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

[elmosaurian]

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.

This is why you are scum.

No town would ever be ok with taking a pro-town person and then turning them into scum just so we could lynch them. Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.

[elmosaurian]

Pretty sure I have never articulated this to ortolan, but when I made the suggestion to Locke that he drive and we lynch him as a matyr - it was as much about getting a reaction/read on him as anything, because I didn't quite trust his matyr act (he was saying that choosing not to lead would get him killed by scum, but that he had to do it anyway).

Uh, when did he say that?

Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.

-Yos

[Mr. Grey]

Deadline:

Approximately 60 hours from this post.

Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

zwetschenwasser: 3 (Bagel Eating Cowfrog, Mighty Orbots, Talilan)
elmosaurian: 1 (MrJellyLee)
Gaspar: 1 (zwetschenwasser)
GoofballsAndBaloons: 1 (Thok)
Talilan: 1 (Gaspar)

Not Voting: 4 (elmosaurian, GoofballsAndBaloons, Rawr Hydra, ShadowLurker)

Current Condorcet Winner:

zwetschenwasser

To view the complete table of pairwise results, put the following information into this form.

1,Bagel Eating Cowfrog
2,elmosaurian
3,Gaspar
4,GoofballsAndBaloons
5,Mighty Orbots
6,MrJellyLee
7,Rawr Hydra
8,ShadowLurker
9,Talilan
10,Thok
11,zwetschenwasser
12,No Lynch
13,Mr. Grey

1:11>7>2=3=4=6=9=10>5>8>12>1
1:3>11>1>4=6=7=8=9=10>5>12>2
1:11>6=10>4=7=8>1=2=5>12>3>9
1:11>8>1=2=6=7=9=10>3=5>4>12
1:11>6=7>4=8>1=2=3=10>9=12>5
1:2>10>1=5=7=8=11>3>4>12>13>6>9
1:1=2=3=4=5=6=8=9=10=11=12>7
1:11>6=7>3>1>10>12>5>2>4>9>8
1:11>3>2>5=7=8=10>6>4>1>12>9
1:4>7>6>1=5>8>12>11>2=3>10>9
1:1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10=12>11

[Talilan]

Uh, when did he say that?

Yikes, were you actually reading the other thread at all?

I was given a choice. I do not take it lightly. For this choice, dooms me I am sure. I am sure this choice will make the guilty angry and the innocent stronger. My time with you will probably be short, but know that what I do, I believe is right and just.

probably will be my doom.
If a petal dies, does the flower not live on?

If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.

I am chosing a harder road...to stay innocent. Not the biggest sacrfice I have ever made, but a hard one to be sure.

I assume They know this. I also think I will pay for it.

If I drive, the sun will indeed grow hotter, if I dont, most likely I will just fall off the flower.

As you see, the easier road, would have been to except the offer and try to coerce you to let me drive….to lead…or to not say anything at all and let the pieces fall as they may.

As I have said before, I chose a different…harder road.

Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.

The only people who have given reasons are you and Gaspar. If your case is so strong and logical, why is no-one else buying what you're selling? (I cannot for the life of me figure out what reasoning you've given that hasn't been explained more than adequately).

Tal

[Talilan]

No town would ever be ok with taking a pro-town person and then turning them into scum just so we could lynch them.

Why do you keep entering into this? We were entertaining the possibility that ckd was lying in order to get us to divert to the other advocate. According to minmax theory, this has the best outcome according to the other options:

If Locke is telling the truth, then we go with him but apparently the only bad thing which happens is losing an innocent, who we then lynch the next day.

If Locke is lying in an attempt to divert the wagon to the other advocate incorrectly, then we get the best outcome possible. It's not rocket science.

The alternative was going with Valentine

If both advocates are lying or one or both has misleading information, then we have the worst possible outcome. We still don't know if ckd is scum or town. We still don't know if Panzerjager is scum or town.

If that is the correct decision then all is well and dandy (barring mitigating factors like e.g. ckd actually being scum all along but being accepted as town from that point on because he led us in the right direction, and it would be too bizarre to claim to have the opportunity to defect if it weren't true and one was scum all along).

Thus, going with Locke actually has the least worst potential outcome. There is certainly no reason not to consider it, particularly if it generated discussion.

Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.

Source for this?

Why six scumbags, and why Hewitt and ShadowLurker?

I want cred post-game if I turn out to be right about all six. Six just seems a good guess at the number of scum. Am I right?

The fact that you say you didn't "definitively advocate" it is irrelevant.

So expressing any doubt or skepticism of the correct course of action gives Glork-scum open license to tunnel on us till the noose?

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.

You can make this argument of anyone attempting to start discussion, under any circumstances. It is scummy.

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 phrase "pass it off" (strongly) implies intent to deceive. You had already ascribed scummy motivations to what we were doing.

The decision was both obvious and nearly made, and you wanted to draw in another element.

This is just unashamed spin. I would also ask you why we would try to subtly subvert the course of action as scum, if, as you say, the decision was both obvious and nearly made? I suppose on the contrary you would judge someone to be auto-town if they went for the right decision all along (which, as we know, the only people who know this are scum). Did we have a viable chance of actually altering the decision or are we just really bad scum players who slipped up hardcore and got caught by Glork?

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.

You, as part of this group, intended to bring Locke into question did you? Why do you see deferring to a larger group over which we have no influence being likelier to help our goals than just using our own influence in the scene? Or is it because all our buddies are off-stage and we wanted to bring in their influence?

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.

Why are you defending elmo for him? If you are town are you not considering he might be scum and might be making up disingenuous reasons to suspect you? Doesn't look like it to me.

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.

I am glad you can laugh it off, because frankly I would be a bit upset my partner's slip of the keyboard had betrayed us.

In review I cannot see any possibility that Yos and Glork are not both scum. From playing with Yos I know he'd be far more concerned about getting a false positive reading on us. His behaviour also suggests only one thing: he's gone into damage control after encountering unnecessary resistance and fallout from someone he thought would be an easy lynch. He wants to sweep us under the carpet before we cause him too many problems.

Glork is similar. I know he acts very self-confidently as town, but this is way beyond that. If he were town he'd be far more concerned about being wrong about us, advocating our lynch and having us flip town which would reflect poorly on him.

[Talilan]

Oh yer, I also meant to ask

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?

If we flipped town who would your suspects be?

Yos: same questions

[Thok]

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?

From what I've seen in my quick glance since I've last posted, I wouldn't necessarily find Gaspar/Elmosaurian suspicious even if you came up town. Your defense involves things like "I couldn't see the argument Thok made in the thread that mith wouldn't lie", even though the default assumption in a non-bastardly modded game is that the mod won't lie.

Why did you find it likely that mith would mislead CKD or Panzer?

(More analysis tomorrow: I'm fully expecting to be run up if I don't provide that analysis.)

[Rawr Hydra]

(Kore)

Oh, good, a quote war. Just what I always wanted.

I repeat what I thought previously: the majority of the onstage interaction seemed to me like posting for the sake of posting; the choice was already fairly obvious and the players needed something to talk about while they waited an indeterminate amount of time for us to finish on this end of things. Talilan's posts did not stand out as an exception to this. Talilan's offstage posts are not exactly inspiring, though.

That said, I don't really see the Gasparsaurian connection. They're just agreeing, nothing more. While

I

disagree with them, I can see where they're coming from, and it doesn't strike me as informed manipulation in any sense.

I would like to post more, but my internet just went down for something like 20 minutes, and I think if I don't get this post in while it's up, I won't get one in at all. Hopefully tomorrow the connection will be more stable.

[Talilan]

Thank you, Rawr Hydra, for actually putting yourself in the shoes of the people who were onstage. When I read your earlier thoughts (made while you were ill) I was impressed enough to make this note about it: "Very intelligent post 324 :good posting:"

I agree almost entirely with RH above. I'm not as convinced as ortolan of a Gaspar/ElmYos scumpair. But as ortolan has mentioned we're surprised at their play if they are town.

With Gaspar it's not just the fact that he won't even try and see any scenario where WE might be innocent, it's a pattern that started with MafiaJin. Several people gave decent reasons why MafiaJin might have put himself onstage and not be scum. The "win condition" MafiaJin mentioned I do not think was a scum slip at all; from the context it looks pretty clear to me what he was getting at (but he should answer to that himself when he gets here).

