Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[MacavityLock]

High-fives!

Also I missed earlier that Lyman actually entirely avoided answering my question:

How is voting No Lynch at this stage of the game, placing it at L-6, depriving us of information?

I figured if I voted him, his vote might move; also, a pressure vote such as that tends to elicit information.

Yes, his vote might move, but that would be true whether had earlier voted No Lynch, randomly voted for a player, or didn't drop a vote. No Lynch isn't any more anti-info in this regard.

[Josh Lyman]

High-fives!

Also I missed earlier that Lyman actually entirely avoided answering my question:

How is voting No Lynch at this stage of the game, placing it at L-6, depriving us of information?

I figured if I voted him, his vote might move; also, a pressure vote such as that tends to elicit information.

Yes, his vote might move, but that would be true whether had earlier voted No Lynch, randomly voted for a player, or didn't drop a vote. No Lynch isn't any more anti-info in this regard.

Okay, now that you've made me actually put in the effort and

think

about it, a NL vote this early wouldn't exactly (on it own) deprive us of information; my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

I grant you this, I was mistaken.

[Fuzzyman]

Would you say that's the case moreso than when voting for a person?

I can't say I'm a big supporter of the Josh wagon; fun things (scumminess) and games (anti-townness) can be different things, but it doesn't mean that there can't be things like football (voting no-lynch), which is both a game and fun (both scummy and anti-town, depending upon opinion).

[Budja]

@Fuzzy

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy

---

... my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

What are you trying to say here?

[Josh Lyman]

Would you say that's the case moreso than when voting for a person?

I can't say I'm a big supporter of the Josh wagon; fun things (scumminess) and games (anti-townness) can be different things, but it doesn't mean that there can't be things like football (voting no-lynch), which is both a game and fun (both scummy and anti-town, depending upon opinion).

Now, I feel we're getting deep into the territory of theory, and I'll be the first to admit I suck at theory (mafia and non-Mafia. Theory in general. I suck. Practical experience is mainly what I rely on, IRL and here.)

Having said that, yes, I feel that voting no-lynch that early in the game is scummier than voting a person. During the RVS, it is expected that we throw out votes randomly -- votes

of people.

Seeing a NL vote that early just threw me for a loop. Does this make me scum? I don't think so. (I hate to play the newbie card, but I think I'm still relatively new.)

[Josh Lyman]

@Fuzzy

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy

---

... my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

What are you trying to say here?

Are you asking Fuzzy, or asking me? Additionally, if you're asking Fuzzy, are you asking him to read my mind?

[Fuzzyman]

Am I missing the meaning of (!=)? It means, " is not equal to," right?

[ortolan]

First vote count

Fuzzyman (3): Snow_Bunny, Josh Lyman, Chinaman
Josh Lyman (3): MacavityLock, imaginality, Budja
Snow_Bunny (1): jasonT1981

7 to lynch

[Josh Lyman]

Am I missing the meaning of (!=)? It means, " is not equal to," right?

That is my intended meaning, yes.

Also, the way you typed it, it resembles a nice warm teapot. But I digress.

[Budja]

@Josh, you (no mindreading needed ).

[Josh Lyman]

@

Fuzzy

Josh

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy

---

... my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

What are you trying to say here?

Not sure how to clarify, but I'll try.

The first statement was actually an afterthought to two previous posts (my posts 9 & 19). I just wanted to clarify that, to my thinking, anti-town actions and scummy actions may not always be the same thing, necessarily. As an example, lying is scummy (and anti-town, but.) Lurking is anti-town, but not necessarily scummy. Something can be anti-town without being scummy; usually (generally?) anything scummy is also anti-town. Any better?

The second was what I was trying (apparently not well at all) to explain why I initially thought the NL vote so early was scummy. I've explained that it was basically a knee-jerk reaction, and now, thinking on it after a bit, it doesn't seem as scummy as I had first thought when I reacted.

To restate my quote above: Once someone votes (especially such a weird vote in RVS or a NL), this may tend to stifle discussion. Perhaps to the detriment of town. Perhaps to the benefit of scum. Perhaps BOTH.

If you'd like more attempts at me clearing the mud, let me know.

[Budja]

ok.

1. The first statement was actually directed at fuzzy showing the flaw in his post. However I do agree with your expanded view on this.

2. This is what I thought you were trying to say and it strikes me as odd. Voting no-lynch is a mildly scummy action and would be a bit more likely to generate conversation that a random vote, not less likely.

Once someone votes (especially such a weird vote in RVS or a NL), this may tend to stifle discussion.

This implies that the RVS is bad in itself. (Which is wrong IMO)

[Snow_Bunny]

I think that voting for no-lynch is scummy, whatever it's in the rvs or mid-day.

And I'm not seeing how such pressure formed on Josh for those posts. I'm even more suspicious of Budja jumping in the wagon.

[Josh Lyman]

This implies that the RVS is bad in itself. (Which is wrong IMO)

Well, I personally can't stand RVS -- which is no great secret if you know me. Yes, it's a tool to stimulate discussion. In much the same way a sledgehammer is a tool for opening a walnut.

