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

[Mr. Grey]

Deadline:

Approximately 35 hours from this post.

Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

zwetschenwasser: 3 (Bagel Eating Cowfrog, Mighty Orbots, Talilan)
Talilan: 2 (elmosaurian, Gaspar)
elmosaurian: 1 (MrJellyLee)
Gaspar: 1 (zwetschenwasser)
GoofballsAndBaloons: 1 (Thok)
Thok: 1 (ShadowLurker)

Not Voting: 2 (GoofballsAndBaloons, Rawr Hydra)

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

[Mighty Orbots]

I've gotten approval for zwetschenwasser to post the picture I linked to (here it is again) if we think that does the job.

Also it looks like zwetschenwasser is still the Condorcet winner right now so that part of my concern is gone. His responsiveness here is another test but right now I'm still quite comfortable with his lynch.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Talilan]

The pic is fine. I'm in two minds whether the pic should be posted straight away to be safe, or if we should wait a bit to see what the other on-stage players say about it first

[Talilan]

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 gave both reasons all along, please actually read the game e.g. post 415 where I very strongly argue for both reasons e.g.:

- By reserving our judgment and considering contrary points of view we incited discussion which allows people better opportunity to read those on camera.

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

Now please admit you are wrong, are either not reading the game or deliberately ignoring the points I bring up, do not have a leg to stand on, and are scum.

My play has been less-than-stellar

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?

So perhaps I should rephrase my question: Do you have good reason to believe that Mith would not give straightforward answers?

No I do not, having read your commentary in this thread. At the time, I did. You are seriously willfully ignoring what I post, as Glork is.

Do you have good reason to believe that CKD/Panzer would misrepresent the type of information they were given and provide a straightforward answer rather than a puzzle?

Possibly, especially at the time. Now I think it unlikely considering they are both unlikely to be scum and if they were are unlikely to be lying in conjunction.

Another point that people have failed to analyse is that we were actually unsure initially whether the information given to the advocates is independent or dependent on what the scum choose as good/bad outcome.

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.

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. Also if it wasn't clear, I've changed my mind. Thok is scummy. And lol if people still think I would act like this as scum and leave such a paper trail of people I've pretended to suspect and find town who I've been so emphatic about.

I would change our vote to Gaspar now (even at the risk of our own life) because I foresee butting heads with him tomorrow and again trying to get him lynched as being rather tiring, but I'm not sure if Talitha will approve.

- ort

[Talilan]

I more than approve of switching our vote to Gaspar. For one thing, I'm only at 50-50 on Zwet being scum. If we get lynched.... well, shit happens. If you're feeling it too, go for it.
-Tal

[Talilan]

Hope you don't mind Thok creeping up

Unvote
Vote: Gaspar

, zwet, Elmosaurian, Thok, ShadowLurker, People, No lynch, Talilan

[Thok]

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

It seems like you are asking about Gaspar's change of opinion about the Day 1 decision. Correct me if you are wrong.

Gaspar, as far as I can tell, has significantly more information about the day 1 decision than he did when he made that statement, as does everybody else in the game; Namely he has CKD's and Panzerjager's statements as to who should drive. If they had disagreed, or if both of them had been vague/unhelpful, then the decision would be random.

To accept your defense, it seems like we need to accept that you didn't bother to consider the implications of CKD/Panzer's statements. That leaves me in a position where I have to worry what other implications you are missing if you are town.

[Talilan]

Note: I have town reads on all the "People"

Also note: I believe zwet still leads the vote

- ort

[Talilan]

If they had disagreed, or if both of them had been vague/unhelpful

Read the thread. ckd was initially vague.

To accept your defense, it seems like we need to accept that you didn't bother to consider the implications of CKD/Panzer's statements. That leaves me in a position where I have to worry what other implications you are missing if you are town.

Again, this is a total misrep, we did, as evidenced by us always having a preference for Valentine over Locke. When I look at posts like 46 and 50, 53, 64 and 72 by us in the thread it's pretty clear we have information-gathering motivations. Your read is bogus.

Why do people think just because both Locke and Valentine have been given information which leads to the same conclusion this is the right one? Is it as simple as that?

