players to drive the lynch, but putting all scummy players offstage seems idiotic.

Also, were you wanting to have the off-stage players decide who they wanted to lynch from the on-stage players and then stunting that person back offstage for the lynch? If so, that strikes me as ridiculously scummy since you're discussing and mostly deciding the lynch while the person isn't even there and can't defend themself. It seems like it's much easier to get a mislynch on a person who can't even defend themself, and easier to manipulate townies into thinking a person is scum. I dislike this so much.

~elvis

I didnt want to have any issue lynching someone...I thought we would have (in time) a stuntman like we had every other time....in hindsight it was stupid decision/assumption on two counts...one, I didnt get to lynch who i wanted....two, all those scummy people I put onstage, got us a -1....

You didn't want to have any issues lynching someone? A majority lynches. You don't need a unanimous decision. Why would you ever put only people you see as town in the lynch pool. For one thing: your only lynch candidates are people you think are town! And for another thing, if you're relying on the stunt man: you're being unfair and dishonest to determine the lynch when a body isn't there to defend himself. You're deciding the lynch and then stunting him in like a pig to the slaughter. It shows you aren't interested in discussing with the person, you're not actually showing any type of due dilligence. You're just picking a victim.

there were other reasons I put who I did onstage/offstage wanted to see who posted what..who voted for who...

And these reasons are...?

For one thing I think it was ridiculously anti-town to put Gaspar onstage when I wasn't done reading this thread. It really puts us at a disadvantage when I CAN'T catch up because the thread isn't open to me, and Glork was v/la.

I think I have scum nailed at this point...and will not make the same mistake again.

And these players are...?

gaspar, how do you think you are doing so far this game...protown..antitown?

I felt like an idiot when Talilan made his snarky comments to me onstage, but I think I am finally getting the hang of this game.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, i think i have said numerous times in this game who i think is scum...perhaps you need to finish reading before you post again.

Yeah I should probably go read pages and pages for hours instead of just asking you and you typing the response. It would take the same amount of time for you to just tell me.

Besides, what if your scumlist has changed? Am I supposed to know you haven't changed your mind? It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask you who you think is scum.

[Gaspar]

ckd, explain to me how it is fair to decide a person's lynch while they are onstage and can't defend themselves.

[Gaspar]

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.

This isn't Scene fucking 1. At this point we've got a pretty damn good idea who's scum and whose not and unfortunately all of you guys were On-Stage. So while we were left with just trying to decide who's the most marginally scummy we had to continue watching you guys scumming it up On-Stage. Of course we're going to talk about you. It's essentially the same thing we did when we yanked KY Krew Off-Stage and you weren't complaining about that being unfair.

1. Obviously you do NOT have a pretty good idea who is scum since you lynched town.

2. Blame ckd for it if you don't like who was available for lynch.

3. We had much less info about the stupid decision than you did here on the lynch. You're sitting on all the real info of the game in this thread and the rest of us can't even access it. So I think it's silly to put more blame on the bumbling on-stagers than on the mislynching off-stagers.

4. Never in a game of mafia do you present cases on a person who isn't physically there. You give them a chance to respond, you discuss, you argue, whatever. You never get together a jury of people and present cases on people who aren't there, decide who you want to lynch and then bring them in for the execution. That is NOT fair. Yes, the person can try to fight it after you stunt them offstage, but it will not matter since they are the only available target (you can't stunt someone else and you've agreed that the jury is all town).