I think that voting for no-lynch is scummy, whatever it's in the rvs or mid-day.

And I'm not seeing how such pressure formed on Josh for those posts. I'm even more suspicious of Budja jumping in the wagon.

I know! I've become a very easy target of late. I know it's just scum trying to throw the spotlight off of themselves, but still.

Fuzzy's post 13 also makes me a little uncomfortable. The whole thing feels forced.

I don't think 'forced' is the feeling I'm getting from it. However, I've mentioned my reasons for staying away from theory (I suck at theory).

For the moment:

unvote
vote: Budja

[Josh Lyman]

We need to hear from the following players, who have not posted AT ALL since the start:

@mod: PLEASE PROD the following, all of whom have not posted since the opening of the thread: 9 days now.

ConfidAnon
Netopalis
Grandi
Locke Lamora

NINE days? Really now. Four of you? Perhaps our entire scumteam is there. Not sure yet.

[Fuzzyman]

Actually, the mod created and locked the thread with placeholder posts at first. The thread was opened on the 4^th.

I'm not a fan of avoiding things simply because I'm bad at them. Scum do that to avoid tripping up.

Vote: Josh Lyman

.

[Josh Lyman]

Actually, the mod created and locked the thread with placeholder posts at first. The thread was opened on the 4^th.

I completely forgot about that. (I was going off the timestamp of the first post.)

@mod: Please disregard my rather premature request for prodding. I'll re-request tomorrow (Monday) evening.

I'm not a fan of avoiding things simply because I'm bad at them. Scum do that to avoid tripping up.

Vote: Josh Lyman

.

Smokescreen. I'm not avoiding playing, I'm avoiding a theory discussion. All the theory in the world will get you nowhere if you don't find scum. Which I am most decidedly not. (Getting my doubts about you, though.)

[imaginality]

Josh isn't handling the minor pressure on him very well so far. I think more votes on Josh is a good idea.

Also,

I've become a very easy target of late. I know it's just scum trying to throw the spotlight off of themselves, but still.

All the theory in the world will get you nowhere if you don't find scum. Which I am most decidedly not. (Getting my doubts about you, though.)

Nice and OMGUSsy...

[MacavityLock]

Also, Lyman's post 39 is entirely "Hey guys, look over there!"

The fact is that Lyman went out of his way to point out that he was saying that anti-town is different from scummy, likely not realizing that he had used both to describe Fuzzy's No Lynch vote. I don't particularly care that he voted Fuzzy for the No Lynch vote. I care that he obviously manufactured his reason for doing so. Basically, so far his explanation is "No Lynch in the RVs is scummy, I mean anti-town, because it fails to give us information, I mean because it stops discussion*, I mean because it's different from what I'm used to seeing." He's twisting in the wind, and it's only page two.

*Note that Fuzzy's No Lynch vote was very obvious in that it was trying to elicit discussion.

I think that voting for no-lynch is scummy, whatever it's in the rvs or mid-day.

Why?

And I'm not seeing how such pressure formed on Josh for those posts. I'm even more suspicious of Budja jumping in the wagon.

Why Budja and not imag or me?

[Josh Lyman]

Whatever. I guess I not only suck at theory, I just suck at Mafia.

Lynch me, whatever. I'll be back in a day or so.

[Netopalis]

Hey, folks, sorry, I've been insanely busy lately due to finals coming up. Rest assured, I'm here. Analysis will be posted later tonight.

[Fuzzyman]

Whatever. I guess I not only suck at theory, I just suck at Mafia.

Lynch me, whatever. I'll be back in a day or so.

In my experience, this attitude is a scumtell.

[Budja]

@Snow, I like early wagons. What the big problem with it?
@Josh, why vote me?

I like Macavity's post 43.

Fuzzy is looking better now.

---
Additionally (to the rest of the case), Josh calls for prods (a little scummy, diverting attention).
---

Josh isn't handling the minor pressure on him very well so far. I think more votes on Josh is a good idea.

QFT

[jasonT1981]

I'm usually V/LA most weekends as my sig says. I will post my thoughts when I can think a bit more clearly, and can catch up properly tomorrow when I drag my ass out of bed.

[Snow_Bunny]

Whatever. I guess I not only suck at theory, I just suck at Mafia.

Lynch me, whatever. I'll be back in a day or so.

AtE, not good.

I think that voting for no-lynch is scummy, whatever it's in the rvs or mid-day.

Why?

Unless there is a strong reason to go for it, a no-lynch is a problem for town. Not only town misses a chance to catch scum, but also gives scum a free kill. And thus, anyone who even suggest it (again, unless given certain conditions), clearly has not the interest of town as a priority.

And I'm not seeing how such pressure formed on Josh for those posts. I'm even more suspicious of Budja jumping in the wagon.

Why Budja and not imag or me?

What caught my attention about Budja is that this is the second time he jumps opportunistically to a wagon (first with Fuzzy). You and imag didn't just jump in the Fuzzy wagon, instead you went the right way. You gave your reasons for voting Josh. Imag just tagged alone, that's right, but it was the second time for budja. I'm not saying jumping in a wagon is scummy per se. But the second time just raises some suspicious.