Zwet - in case you miss it, I asked you some questions on the previous page. Really looking forward to hearing more from you.

Tal

[Mr. Grey]

Mod Note:

Rawr Hydra did not post for 72 hours (not counting Sunday), and have received their second strike.

[Mr. Grey]

Mod Note:

After thinking it over a bit, I am going to say that quoting short (1-2 paragraph) parts of hydra quicktopics is acceptable. Longer than that should be paraphrased.

[Mr. Grey]

Mod Note:

Talilan have been appointed the new Stuntman. This ability has been used for Scene 1.

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

Mmmm. This switch was done by the "Assistant Producer" - an unknown player.

Am I getting this right?

[MrJellyLee]

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?

This is one of the things that makes me think there is a strong chance that John Locke is lying. For the record, though, I have already asked Mr. Grey if "random" means

truly

random, and he refused to give me an answer. But I don't see how a Something Else "turning" into a Non-Innocent is really a

bad

thing if it is also

announced to the Town

; all that would really do is tell us somebody who was already scum to begin with.

Put another way: I think that if there is an On Screen that is only bad on the contingency that the offer is made to a Townsperson, then that does not seem to be something that Mr. Grey can call

objectively "bad"

.

[Mighty Orbots]

Hmm, it looks like Talilan is correct; she and KY Krew have switched roles and KY Krew will be on camera tomorrow. We need to make as sure as possible that MafiaJin doesn't put Ms. Blue on camera tomorrow as well so that the stuntman is still usable during the scene; fortunately that appeared to be one of his only concerns for this last set of assignments so I would expect it to happen this time as well.

There is a more full version of the rules in the signup thread the queue forum. It includes both the rules for those on camera as well as the ones that were left out of the which applied to those off stage. We should make sure that everyone is aware of it before the next scene starts (it's what I look at when I'm logged into Zorblag and want to check something quickly that isn't covered in the Theme Park thread.) Apparently that might help avoid some confusion in the future.

There is information in the endgame section of the rules which says that the endgame scenario will be better for the town if good decisions are made on camera and worse for the town if bad decisions are made on camera. That certainly seems to indicate that there would be some long term consequence other than an alignment flip if we let Locke drive today (if there is a consequence of curiouskarmadog going from not scum to scum on the first night it seems sufficiently disconnected from the endgame.)

I believe that it was obvious what the choice on camera should be right from as soon as the advocates agreed that Val should drive. I said it before people got on camera at all in case others didn't think of it:

Further, since I can say it while people on camera in scene one can see it we almost certainly want to do whatever the advocates say in the first scene. Unless we got particularly unlucky we should have at least one town advocate in the scene. If the two advocates disagree then one of them should almost certainly be scum so the scum has good reason to fail to deceive us right at the start.

Given that I think that KY Krew is scum it would strike me as a bit odd for him to send Talilan back off stage as his partner. I know, I know, WIFOM but Talilan was certainly someone on camera who was getting negative attention back here. Despite what I'm saying previously in this post I do feel that Talilan was blatantly helpful a couple times on camera (reminding people of the deadline and that they had to avoid making a quick decision for example) and although I don't love all of their play on the whole I'm inclined to lean slightly town with my assessment of them.

I'd also be a bit surprised if two players like elmosaurian and Gaspar would really act like this if both were scum. If they're pushing a town lynch they're using very similar reasons and despite the certainty they're both expressing I'm not convinced that it's nearly as clear cut as they're making it out to be. I don't think that as part of the same scum team they would find acting in tandem like this would be a wise move.

I guess I'm thrown off by the certainty being expressed right now by all of elmosaurian, Gaspar and Talilan. Throw that certainty together with a deadline which is getting closer and it gives an uncomfortable feel to this lynch to me; like we're limiting our choices artificially.

In other news, KY Krew, for all the urgency they expressed in having to get on camera and share their huge revelation, seems to be stalling via inaction there. My guess is deliberate confusion and an attempt to rush the decision they have to make there after KY Krew finally gets around to talking.

ShadowLurker, Mr. Grey shows up now most likely because MrJellyLee put him in his list for the Condorcet system.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting.

