Mini 870: Melee mafia. (Mod Abandoned)

[Grover]

@Grover-

Melee phase is not equivalent to night in this game.

Scum nightkill the same way they normally do. At night. Not publicly.

Don't immediately assume that I am ignorant about basic game mechanics because I haven't posted in a while.

Hurting who we think is scummy is good and I stand by that.

[chamber]

@Grover-

Melee phase is not equivalent to night in this game.

Scum nightkill the same way they normally do. At night. Not publicly.

Don't immediately assume that I am ignorant about basic game mechanics because I haven't posted in a while.

Hurting who we think is scummy is good and I stand by that.

Are you an alt? I will settle for a y/n answer.

[Kirbyoshi]

Wow Grover, really? You uber-lurk, then come back with the most non-conformist post of the game so far. You're town for it, but you'll have to make a better argument than that if you want to convince me.

I actually want to vote Tajo, but my reason would look up, down, inside and out like OMGUS. My reason would be that he has no case on me, but still decides to tunnel on me, come into the thread, and make a post like "Why haven't we agreed on him yet?" Nothing else, just that. THAT is scummy.

Also, Tajo, I want to slap you in the face. Tony's case is being built higher and higher around you, and you don't see it? The early contradictions, the lack of real defense, the OMGUS on Kast, and everything else. You're an extremely experienced player; I'm not going to baby you.

[Yosarian2]

Now how exactly do you guys want to do this melee phase?

Does everyone agree with in-thread attacks, so we have no surprises?

Attacking the same person so we don't get our life down so low that we become easy targets is actually a horrible point, because scum can one-hit us or take half our life if we are lucky enough to roll a saving throw...so the scum will have to hammer us themselves, and this will be an action that everyone can witness even if they PM this action.

Whoever suggested we all attack the same player, that person is scummy. I think it was populartajo, but I will have to look back. Definitely very scummy

Did you completly miss the point, or are you scum?

If we all attack the same person, then it runs like a normal mafia game; each day, we lynch someone, and each night, the scum kill someone, except even better because the scum fail to kill sometimes.

If we all get damaged, then later in the game, the scum can control the lynch with just their own attacks, so then the scum can just kill us all at day and at night and we just lose horribly.

[Yosarian2]

I want to hurt either populartajo or Yosarian this turn.

No, we're not hurting anyone this turn. Have you read the thread?

[Yosarian2]

Wow Grover, really? You uber-lurk, then come back with the most non-conformist post of the game so far. You're town for it, but you'll have to make a better argument than that if you want to convince me.

...so, he lurks, he suggests the most anti-town stratagy possible, he declares he's going to go off on his own and hurt people, and you declare him town for it?

Are you his scumbuddy here, kirby?

I actually want to vote Tajo, but my reason would look up, down, inside and out like OMGUS.

And this is a scummy thing to say.

[chamber]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

I agree with chamber here, actually. Tony said that a voting for a lynch "would not be feasible", which basically means it's not practical. In his very next post, he said that people should vote, in order to emphasize their suspicions. He made that quite clear, and he never said that people shouldn't vote, at all.

You say that like its strange to agree with me.

This wasn't phraised as a question but I would like it talked about. Why did you add the ",actually".

[Kirbyoshi]

...so, he lurks, he suggests the most anti-town stratagy possible, he declares he's going to go off on his own and hurt people, and you declare him town for it?

Yes. Scum are not likely to just go against the flow. I think by now, the real scum have resigned that we will run this game a certain way, and are going along with it (+scum points for Tony, as he seemed to have changed his mind about a couple things).

And this is a scummy thing to say.

Please, explain why it's scummy to not want to be lynched.

[Yosarian2]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

I agree with chamber here, actually. Tony said that a voting for a lynch "would not be feasible", which basically means it's not practical. In his very next post, he said that people should vote, in order to emphasize their suspicions. He made that quite clear, and he never said that people shouldn't vote, at all.

You say that like its strange to agree with me.

This wasn't phraised as a question but I would like it talked about. Why did you add the ",actually".

Well, I do find it strange that I agree with you there, considering Tony is one of my main suspects and I'm agreeing with you that one of the attacks against him is incorrect.

[Yosarian2]

...so, he lurks, he suggests the most anti-town stratagy possible, he declares he's going to go off on his own and hurt people, and you declare him town for it?

