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

[Mr. Grey]

Deadline:

Approximately 42.5 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

[elmosaurian]

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"

.

PJ: I doubt that is the *only* consequence of making the wrong choice.

For one thing, the rules pretty clearly state that making the wrong choice hurts the town in endgame; and one could argue that having a pro-town person turn scum now dosn't actually (numerically) change the endgame situation, since the endgame will be 5 town 2 scum no matter what. It's obviously bad for other reasons, but I don't think it fufuls the requirements for the "bad outcome".

No, I think there is some other negative effect of making the wrong choice; something that changes the endgame in a way that makes it worse for town (which could be any number of things). It also sounds like, if they're telling the truth, that neither advocate was actually told what this effect is, only what the right and wrong choices were.

If 25% of the people in the game are town, then the odds of both advocate being scum are only 1/16, if they're chosen at random. mith could easily have set it up so if only one was town, he would have the 'option' to turn scum by getting the town to make the wrong choice; probably with a contingency for what would happen if they were both scum. Frankly, it makes sense to me; since the odds of both advocates being scum on day 1 are so small, and since any advocate who lies will get caught, there would normally be very little drama about the day 1 choice; giving a pro-town advocate the option to convince the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum actually makes it a lot more interesting. Plus, it's not really something I see a scum faking.

-Yos

[elmosaurian]

Ah, that's why I'm not voting; I typed my vote in and then did my sig, so it didn't count.

Vote:Talilan,

Gasper, Begel, Zwet, [everyone], Goofballs, Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, Elmosaurian.

[elmosaurian]

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.

Um...none of that actually said that him not driving kills him. It's a little hard to tell because of all the flowery language, but I thought he was just assuming the scum will NK him now.

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

(shrug) If there are 2 options, one good and one bad, and scum have a strong inherent advantage from getting the town to pick the bad option, then when I see someone who seems to be trying to manipulate the town into taking what pretty clearly seems to be the bad options for reasons that make no sense to me and seem just factually wrong, it makes me think they're more likely to be scum.

I think that's pretty obvious, and whatever your alignment is, I'm not sure why you would have trouble understanding why that makes you look more suspicious.

It's even worse when it sounds like you're ok with CKD turning scum so long as we lynch him afterwords; that just seems really scummy to me.

Now, you did later change your mind in thread and start pushing toward the other (I'm assuming "good") option instead, but by that point, it was arguably pretty clear that the town was going that way no matter what you said.

-Yos

[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.

[elmosaurian]

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.

The odds of both advocates being scum is tiny. Like I said, if 1/4 of the people in the game are scum (about normal), and both advocates were chosen at random, then there's only a 1 in 16 chance they're both scum.

The odds that both advocates are scum and lying is even lower, since if they were both scum they still might want to give the town the correct advice anyway in order to avoid being caught lying.

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?

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.

[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.

[elmosaurian]

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

.

Valentine did claim to have tell us what she was told:

My recommendation would be that I should drive, for I was meant to lead. I didn't receive any information about "Locke" or what would happen if he would drive. I was concerned because he so willingly want me to drive.

It's possible that he knows more then that, but I also think it's entirely possible that that's all the information he got from the mod.

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."

Hmm...that's true.

I'm not sure how much of that is roleplaying or whatever; there's a possible bonus for good roleplaying, so that makes it hard to tell. But it could be he knows something else; it sounds like he's implying that he's at risk of being killed if he drives; which is interesting, since CKD might have been saying that there's a risk of him dying if he dosn't drive, or something.

elmosaurian, technical discussion are only

necessary

to a certain extent; they are not inherently pro-town.

I fail to see the distinction. A pro-town action is an action that helps the town, and technical discussions help the town a great deal here, I think.

Focusing on discussion of mechanics is just a way to contribute without actually giving opinions on the players.

Well, that would be valid, if I had not given opinions on players. That's just not true though.

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.

Well, you need to re-calibrate your "sincere ring" then, lol. I posted like 27 times in 3 days, wasted way too much of my last few summer vacation days on this thread, and to be called a lurker (or an "active lurker") after that pissed me off.

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

Everything that I was originality going to say there ended up in the next paragraph instead.

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

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.

It was going to be something like "my suspicious of you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your attacks on mafiajin seem really weak and less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started...", ect, or something. I ended up breaking that off and putting that into a separate paragraph instead, and then didn't go back and delete the original sentence like I should have.

[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

[Rawr Hydra]

(Kore)

Bagel's pretty much covered what I wanted to say about Valentine (which is that Panzer stated fairly clearly what he was told) and what I wanted to say about Locke (that the decision outcomes are likely independent of player alignment).

On the alleged WIFOM:
I thought there were more people on MafiaJin's tail than on Talilan's? I actually came to a similar conclusion to GAB, because it seemed to me no one was

really

beefing with Talilan before the sudden switch. It's only after, when the sparks started flying, that anyone expressed suspicion of Talilan such certainty as was associated with MafiaJin.

Like you said, Gaspar, it's moot if they have the same alignment, and KY Krew saw them both as equal choices, but I think the general focus was more on MafiaJin at the time, wasn't it? If they're both scum, it doesn't make sense for him to toss us the partner under less scrutiny. If they're both town, it doesn't make sense for him to give us the "wrong" one.

