R-SURVIVAL -- Game Over

[Ellibereth]

malpascp is lurking. Parama is lurking. Anon has disappeard.

[yabbaguy]

Vote: Ellibereth

-Generally sounding like he's too informed about minority. (knows scum likes more discussion and is quite confident scum don't have daykill)
-Lurker hunting != scumhunting, esp. when not calling them scummy.
-theory conjectures are generally unhelpful, sometimes dead wrong (gives advantage to minority.) Brushed one off as a mistake, which I can't necessarily vouch for.

[Albert B. Rampage]

ABR: are people advised when they are moved into the safezone?

Nope. They will know when they are shot and they survive, and from then on they can either stay or leave. Call me Mod or Albert.

[Parama]

Parama is lurking.

Yeah, I'll admit I haven't been paying too much attention to this game :/ Though honestly there hasn't been much scumhunting going on, just a lot of speculation (partly my fault <.<)

[HackerHuck]

Mod:

I have some questions:

...
2. Gatekeeper must stay in the danger zone. He can bring a maximum of 3 players inside the safezone each day.
...
7. Players may leave the safezone at any time during the day.

So he can bring in 3 people each day. Is this cumulative, meaning that each day he can add up to 3 more people into the safezone? I assume it also means that he can't put someone back into the safezone if they leave and he's used up his three for the day.

How exactly do people leave? I think I saw somewhere that they can choose to leave, but can the gatekeeper kick them out?
Do they automatically leave the safezone at the beginning of each day?
If we're in the safezone and attempt to use our day-vig ability, what exactly will happen? I assume the shot will fail, but will it be used up?

The answers should confirm this, but if someone doesn't know whether they're in the safezone, they should openly leave before trying out their day-vig.

[Ellibereth]

Vote: Ellibereth

-Generally sounding like he's too informed about minority. (knows scum likes more discussion and is quite confident scum don't have daykill)
-Lurker hunting != scumhunting, esp. when not calling them scummy.
-theory conjectures are generally unhelpful, sometimes dead wrong (gives advantage to minority.) Brushed one off as a mistake, which I can't necessarily vouch for.

Is this case serious?

A )Scum like to talk privately longer, what a suprise, right?
I believe Scum don't have daykills, do you?

B) I stated who the lurkers were. Anon and mal are nearing prodding time. For the record, I would be willing to shoot anyone who just posts two-liners to avoid prods. (see mal)

C) What are you referring to here?

[ortolan]

ABR: are people advised when they are moved into the safezone?

Nope. They will know when they are shot and they survive, and from then on they can either stay or leave. Call me Mod or Albert.

Sorry Albert

I already explained my reasoning. What do you think is the pro-town reason

for

using the safe zone?

I have explained several pro-town reasons for using the safe zone, none of which you have shot down, have you just completely ignored or missed these posts intentionally?

I'm evaluating your arguments. So far they don't look good to me. The "put everyone in the safezone" plan looks alright (say, if you had one vig go through then moved everyone in before lynching) until you realise that the GAT can only move 3 people per day. The problem of course, lies in the potential for moving mafia into the safezone because they "look so protown".

I'm also surprised no-one is taking ABR's meta into account. He made a point of saying "no cowardly PMs". Why wouldn't he design the setup to hurt the town if they try to use the "cowardly" safezone. From what we know town players are verifiable by using their vig ability- unless there are scum exceptions to the sample PM (which is obviously a possibility) the scum can't take out town targets during the day anyway. If we let the scum nightkill as normal then we find out exactly who they wanted to get rid of, and exactly what their alignment was. As opposed to injecting massive, massive amounts of WIFOM into the game by using the safezone.

[ortolan]

Albert: can the GAT move people into the safezone publicly if they so choose?

I think yabbaguy is highly likely to be scum personally.

[semioldguy]

I think judging motives for a night kill or trying to analyze night kills generally does more harm than good, and in itslf would contain much more WIFOM than the Safe Zone. How about we just not let them get rid of who they want to get rid of instead? The safezone removes WIFOM the way I see it. There is no "why did scum kill X player?" when someone inside the safezone dies, it's a random kill that involves no wine.

[HackerHuck]

Albert: can the GAT move people into the safezone publicly if they so choose?

I think yabbaguy is highly likely to be scum personally.

What are you waiting for?

[Anon]

Lost some access the past days.

Anyways, here are some thoughts:

- I dont like these scenarios where people keep talking about game mechanics instead of scumhunting. I think there is some guilt of the mod in this, rules should be clear instead of people constantly asking questions about possible scenarios.

- With that said, I think everyone sould start stating their opinions about what is happening so far.

- For example, I find myself agreeing with oldguy about many things. The safezone doesnt provide an inmediate advantage to town but I can see it being useful in case we have confirmed townies or people who we have strong town reads on, so that we cant let scum kill these people. Also, using it as a dump of information -(re: gatekeeper and his choices) in case there is scum manipulation there.

- Ortolan, why are you not voting yabba after calling him highly likely to be scum?

[Cobalt]

We should probably kill the GAT if we discover he moved someone into the SZ secretly.

[yabbaguy]

I think yabbaguy is highly likely to be scum personally.

Does you no good in a game of majorities if everyone else is in disagreement already. You MUST explain EVERY accusation if it's a novel one. Not doing so is simply not scumhunting, and therefore is anti-town.

Is this case serious?

A )Scum like to talk privately longer, what a suprise, right?
I believe Scum don't have daykills, do you?