Yes. Scum are not likely to just go against the flow. I think by now, the real scum have resigned that we will run this game a certain way, and are going along with it (+scum points for Tony, as he seemed to have changed his mind about a couple things).

The thing is, if someone ignores everything we've said just starts flying off the handle and whaling on random people, we're going to have to kill him before he does too much damage. We don't really have any choice

And this is a scummy thing to say.

Please, explain why it's scummy to not want to be lynched.

[/quote]

It's incredibly scummy for you to say "I would vote for X, but I'm worried it would make me look bad".

Town's main concern is finding and lynching scum. Not getting lynched is a secondary issue. If a pro-town person thinks person X is scum, they should be voting for them. Weather it "makes them look bad" or not should be a secondary concern.

Scum's main concern is not getting lynched, and not getting their scumbuddies lynched. A scum obviously don't really care about scumhunting, so a scum would be more worried about how his votes make him look then anything.

Any time a person is more concerned with how they look then with scumhunting, it's scummy.

[populartajo]

Sorry there was a typo in my last post.

-As much as Id like a

drowmage

KirbYoshi lynch right now, I dont like the way hoh..., drowmage attacks him. Hohum, quote your exact case against kirby in your next post.

@Tajo-
It is possible that TM is an indecisive townie who changed his mind and just doesn't like explaining himself. However, given this game setup, I find it more likely that he is scum who keeps changing his story to agree with the majority.

In this game, scum benefit significantly from not drawing attention to themselves.

Kast, yes its possible that he is scum changing his story but you are also giving me the reason when you post that he can be an indecisve townie. Therefore his behavior is null. Also what do you think contradicting previous stances and answering with sarcasm draws?

Grover's 346. Facepalm. First, why did you vote me when you werent even sure I was whoever suggested we all attack the same player? Second, I am far from being the only one supporting that idea. Why did you pick me? And finally, and more important, why do you think its a bad idea? Have you missed all that has been talked about this? Have you read the game we linked with similar features and how damage spread lead to the town loss?

Wow Grover, really? You uber-lurk, then come back with the most non-conformist post of the game so far. You're town for it, but you'll have to make a better argument than that if you want to convince me.

Wat? Really, what was so town of that post?

I actually want to vote Tajo, but my reason would look up, down, inside and out like OMGUS.

Someone seems too worried about what his reasons would look like, huh?

My reason would be that he has no case on me, but still decides to tunnel on me, come into the thread, and make a post like "Why haven't we agreed on him yet?" Nothing else, just that. THAT is scummy.

No its not. Why do you think is it scummy? Also, I have a case against you and every time you post you dont get better. You disagreeing with it doesnt make it go poof. What happened with the town read you had on me, huh?

The early contradictions, the lack of real defense, the OMGUS on Kast, and everything else.

Null tells. Im more interested in the

everything else

part. Care to elaborate?

[Kirbyoshi]

The thing is, if someone ignores everything we've said just starts flying off the handle and whaling on random people, we're going to have to kill him before he does too much damage. We don't really have any choice

But why would Grover basically broadcast it to the world that he was going to be a rogue?

I'm not concerned that you think I'm scummy for being concerned I might be called scummy But seriously, I stand by my statement that I'm not going to vote Tajo purely on the basis of what could be taken as OMGUS, since I'm honestly still not sure myself that it's not.

[Snow_Bunny]

The thing is, if someone ignores everything we've said just starts flying off the handle and whaling on random people, we're going to have to kill him before he does too much damage. We don't really have any choice

But why would Grover basically broadcast it to the world that he was going to be a rogue?

So he can go rogue without raising alarms? I don't like Grover at all, scummy smell coming out from him; and neither I like Kirby saying that his post was town when it's obviously wrong.

[Kirbyoshi]

So he can go rogue without raising alarms? I don't like Grover at all, scummy smell coming out from him; and neither I like Kirby saying that his post was town when it's obviously wrong.

Is being wrong a scumtell? If it is, go ahead and lynch me, because I've already been wrong this game.

I know that if Grover does go rogue, my vote will be on him toMorrow. I don't think that, if he was trying to justify himself going rogue, he did a very good job of it. In fact, he did a horrible job of it, because now all eyes are on him.

[TonyMontana]

@TM-
-Your use of technicalities and semantics arguments is scummy. Yes, you did not use the word "upset". My point still stands.

If you read the next sentence you would see that your point is completely moot.