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." [...] Apparently this wasn't Talilan's agenda, though.

What makes you think it wasn't?

And why are we still talking about elmosaur not finishing a sentence? That's as minor as a particularly strangely placed typo, IMHO, and should be treated as such.

By the way, I'm very sick again today (for reasons unrelated to my surgery). And yesterday, incidentally, but I didn't have time to mention it. Sigh. The power that be don't want me to play in this game.

[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.

[Rawr Hydra]

(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?

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting.

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."

I don't care about statistics. I care about whether I think somebody is scummy, and I think both John Locke and Valentine fit that bill. Period.

Edit: I see you have now finished your sentence about Gaspar, so I won’t bug you about that.

However, there clearly needs to be a new definition in mafia.

We have, in some rank:
Scummy
Anti-Town
Neutral/Null
Pro-Town
[Townish?]

I think mechanics discussion is necessary and generally ‘helps’ the town, but I do not think it makes a person who discusses mechanics any more

likely

to be town. So I suppose I would agree in a sense that it is neutral to “pro-town” in that it is necessary (as I said before) and needs to be done in order to avoid confusion at a critical moment.

I never claimed you did not eventually get to scum-hunting; I just very much did not like your implication that because you were discussing mechanics that you (and others who may have been acting similarly) were likely to be town. I guess you might have meant to only mean “pro-town” in the “necessary” sense and not in the “townish” sense, but that is certainly not how I read your post, and reading your post again it still seems like you meant “Townish.”

~

Bagel Eating Cowfrog, I am trying to make sure there is a conversation about the players On Screen right now because I am scheduled to be On Screen tomorrow and hence will not be able to make these arguments tomorrow unless I am stuntman'd down here. That is one reason why it is relevant (especially to me), and secondly I think people's opinions on the issue On Screen are helping me scumhunt Off-Screen. It is also directly relevant to the Talilan discussion: I think Talilan, Hewitt, and myself indeed had similar initial reactions, and I would also like Gaspar to explain why he is attacking Talilan with his reasoning, and Hewitt and myself less so.

Also, yes I see where Valentine says she was “meant” / “told” to drive, but John Locke was similarly “told by the island” to drive and yet has more information. I think Valentine’s posts definitely hint that she was told more than she is actually telling the town.

However, you

are

correct that we are approaching a deadline: I suppose that hasn’t really sunk in with me yet because I have just replaced in and I am trying to get settled, and I have not even gotten MBL to talk with me yet. I will try to adjust my play accordingly to be somewhat more focused Off-Screen.

[zwetschenwasser]

Talilan, there's no reason to flip out about getting lynched when there's a 90% chance it's gonna happen. I've seen no decrease in suspicion of me, and I see no point in doing anything else to try to stop my lynch. 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.

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting.

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.

Well, then this adds a new layer. John Locke's choice, even if it does flip his alignment, might still be the "good" choice in that it helps the town in endgame.

In fact, now that I think it, that might be more thematic. Every good choice might be "bad" in the short-term (i.e. prior to endgame) but "good" in the long-term (i.e. at endgame) and vice-versa.

[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

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting.

For the record, I don't think the elmosaurian sentence thing was tangential

at all

. It was basically:

I think Gaspar is scummy because

I think that's a fairly important omission worth questioning. He directly said that his suspicions about Gaspar were not meta-based, but were based on ------.

It may very well have been a brain-fart,

or

it may have been that he couldn't think of a legitimate reason to suspect you and forgot to edit out that part of his post,

or

it may have been that he simply changed his mind and forgot to edit it out. I think it was well worth questioning, certainly just as much as any "slip" (such as MafiaJin's alleged slip).

[zwetschenwasser]

If it does anything, I'm Tatum O'Neal, and my secret word is echo.

[Rawr Hydra]

(Kore)

PJ, I think the reason why it was brought up that the odds of both advocates being scum is miniscule is because you seem to be implying (as you said again recently) that following Locke could be the "good" choice. Both advocates are pointing us towards Valentine. Why would both of them lie to us, unless both of them are scum?

@Gaspar: I must have missed that. I don't remember any intra-hydra sharing. Could you point me to it?

[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

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting, and I expect my last until tomorrow:

Rawr Hydra, put short:

Originally I thought only John Locke was lying because I cannot see his offer being made to somebody who is scum, and I believe Advocates were chosen randomly. As a result, when Valentine got to the thread she, as scum, realized that she was probably better off saying practically nothing -- after all, even though she might have

thought

hers was the bad choice, it clearly paled in comparison to John Locke's claimed consequence.

Now, though, I really need to give thought about the possibility of consequences being good/bad in the short-term/long-term framework. If that is the case, then John Locke might be telling the truth (though the claimed randomness still disturbs me) but that his choice is actually meant to be the "good" choice; which again calls Valentine back into question.

Pre-Post Edit: Gaspar, I don't see why it matters that I just replaced into the game. If you think I am scummy, I expect you to attack me. It's not as though you gave everybody else a "grace period" when the game first started.

[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.

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

quick post but i'll probably manage a good post in tonight:

i really really hate quote wars and walls of text. can we try and cut back on those some?

-dahill