B) I stated who the lurkers were. Anon and mal are nearing prodding time. For the record, I would be willing to shoot anyone who just posts two-liners to avoid prods. (see mal)

C) What are you referring to here?

This is partially an initial guess... but there are interesting points here:

A> That's not the point that it's bad advice. The point is that psychologically, understanding what minority doesn't want and their attributes most easily comes to people who are a part of the minority.

That's the hunch I get when you say statements to the effect of "Town should stop scum from talking", while it's absolutely good advice, it also shows an understanding of what scum want. That and "Scum don't have a daykill" (later switching to "probably doesn't"... which is curious), while it's probably true, again, you're talking about this game from the minority perspective.

B> Again not the point. You outright stated that you wanted to do normal scumhunting, which can easily be done from analyzing the contributions to the theory session we had at the beginning of the game. Lurker hunting is ridiculously inaccurate at this stage of the game, and a good way to "look helpful" without actually scumhunting (By the way, thanks, but I can check for lurkers myself.).

Also, policy lynches are ALWAYS anti-town. But that's a theory debate...

C> You referencing the safezone:

Hell, it's probably for wusses scared of being DKed.

(albeit it was early in the game...)

---

And another tactic you bring up... this one blatantly wrong.

Near end of the day, GAT brings in most pro-town player and two scummiest, so scum can't NK most pro-town player without hitting their possible buddies.

Ortolan: "Scum can't die in the safezone"

Ah fuck, didn't notice.
I can't see a point then either.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Mod:

I have some questions:

...
2. Gatekeeper must stay in the danger zone. He can bring a maximum of 3 players inside the safezone each day.
...
7. Players may leave the safezone at any time during the day.

So he can bring in 3 people each day. Is this cumulative, meaning that each day he can add up to 3 more people into the safezone? I assume it also means that he can't put someone back into the safezone if they leave and he's used up his three for the day.

How exactly do people leave? I think I saw somewhere that they can choose to leave, but can the gatekeeper kick them out?
Do they automatically leave the safezone at the beginning of each day?
If we're in the safezone and attempt to use our day-vig ability, what exactly will happen? I assume the shot will fail, but will it be used up?

The answers should confirm this, but if someone doesn't know whether they're in the safezone, they should openly leave before trying out their day-vig.

People leave by sending me a PM. You can't leave until you

know

that you're in the safezone.

Yes it is cumulative.

You assume right.

You will see if it's used up or not when it happens.

GAT can't kick people out once they are in.

The people in the safezone one day carry on in the safezone into the next day.

Albert: can the GAT move people into the safezone publicly if they so choose?

I think yabbaguy is highly likely to be scum personally.

Yeah.

[yabbaguy]

I think yabbaguy is highly likely to be scum personally.

Yeah.

...

[ortolan]

yabbaguy, you badly need to explain why you knew this was a closed setup when everyone else (seemingly validly) got the impression otherwise.

[yabbaguy]

I have an answer ready, but before I respond, is that the entirety of your scumread on me?

[Ellibereth]

And that matters why?
Answer the question.

[ortolan]

I have an answer ready, but before I respond, is that the entirety of your scumread on me?

tbh, I'm not sure. go ahead, what's your answer?

[yabbaguy]

And that matters why?
Answer the question.

First off, avatar is sweet.

Secondly, is this calling me scummy, or just being aggressive for the hell of it?

@orto: Yeah, I looked at "Sample" PMs, and that tipped me off. That's just my mind working differently, I honestly didn't catch the typo in the first part of the sentence.

I also think you're dead wrong on the point of everyone believing it was open, because all I saw was that Cobalt was under that false impression after I flagged the possibility of bulletless majority (etc). No less, malp posted about it before I did, although I had the idea before he posted- the time period between thinking and posting is ridiculously large for me.

The fact is, apparently that's all you come up with so far, and based on that one snippet that you seem sure about (which I strongly contest), I'm highly likely to be scum. The fact that you've now shifted to uncertainty fascinates me (you haven't totally figured me out, I take it?), but it really can be just that, backtracking. I'll have to sit on the fence on this one, esp. since I'm nowhere near figuring everyone out. Feels pro-majority since you're conveying uncertainty about a player's (my) read, a normal behavior.

[Ellibereth]

First off, avatar is sweet.

I know right.

Secondly, is this calling me scummy, or just being aggressive for the hell of it?

Latter option.
I think you got your facts wrong though:

You mention power roles in this post and your next, first mention of any in topic. Cobalt falsely corrects you immideately afterwards
Albert declares the settup closed
Cobalt mentions the first post error

Mal doesn't even come into the picture yet and Cobalt clearly thought it was open. Along with everyone else before Albert's post.

[Nachomamma8]

Ellibereth, ortolan, I think you're looking too much into this. Albert did label the PMs for Minority and Majority "Sample PMs", which does imply that they were more. Just because people interpret the OP differently doesn't mean that they're scum.

[yabbaguy]

Latter option.

*headdesk* Okay then, Ellibereth just wants to make me look bad for no reason. Not exactly the point of what we're doing here, but I don't think "you" are a part of the "we" here, so that's okay. :)

You're right though, my chronology's scrambled. I still don't see though anyone suggesting otherwise other than Cobalt prior to my post (maybe one person did and I missed it). Saying that everyone was under that assumption is still a stretch, in my mind.

[ortolan]

perhaps we should take a poll: who else thought it was open/closed?

[yabbaguy]

Regis Philbin: All right audience, Ortolan needs your help. On your keypads, either "Open", "Closed", and "I really don't give a damn about this crap"... vote now!

*dramatic music*