-You can claim you didn't read CC's post, but you only posted after he made it a solid majority (7 players) in favor of voting & following a voting system.

It was my first and second post in the whole game. I hadn't read almost anything but your questions, much less had any idea what the majority of anything was. You can claim I "changed my position" after reading CC's post, but I'm gonna take that as you simply calling me a retard, and move on.

And why do you suddenly throw in "following a voting system" when you will have me believe that was irrelevant to my answers?

-A rogue can lynch his target and overrule the majority. More rogues makes it more likely. Most days only have 2-3 main suspects. Rogues enable a group of 2-4 players to realistically lynch a Runner-up Candidate instead of the MC, especially if the 2 candidates have different AC. In a standard game, this imbalance in voting does not exist. Allowing a few players to overrule the majority gives scum a safe way to undetectably control the lynch.

4 people ganging up on someone can hardly be called "rouge". You are basically proposing that a scumteam of three could easily control lynches.

-When asked if we should allow actions by PM, your answer was negative. You later reversed completely.

That you only explicitly said "attacks" is a technicality. The question was whether we should allow actions by PM. The current majority opinion was no. If you felt the way you later claimed, you should have said it then. Instead, you refused to clarify UNTIL a majority decided PMs were okay.

That I only said "attacks" isn't a technicality, it's the whole enchilada. It's so dishonest to deem it a techincality just so you can say i stated something i didnt. ("your answer was negative")

I don't have a clue what the majority opinion is at any given time, and it's rather you that seems too pre-occupied with what's in and whats out.

You clearly understood. The claim that your answer excuses you from answering Q2-Q5 does not make sense otherwise. You are attempting to sow confusion by arguing against Q4 as an "explanation" of what you meant by Q1. They are different questions. Congratz though, you seem to have succeeded at causing confusion.

Yes, I'm the one causing confusion

@Tajo-
It is possible that TM is an indecisive townie who changed his mind and just doesn't like explaining himself. However, given this game setup, I find it more likely that he is scum who keeps changing his story to agree with the majority.

KILL ME NOW. PLEEEEAAASE. PLEEEEEEAAAAAASEE
RAIN FORTY DAYS, PLEASE FUCKING RAIN TO WASH THESE TURDS OFF MY FUCKING LIFE. WASH THESE WASTES OF HUMAN FLESH AND BONE OFF THIS PLANET! I PRAY TO YOU, GOD, TO KILL THESE FUCKING PEOPLE. [/bill hicks]

FREEBIRD!

[Grover]

Have you read the game we linked with similar features and how damage spread lead to the town loss?

I did. That game was different.

First of all, the scum's damage was secret. Second of all, their damage was limited.

I totally disagree with Yosarian's claim that "scum will kill us all day and all night". If they kill us during the day we will find out and swiftly lynch them.

I am very weary of anyone following my two suspects like little puppies.

[Grover]

So he can go rogue without raising alarms? I don't like Grover at all, scummy smell coming out from him; and neither I like Kirby saying that his post was town when it's obviously wrong.

Is being wrong a scumtell? If it is, go ahead and lynch me, because I've already been wrong this game.

I know that if Grover does go rogue, my vote will be on him toMorrow. I don't think that, if he was trying to justify himself going rogue, he did a very good job of it. In fact, he did a horrible job of it, because now all eyes are on him.

If I wanted to "go rogue", I would not have voted. I do like democracy. I simply have a more liberal and individualistic view on how I want to play this game and win it for the town.

[Grover]

Are you an alt? I will settle for a y/n answer.

yes

Wow Grover, really? You uber-lurk, then come back with the most non-conformist post of the game so far. You're town for it, but you'll have to make a better argument than that if you want to convince me.

...so, he lurks, he suggests the most anti-town stratagy possible, he declares he's going to go off on his own and hurt people, and you declare him town for it?

Are you his scumbuddy here, kirby?

Yosarian is completely overdefensive here and high on my suspect list. Your turn to act, Yos2.

[populartajo]

The thing is, if someone ignores everything we've said just starts flying off the handle and whaling on random people, we're going to have to kill him before he does too much damage. We don't really have any choice

But why would Grover basically broadcast it to the world that he was going to be a rogue?

Why wouldnt he? At this point of the game, I think its possible that there could be one scum in the rogue group, considering the different opinions posted so far. At least, being rogue after some people have stated support for that ideology is a null tell simply for the fact that scum usually aren't putting their eggs in one basket.

