Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Mr Stoofer]

I don't like Someone's post 69. First, yet more pointless off-topic discussion (diversion?); followed by the rather surprising and frankly unsupportable statement that he thinks 4 people are "decently innocent". I am always suspicious of people claiming to believe in the innocence of others - especially on flimsy/non-existent evidence.

I've never played with Someone before but he is setting off my scumdar (such as it is).

[mathcam]

Current Official Vote Count

:

None!

Not Voting: Everyone!

Cam

[SpeedyKQ]

Judging by the vote count, nobody else has any better ideas. Why don't you tell us what you've got, Fishbulb?

[Fishbulb]

Because I'm not the only person in this game. No other game has stalled just because I didn't reveal everything that I was thinking.

To make any sort of accusations would just lead to a bandwagon, which will have to go all the way to a lynch. To bandwagon for a claim, especially in this game, would be useless. So, I don't want to tip my hand unless I think they are today's best choice for a lynch.

What is it? Are you wanting me to post who it is so your scum buddy won't be caught off guard?

[SpeedyKQ]

The game is best played by presenting suspcions and discussing them. We'd get nowhere if we all sat around saying "I know something you don't know". I think you're too much worred about the scum tells going away once the person gets called out. There is value in seeing how people react under pressure, too.

Accusations will only lead to a bandwagon if enough of us agree with them, and if you're ideas are good, I don't know why that would be a bad thing.

[Nox]

(Whoa, this game is moving quite fast. Noone seems to be making accusations though :s )

Firstly, I stongly agree with this statement by SpeedyKQ:

The game is best played by presenting suspcions and discussing them. We'd get nowhere if we all sat around saying "I know something you don't know".

We should discuss what we think is scummy, along with what we think is not. By presenting our opinions in such manner, we will not only spurr discussion, but as Speedy said, we could potentially get good reactions from scum under pressure.

So fishbulb, I'd encourage you to spill. Unless you have a better argument as to you should not?

Well, for what I think seems scummy and seems innocent, I don't have much but my gut feeling and faint impressions. I'm having the impression that there seems to be something building on Someone's case, which in my opinion lacks cohenrent and substantial logic. So as opposed to finding Someone scummy, I think that the accusations driven towards him seem scummier. Mr.Stoofer's post was a little overboard; Someone discussed who he thought would have the best chance of beeing innocent/scummy, and directly specified it only had to do with gut feeling.

What's scummy about gut feeling? It's not as if he had set a bandwagon, or had thrown incoherent accusations towards anybody. He hasn't confirmed anyone's innocence either. Is Mr.Stoofer not beeing just a liiiiiittle eager here?

[Fishbulb]

The game is best played by presenting suspcions and discussing them. We'd get nowhere if we all sat around saying "I know something you don't know". I think you're too much worred about the scum tells going away once the person gets called out. There is value in seeing how people react under pressure, too.

Yeah, except that's not what I'm saying. I don't "know something you don't know", even though you added quotation marks to it. All I have is a gut feeling, and slight hint. I've seen too many people go down when they have such things and act on them but turn out wrong. I've been thinking about it this whole time trying to decide which way to go on this, not just sitting back and teasing the rest of you, as you make it sound.

Where I screwed up here is saying anything about it in the first place.

[N_lich]

To make any sort of accusations would just lead to a bandwagon, which will have to go all the way to a lynch. To bandwagon for a claim, especially in this game, would be useless. So, I don't want to tip my hand unless I think they are today's best choice for a lynch.

I agree with what speedy says below. Besides, clearly at this point you think that you have identified a reasonable lynch:

Actually, the one isn't so much of a gut feeling anymore...

The game is best played by presenting suspcions and discussing them. We'd get nowhere if we all sat around saying "I know something you don't know". I think you're too much worred about the scum tells going away once the person gets called out. There is value in seeing how people react under pressure, too.

Accusations will only lead to a bandwagon if enough of us agree with them, and if you're ideas are good, I don't know why that would be a bad thing.

[Someone]

I don't like Someone's post 69. First, yet more pointless off-topic discussion (diversion?);

Well I have a problem with your post # 75...Why is "pointless off topic disscussion" so pointless? I don't know about you guys, but I learned that discussion helped the town. "Pointless off topic discussion" is more helpful then the alternative: not talking at all.

followed by the rather surprising and frankly unsupportable statement that he thinks 4 people are "decently innocent". I am always suspicious of people claiming to believe in the innocence of others - especially on flimsy/non-existent evidence.

And what exactly is wrong with thinking that 4 people look decently innocent right now? Are you implying that we should not know anything about the innocence/scumminess of anyone, after over three pages of discussion? After all, saying that I believe in the innocence of these four people actually means that "I find the 7 other members of this town more scummy than these four people". I don't see how making a list of people you find suspicious is not scummy, while doing exactly the same thing but listing the people you find innocent is.

I would normally agree with fishbulb, and say we don't need unnecessary bandwagoning. However, no one really wants to come out and say who they find are scummy, so maybe a few comments wouldn't hurt...

[Fishbulb]

*shrug*

Okay, I give.

Here's what I got:

Quagmire has posted three times. All fluff and trying to blend in. He brings nothing new to the table...

except

:

My guess on Emptyger's death is that Emp is the SK, and the mafia killed him, but yet EmpTyger went forward in time to kill someone.

Now, when I first read it I guess I just skimmed it. Going back it struck me as extremely odd. Is there any reason to think that any of that is true? I mean, any at all. We have one death, no description, and yet he comes to that conclusion.