Is this not a valid point? Are we not very clearly laying our thought processes out on the table for everyone to see, and being very clear? If I read posts like that by another player there's no way I'd ascribe such suspicious motivations to them. Your push on us is bogus.

See also:

We (my personalities) were also wondering if we should take a spot-poll of passers-by off-set as to whether they think Locke is lying or telling the truth. Neither of us are familiar with Locke's previous roles so we're not sure whether we should be impressed by his performance at this stage. The cameraman could perhaps send us a thumbs up or down if people think his acting is or is not up to its usual standard.

Rawr and Bridges I would very much like you to vote before the day is up.

[Talilan]

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

[Thok]

If they had disagreed, or if both of them had been vague/unhelpful

Read the thread. ckd was initially vague.

CKD said to follow Valentine in his very first post 8. He voted her in 13. His choice was clear, even if his reasons were vague.

By vague/unhelpful, I really mean "Didn't give a clear preference towards who should drive." I could imagine a situation where mith had given the advocates no real information about the choice; the point of mentioning CKD/Panzer's statements is that possibility is likely removed (unless both of the advocates are lying about the information they got; even then you either hit the right choice or catch two scum.)

To accept your defense, it seems like we need to accept that you didn't bother to consider the implications of CKD/Panzer's statements. That leaves me in a position where I have to worry what other implications you are missing if you are town.

Again, this is a total misrep, we did, as evidenced by us always having a preference for Valentine over Locke. When I look at posts like 46 and 50, 53, 64 and 72 by us in the thread it's pretty clear we have information-gathering motivations. Your read is bogus.

50, 53, 64, and 72 have you seemingly take neither side, with the implication that you'd be willing to be persuaded to the other point of view. 72 seems to shut down Thesp's 71, which brought up some of the points about the decision that I did, albeit not in the full force I did. 87 is the first time you seem to make a concrete choice one way or the other about who should drive.

[Talilan]

What percentage probability would you assign to Glork being scum?

[Thok]

What percentage probability would you assign to Glork being scum?

At the moment, something like 10%. Somewhere around 25-30% chance of being scum is my random baseline (that is, what I would think of everybody's chance of being scum after seeing my role but before I posted.)

[Talilan]

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. If we were singular with no-one else to speak to we might have been less of a try-hard detective and more open with what we were actually thinking in private. But maybe not, because we had 2 weeks to fill, boredom to stave off, and mith's strikes jumping at out heels.

I can't really believe we're still discussing our onstage play, especially seeing as (1) we still had several days left on-stage to get the decision made so you're judging us on an incomplete performance and (2) as soon as both advocates agreed, there was only ever going to be one outcome on-stage.

If we acknowledge that there are 3 players who are suspicious of our on-stage posts, and that Talilan respectfully disagrees with their reasoning, can we move on? Seriously, just vote us. I would really like to move on to other subjects. We have a death scheduled very soon. Hopefully Gaspar's.

-Tal

[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.

[elmosaurian]

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.

No, the scum know. They actually have full knowledge of what all the choices mean. It's in the on-camera rules.

Yos

[Rawr Hydra]

(Kore)

Information lynch? Saying someone is a good "information" lynch, as far as I know, usually means "they're town, but their death will serve us". It is essentially excusing oneself if they flip town, because a better lynch wasn't available. If you're very certain he's scum, Talilan, it shouldn't be an "information" lynch.

Glork, it says in the rules that any Something Else players in a scene will have full knowledge of the choices available.


By the way, guys, I'm going back in for surgery follow-up tomorrow, so I likely won't have time for the game again. I'm sorry my participation has been so erratic, but I kind of expected OGML to, you know, actually play. I joined this game with no intention of soloing it.

[Talilan]

I wouldn't have said the 'information lynch' like ort did, because it detracts from the fact that we think Gaspar is scum. But ALL lynches are information lynches, sillies. Some are just better than others.

And don't get me started on WIFOM. People try and use the dreaded acronym to shut down interesting speculation about players' motives. But speculation and judgement calls about players' motives IS MAFIA. It's ALL guesswork.