Grover, not answering questions is scummy, so if you are town, I really want to understand your thought process rather than start tunneling on you for being antitown. TIA.

Grover's 346. Facepalm. First, why did you vote me when you werent even sure I was whoever suggested we all attack the same player? Second, I am far from being the only one supporting that idea. Why did you pick me?

And finally, and more important, why do you think its a bad idea? Have you missed all that has been talked about this? Have you read the game we linked with similar features and how damage spread lead to the town loss?

First of all, the scum's damage was secret. Second of all, their damage was limited.

First, not all scum damage was secret. Nuwenscum used normal damage to finish WaltWishbone who was obvtown from my POV but not from others. Did she get flake for that? No. Why? Because, spreading damage was not punished in that game and scum could hide behind rogue townies.

I totally disagree with Yosarian's claim that "scum will kill us all day and all night". If they kill us during the day we will find out and swiftly lynch them.

Scum

dont

need to kill townies during the day, they only need loose cannons to win the game, as it happened in some parts of War in Heaven. Or either they kill townies and hide behind the "

Im so rogue

" group, as it also happened in War In Heaven.

Lets put an example. You start attacking me and you kill me. I know Im town, so if I die you technically have killed a townie. Will you be OK with your swift lynch because supposedly you kill a townie?

Thats the kind of mess we are trying to prevent here. Being rogue is not an option for me. And with the experience I had in that game, Im pretty sure that if you are town, scum are happy to have some of your kind around town. Either they use you to kill or to hide.

Final question. Why exactly are you voting me? Who are the people following us like sheep? Do you think scum is more likely to follow a consensus or to have a solid stance?

[populartajo]

Could we not vote during the talking phase and then, if we are looking at attacking as a group, attack the person with the most votes during the melee phase? I am fine with attacking as a group.

I'd like us to come to a consensus as to who to attack but, if someone does see something that the rest of us don't, I'm not sure if punishment is a good thing.

Also whats up with this extreme change of mind?

[populartajo]

I am fine with attacking as a group.

I'd like us to come to a consensus as to who to attack but, if someone does see something that the rest of us don't, I'm not sure if punishment is a good thing.

Whoever suggested we all attack the same player, that person is scummy. I think it was populartajo, but I will have to look back. Definitely very scummy.

I am very weary of anyone following my two suspects like little puppies.

WTF?

[Grover]

Could we not vote during the talking phase and then, if we are looking at attacking as a group, attack the person with the most votes during the melee phase? I am fine with attacking as a group.

I'd like us to come to a consensus as to who to attack but, if someone does see something that the rest of us don't, I'm not sure if punishment is a good thing.

Also whats up with this extreme change of mind?

The majority decided that voting was a good idea, and I will abide by the will of the group.

Unvote

You gave a level-headed answer populartajo. It seemed very genuine, and I respect your opinion. However, I disagree with it being the reason the town lost in that game. The town lost because of lurkers + bad players who didn't put any effort + good players kept changing their mind and overestimating the scum's capabilities.

Vote Yosarian

[Grover]

I am fine with attacking as a group.

Fine with it =/= happy with it. I will *mostly* abide by the majority's will so I don't get mislynched unnecessarily.

I'd like us to come to a consensus as to who to attack but, if someone does see something that the rest of us don't, I'm not sure if punishment is a good thing.

Punishing a rogue attacker is bad imo, because he might see something the rest don't see.

Whoever suggested we all attack the same player, that person is scummy. I think it was populartajo, but I will have to look back. Definitely very scummy.

All attacking the same player is bad because someone might see something the rest don't see and he will go unnoticed.

I am very weary of anyone following my two suspects like little puppies.

This is obviously bad.

[chamber]

Unvote Vote grover

[Grover]

4 people ganging up on someone can hardly be called "rouge". You are basically proposing that a scumteam of three could easily control lynches

Even a scumteam of two with a couple ignorant townies while the third acts as backup can easily seize control of all the lynches. This is disastrous.

Note Yosarian's "I have been more active than you therefore you are more scum than me" fallacy.

Here's how I see it: Head honcho Yosarian and a couple others try to take advantage of the town by controlling all the lynches, claiming that it's for the sake of unity while mislynching us one by one until the scum take over. Is that a fairly accurate description? Yes, yes it is.

TonyMontana = town.