I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i)

why

I think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii)

why

Valentine is being so vague.

Currently, I am going to be On Screen tomorrow so I won't be around to shout about this tomorrow. I would be monstrously unhappy if nobody at least talked about this tomorrow because nobody bothers to think about it.

Valentine's latest post was the following:

I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, but I think the one thing you fail to take into account is that

I could have not, and did not, received as much information as Locke

. This why

I have chosen to stay quiet

because

I believe in what I was told

and I believe that Locke is telling the truth.

If he isn't, than it was truly brilliant play to get what he wanted

, but that doesn't help the rest of us and

I KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself.

Seriously.

1. Valentine 'believes what [she] was told,' but 'did not receive as much information as Locke'. However, Valentine still hasn't bothered to

tell us

what she was told. This unequivocally asserts that Valentine was told

something

.

2. This post also kills the possible explanation of a "gag order" being in place, because Valentine has '

chosen

' to stay quiet. Why bother not telling the town what you were told? It certainly takes less time to type than constantly making posts that

do not

tell the town what you were told.

3. Valentine "believes that John Locke is telling the truth" but also concedes that his play is "brilliant" if he is lying to 'get what he wants' (i.e. Valentine to drive). By the way, this directly shoots down elmosaurian's theory that Valentine was simply told "John Locke's choice is the [bad] choice," or something to that effect. In fact, Valentine continually leaves open the possibility that

her

choice is, in fact, the [bad] choice by saying "I KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself."

Valentine is going out of her way to be as vague as possible. Not only do I hate it when people are vague, but I find more and more that it is one of the most reliable scum-tells I have ever found, especially when a person continues to be vague when directly asked to explain.

~

elmosaurian, technical discussion are only

necessary

to a certain extent; they are not inherently pro-town. Focusing on discussion of mechanics is just a way to contribute without actually giving opinions on the players. Your complaint about being called an active lurker while spending "so much time on this damned game" also did not feel genuine to me; it did not have the 'ring' of being sincere.

Also, I agree with Talilan on at least one point: finish your sentence about Gaspar.

[Thok]

@Talilan: It's clear that there were two separate issues that could be discussed in the On Camera thread.

1. What decision to make (follow Locke or Valentine).
2. The alignment of the advocates, given what they were saying.

(These issues can be somewhat correlated, but there's a fairly strong argument that on day 1 when the two advocates are agreeing, then such a correlation is fairly weak.)

The Gaspar/you argument seems to be over whether your statements were directed more at issue 1 or issue 2. It feels like you and possibly others should have made a statement of the form "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."

There's also the argument that we will have time between scenes to force CKD and Panzer to discuss things more precisely with everybody involved; moreover, during that period of time they will be able to speak more freely, since they won't have to be in character. (I had to double check whether this was the case, but Mr. Grey mentioned it in post 53.)

With Gaspar it's not just the fact that he won't even try and see any scenario where WE might be innocent, it's a pattern that started with MafiaJin. Several people gave decent reasons why MafiaJin might have put himself onstage and not be scum. The "win condition" MafiaJin mentioned I do not think was a scum slip at all; from the context it looks pretty clear to me what he was getting at (but he should answer to that himself when he gets here).

This strikes me as fairly standard play by early game Gaspar: it's more important to him to take a strong stand and see people's reactions to it in the early game than for him to be 100% accurate in scum-hunting.

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

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

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i) why I think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii) why Valentine is being so vague.

I'll bite.

How is this relevant right now? We can't lynch the people on stage. We can't communicate with them either - we've used our stuntman and our picture guy, and any more stuff we send will just be sending mixed messages. We have three or so days until deadline hits. Surely, it makes far more sense to discuss today's lynch rather than tomorrow's, which is the implicit requirement of discussing the on camera stuff.