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.

It's unlikely all the 3 are scum. When you flip scum I'll try and convince ort to adjust the condorcet a bit if that'll make you feel better.

[Talilan]

No-one else has weighed in on this that I can see, but I have thought about it and would like the picture posted asap.
-Tal

[Talilan]

Information lynch? Saying someone is a good "information" lynch, as far as I know, usually means "they're town, but their death will serve us". It is essentially excusing oneself if they flip town, because a better lynch wasn't available. If you're very certain he's scum, Talilan, it shouldn't be an "information" lynch.

It's an incentive for you to lynch him. Even if you don't agree with me that he is obv-scum then surely you agree from an information perspective. By convincing the town that his lynch is optimal not only because he is very obv-scum but because his lynch will provide loads of information I advance my agenda of winning by lynching scum; because he is scum.

People keep taking my latest reason for stating something as my only reason (please stop doing this), consider it an additional reason. They are cumulative. There are many good reasons to lynch Glork.

OGML, I would appreciate it if you'd vote Gaspar when you take over hydra duties.

It's unlikely all the 3 are scum.

I disagree, I think the scum are rallying around their leader because once he goes down all is lost. Gaspar knows as long as he lives he can buy some time by busing his buddies, claiming survivor etc. like he did in Dantès in Fresno. I would also note that I think I was the first to bring up the fact I think elmosaurian was distancing from Gaspar. After that I think they reasoned I wasn't going to let up and so the best course of action was to try and just get rid of us as quickly as possible

New scummy points about Gaspar just off the cuff:

- 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.

- 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.

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.

It's not a scumtell and I do it all the time as town. If people are attacking you for something which at its heart isn't actually scummy, even if it appears to be at first glance (at which point scum frequently jump on with terrible wiki tells or similar); then they are scummy. Reading our posts on-camera, I know they're not scummy (in fact I don't even think they're superficially scummy). I therefore conclude anyone attacking them is scummy (especially persistently, as Thok has done; especially opportunistically, as you did to both myself and MafiaJin and as elmosaurian did to us). It's very simple. As Talilan and myself discussed, we both give Glork and Yos too much credit as town players for the poorly reasoned and persistent attacks they're making on us. They are hoping we (well I, at least, because I maintain both are scum) are the only players that see it and they can quietly sweep us under the carpet.

I dislike the way this condorcet is being used for people not to take strong stands on the lynch candidates. As far as I'm aware they are Talilan, zwet and Gaspar. I find it hard to believe most of you could find neither us, Gaspar or zwet in some way scummy (although Thok has amazingly blatantly left himself provision to ignore our case on Gaspar even if we're innocent, and even more amazingly produced a lower than baseline scum-reading for him) and would like to see your primary votes changed accordingly.

I am pretty surprised DGB's hydra isn't voting frankly.

[Talilan]

- ortolan

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

The pic is fine. I'm in two minds whether the pic should be posted straight away to be safe, or if we should wait a bit to see what the other on-stage players say about it first

I agree with the above.

If they don't trust KY Krew without our help, we can use our picture power for something more useful later if necessary. Let's not waste it.

-DGB

[GoofballsAndBaloons]

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.

You know what? You're right. I am letting him getting away on reputation.

vote: Gaspar

[Talilan]

Yay!

I agree that zwet/ Mighty Orbots should act now as ckd seems to be considering KY Crew's advice (I believe you have both only used one of your two communications off the top of my head).

- ort

[MrJellyLee]

PJ Posting.

Quick morning post: from what I can tell, we have less than 24 hours before deadline. Given the apparently unavailability of zwetschenwasser, I say he should just post the picture to indicate that we do not trust KY Krew as soon as possible. There won't be a "later," so there is no point in "saving" a picture.

I will try to get on a computer later today to read these latest pages (and hopefully the entire game again) in more detail. I kind of doubt elmosaurian is getting lynched today, so I will try -- at the very least -- to parse out my Concordet list with less people at "equal value" if possible.

Notice

: I will be away for Labor Day Weekend (Friday evening to Monday) with unknown internet access.