What this seems to indicate is that Quagmire knows something more about last night's killing than he should. The idea that EmpTyger is a serial killer and zoomed forward in time would be one of the last things I would decide. Either he is deliberately trying to mislead the town, or it was an accidental scum slip.

[Someone]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, that was because at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town.

[Fishbulb]

D'oh!

I see that now. That does make sense, I guess.

[Gaspode]

You do make a good point, though, Fishbulb. I noticed it as well, but I figured I'd give it some time and analyze a bit more before I said anything about it.

I'd like to hear some more from Sinister Overlord and Quagmire. They haven't said much. And though SpeedyKQ has been begging Fishbulb to reveal his logic, he hasn't really presented any himself. I'd like to hear something useful from him as well.

[Gaspode]

By the way, as for the Lynch All Liars debate, these are JEEP's exact words:

[Lynch All Liars] is a MetaGame ploy that is STRONGLY encouraged by -JEEP. Confusion and lies are two of the best weapons of the Mafia. Thus, it is generally bad play for pro-town roles to lie. In order to encourage GOOD play, the policy should be: Lynch anyone caught in a lie. They are most likely mafia, and if they aren't then lynching them might teach them that they should not lie.

Make of it what you will. IMO, the "generally" implies that there are

very

rare circumstances in which it is ok for a pro-town player to lie. It says nothing about strategic omission of information (a very useful, yet still basically honest tactic). Considering the strangeness of this game, I'd say that anything can happen. Absolutism is not always the right way to go.

[Mr Stoofer]

I hope my post 75 wasn't overboard - I was just voicing a

feeling

I was having - I hope I made that clear.

I strongly agree with those that say we should be sharing our suspicions. FWIW, the only previous time I have come across a player saying that they thought they knew who was scummy, but wouldn't tell,

he turned out to be the scum

. (Drummer in Mini 102).

at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town

How do you know?

[Changling bob]

<snip>Oh, and after a read-through, I have upgraded from one to

two

scummy gut feelings. Actually, the one isn't so much of a gut feeling anymore...

So you've revealed one, is the other one forthcoming?

@Someone: Your original comments were exam induced CrapLogic™? Fair enough. I expect I'll do that a few times . Wait, I mean .

@Mr Stoofer: I can see where you're coming from in [75], but Someone hasn't shown up on my Scumdar yet. But then again, mine has been documented as rubbish. Although as Someone says, off topic discussion can give as much information as on topic discussion, and greatly more than none.

I'd like to hear some more from Sinister Overlord and Quagmire.

What he said

[Mr Stoofer]

My scumdar is also rubbish. I bought it cheaply off a guy on eBay and it didn't have a manual and I don't know what all the lights mean.

[Someone]

at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town

How do you know?

I don't

know

...but it's a reasonable explaination...

Anyways...I'm looking for posts by sinister overlord, and not just of the "I'm here, but I'm not going to help" variety. At least some analysis, please.

I'm of the opinion that the players in this game are just too good . Maybe it's because they're all lurking, but there's no

obvious

scum tells out in the open right now.

[N_lich]

at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town

How do you know?

Because the whole of quagmire's post is:

My guess on Emptyger's death is that Emp is the SK, and the mafia killed him, but yet EmpTyger went forward in time to kill someone.

That's assuming that "non-townie" means someone who's not playing for the town instead of someone who's not a vanilla townie. mathcam, could you please clarify that for me?

[Nox]

Yes, Mr Stoofer. Your Post 75 was in fact overboard.

[Changling bob]

My scumdar is also rubbish. I bought it cheaply off a guy on eBay and it didn't have a manual and I don't know what all the lights mean.

Yours has lights?

I feel so deprived.

(This post brought to you by the powers of I've-just-come-out-of-an-exam-so-I-can't-think)

[Changling bob]

Yes, Mr Stoofer. Your Post 75 was in fact overboard.

In what way was [75] overboard? He calmly explains why he thinks that Someone is being scummy (even if his logic is a little fuzzy). It may not be completely accurate, but it's something to think about.

You should see the posts I can make when people are avoiding my questions...

[SpeedyKQ]

And though SpeedyKQ has been begging Fishbulb to reveal his logic, he hasn't really presented any himself. I'd like to hear something useful from him as well.

No particular ideas who is scum, else I'd share them, even without being called out. Therein was part of my eagerness to hear from Fishbulb.

[Quagmire]

I don't like Someone's post 69. First, yet more pointless off-topic discussion (diversion?); followed by the rather surprising and frankly unsupportable statement that he thinks 4 people are "decently innocent". I am always suspicious of people claiming to believe in the innocence of others - especially on flimsy/non-existent evidence.

I've never played with Someone before but he is setting off my scumdar (such as it is).

I disagree - on day one, there's no way anyone can have a

real

idea of who's innocent or who's guilty, because for the most part, we're stabbing in the dark and hoping to nab a mafioso because we don't have any concrete evidence of who's mafia, and the only things we can look on are posts made during the day and to an extent, the nightkills. So, Someone making a little checklist of who, at this point, he deems innocent is pretty justified. At least, considering I do the same.

Just so long as Someone doesn't become all closed-minded on us and continuously defend them if we have good evidence against him...then I'd view that as suspicious.

[mole]

Vote: SinisterOverlord

Prod! Time to say something new now the Stoofer's vote thing has been cleared up.

I'm going to sleep to avoid the post-exam crap logic posts (no more uni until August! ). See you tomorrow.