OTOH, I also completely disagree with you. I think a lot of the vagueness is people trying to speak in character. This is what valentine said "

I wasn't given any information other than I should be the one to drive. " To me, this is a pretty clear and unequivocal statement: Valentine (panzerjager, for reference) was sent a pm that said something along the lines of "you are the one who ought to drive." He speculates that maybe Locke is asking him to drive because driving might lead to his death (bus asplodes or summat.) That's why he claims to be wary. But apart from that, that's all the information he has - that he should drive. He doesn't know the consequences of the choice. If he claims otherwise later, he's contradicting himself. When he talks about choosing to stay quiet, he is not referring to anyinfo he has - rather to his posts in thread. IOW, any confusion in Valentine's play seems to be related to the ongoing confusion that on camera people are having anyway - a) that mith won't lie, and b) that there is one good and one bad choice.

I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i) why I think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii) why Valentine is being so vague.

I'll bite.

How is this relevant right now? We can't lynch the people on stage. We can't communicate with them either - we've used our stuntman and our picture guy, and any more stuff we send will just be sending mixed messages. We have three or so days until deadline hits. Surely, it makes far more sense to discuss today's lynch rather than tomorrow's, which is the implicit requirement of discussing the on camera stuff.

OTOH, I also completely disagree with you. I think a lot of the vagueness is people trying to speak in character. This is what valentine said "

I wasn't given any information other than I should be the one to drive. " To me, this is a pretty clear and unequivocal statement: Valentine (panzerjager, for reference) was sent a pm that said something along the lines of "you are the one who ought to drive." He speculates that maybe Locke is asking him to drive because driving might lead to his death (bus asplodes or summat.) That's why he claims to be wary. But apart from that, that's all the information he has - that he should drive. He doesn't know the consequences of the choice. If he claims otherwise later, he's contradicting himself. When he talks about choosing to stay quiet, he is not referring to anyinfo he has - rather to his posts in thread. IOW, any confusion in Valentine's play seems to be related to the ongoing confusion that on camera people are having anyway - a) that mith won't lie, and b) that there is one good and one bad choice.

Personally, it's p. clear to me that Locke and Valentine are telling the truth: why have two advocates if they were going to say the same thing, my sense of setup design argued. But if they contradict each other and there is one good and one bad choice, then the one advocating the bad choice must be scum, so we just lnch them both - mods are wary of giving town lots of info like that. But Locke's info makes sense of the dilemma - conflict is created despite both players being townies, and there is a possibility of a choice that really harms town (losing an innocent). So the choice feels right as it is presented.

I want more input on what's going on offstage, jellylee.

Thok. When are you changing your vote? When are you going to do some actual scumhunting? I don't mind all this kinda quiet diplomacy stuff, as I feel the talilan/gaspar/elmosaurian argument is a massive distraction and frankly I don't give a shit about any of it, and any attempt to shut it down is helpful in my book. Nevertheless. More actual gameplay less graphics please.

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

uh, -Shanba.

[Thok]

Thok. When are you changing your vote?

Later today (in the next 5-6 hours.) I appreciate the pressure, since it keeps me from putting this off.

When are you going to do some actual scumhunting? I don't mind all this kinda quiet diplomacy stuff, as I feel the talilan/gaspar/elmosaurian argument is a massive distraction and frankly I don't give a shit about any of it, and any attempt to shut it down is helpful in my book. Nevertheless. More actual gameplay less graphics please.

To be fair, my poking at Talilan is scum hunting.

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

Thinking about this some more, I think that Talilan being almost confirmed by probable scumbag KY Krew slinking off to avoid being lynched (and now back to lurking, despite his making it sound urgent) and putting her here within lynching range instead of MafiaJin.

So right now I'm rather inclined to thinking that Gaspar is scum for pursuing Talilan, and that his going after MafiaJin was distancing. I see KY Krew, Gaspar, and MafiaJin in the scumteam ATM.

@ Thok

OK, poking Talilan is scum hunting. What did you find?

[Thok]

OK, poking Talilan is scum hunting. What did you find?

It's hard to tell, because Talilan seemingly hasn't had a chance to respond to my second post (and didn't answer the question in my first post, but complimented Rawr Hydra instead.)

[Talilan]

Thok, it only makes sense it ortolan answers those questions. I said none of it and would not do a good job if i tried to answer as my thoughts have not been along quite the same lines as ortolan. Sorry if it looked like I was ignoring your Qs.
Tal

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

"Poking Talilan" now officially downgraded from "scum hunting" to "attempted scum hunting."

Carry on.

-DGB