Mini 912 - Little Golden Mafia (OVER)

[Trumpet of Doom]

/confirm

[Trumpet of Doom]

Vote: chamber.

I'm expecting it to be a royal pain to try to figure out Mr. "Cases are scummy"'s reasons for voting anyone.

Hey, Phlight, could y'all sign your posts so that the rest of us can tell who's saying what?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Mmkay, let's do this again:

Vote: chamber.

I'm expecting it to be a royal pain to try to figure out Mr. "Cases are scummy"'s reasons for voting anyone.

[Trumpet of Doom]

If I had to guess at why nothing's going on, I'd generalize from my personal situation and say everyone's waiting for someone to do something else. (In related news, I tend to suck at D1s.)

So I probably ought to contribute to the discussion I kinda kicked off. I probably asked Phlight to sign their posts because I felt it might make the game easier for me somehow, although now I'm not sure what it might have been... the only thing I can think of right now is to make metagaming easier (say there's one head that's giving me strong scumvibes and one that's giving me weak townvibes; if I had time and inclination, I could look through their playing histories, see if I read one as always scum or always town, and take that into account - maybe something like "I don't particularly like posts X, Y and Z, but those are from Phate. And in games P, Q and R that had Phate in them, he was town and I wouldn't have figured it out if I wasn't told. So those posts shouldn't factor too heavily into my read on the hydra as a whole.")

@19: I guess I can see why you wouldn't feel a particular need to sign your posts. "I like confusing people" is a bit of a turn-off, but I'm sure at some point I'll be able and willing to look through y'all's game histories and figure out if that's a true statement or not. (Why yes, I

have

lived in Texas all my life. Why do you ask?)

20

definitely

feels off, and Phlight does a nice job explaining why in 21.

22: The RVS'll end when it's ready to end. You don't need to drag it out, certainly, but there's no need to rush it, either.

@everyone talking on page 2 about how Phlight disagreeing with themselves could be a scumtell... frankly, I think I'd be slightly more concerned if there

wasn't

at least some amount of disagreement. (Other scumtells, OTOH, are of course fair game.)

I'm gonna have to go with Panzer and Phlight on this.

Unvote; Vote: DedicatedScribe.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Sure it's my fault my play looks scummy (see above). But if I outwardly do it on purpose to achieve a pro-town end, then there should be no issue.

The issue is, if you intentionally look scummy as town, then when you look scummy as scum, you can say "but I do this as town!" and people can't tell whether you're doing it because you're misguided town who thinks it's a good idea or because you're actually scum. You should not be able to get away with that. (You also shouldn't want to do it in the first place - you're essentially sabotaging yourself in 70% of your games to give yourself something resembling an advantage in the other 30% - but that's a slightly different discussion.)

(On an unrelated note, DS, you only need to quote the specific part of a post you're responding to. Really.)

[Trumpet of Doom]

Takes too much time, really.

No, it really doesn't, but that's not worth getting into an argument.

You see, I can't say everything I do is scummy, because everything I do is not during the RVS.

But everything you've done so far this game has been during either the RVS or this discussion on how we've come to the conclusion you're scum. And I don't think you've been defending yourself in a townie manner.

Panzerjager, any connections found during the RVS are WIFOM, until we get to the part where serious votes are made. I'm denying the town nothing.

Except that the connections there can be used later. Are you getting it?

But it doesnt seem if there's been enough to end the RVS.

Omg

Vote: Limerickx

Hai.

****

limerickx is here.

vote limerickx

A) Phlight, can you explain the sig on your posts, multiple player/personality thing? I think I missed something.

B)

Vote : MacavityLock

, wouldn't want to be in a deadlock with him.

unvote; vote peanutman

Peanuts are meant for being broken open to find all the treats inside. They're nature's pinata.

These all evidence of my purpose.

Uhh... what? I see a post that does not obviously indicate you'd like the RVS to be over, then two jokevotes, which I thought the RVS was intended to get out of people's systems. How were the posts you quoted supposed to be at all indicative of a desire to end the RVS quickly?

I immediately bandwagoned onto any random vote I could. Would scum do this?

Well, obviously. I mean, you did, didn't you?

I don't see a scum-specific reason not to, if that's what you're asking. And trying to defend yourself with WIFOM like that is absolutely horrible.

[Trumpet of Doom]

What story are you? What about your partner?

Are you and your partner confirmed town to each other? If so, I think it's probably a good idea to claim who they are and let them confirm your claim (on the grounds that it's really nice to have confirmed town around, due to its effect on the nightkill).

[Trumpet of Doom]

Couple of reasons for a flavor claim:

1. If he gives a story name that one of the other players has, they can call him out on it and we've hit scum on page 5.
2. I'm asking for both stories so that I can figure out whether it makes sense, flavor-wise, for those two stories to be masons together. In RBT's last game I played (Musical Mafia - Mini 709), he put a fair amount of thought into PM flavor, and I'm expecting him to have done so here as well.

Of course, I'd also like to know if he and his partner are confirmed to each other, as I've already mentioned.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I think some mods'll make them unconfirmed and call them masons anyway. Don't know how RBT'd do it, which is why we're asking.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I think a fullclaim is best, excepting the name of the mason partner.

Seems to me if they're confirmed town to each other, there's really no reason for him not to claim who the other is and let him confirm that. If you can think of one, I'd love to hear it.

[Trumpet of Doom]

...am I missing something? Here's my thinking:

I'm fairly confident two masons are not all the power we have. So if we have two confirmed masons on D1, scum have to either:
- kill the masons, which would give a cop two free nights to work and would tell a doc who to protect (at least for N2); or
- look for the other power role(s), which means they're not killing the confirmed-town masons, which means they've got confirmed town running around in lategame, which scum DO NOT WANT.

But whatever, I guess we can agree to disagree - this is as much a theory discussion as anything else, so I'm guessing those of us with reasonably strong opinions on the matter aren't going to be easily swayed by someone else's reasoning.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Apologies in advance for Mastinizing your post, Phlight.

Assuming we have a cop and a doctor is a terrible idea.

I wasn't assuming both - hell, I wasn't even assuming we necessarily had either (there's a reason I said "a" cop/doc instead of "the" cop/doc).

Later, if the mason partner dies, he can point to the mason and be like 'that was my partner. See, now I'm confirmed.'

What? This is absolutely horrible. Confirmed to be able to nighttalk, maybe, but not alignment-confirmed, and you know it. If they're not confirmed and DS's partner dies and flips town, we don't know a thing about his (DS's) alignment. And if he says they are confirmed, I'm not going to believe it until his partner backs his claim up. (That is the primary advantage of masons, yes? To be able to say, "yes, this guy's being truthful as far as his role goes"?)

Alternatively, if he dies and flips mason, the partner has the option of immediately claiming or waiting 'til he's close to lynch or at lylo.

Same problem.

Even if he claims his partner's name, there's still no guarantee they're masons until one dies.

If his partner backs him up on it, either both of them are masons/neighbors/what-have-you or both of them are scum. (Absurd play by both parties excepted, of course.)

We don't gain anything from the name, and we lose power-roles.

...were you even reading 111? If scum go for the masons, they're giving whatever other PR(s) we have two nights to be useful. (And I'm sure we have at least one that's not the masons.)

I have trouble seeing how this impressive reading comprehension fail could come from experienced town.

HoS: Phlight

- my vote's staying on DS until he fullclaims, and it might stay there after the claim as well (it depends what he says). If I unvote DS, you're next.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I'm slightly confused. Is that supposed to be a response to me, dram? And if so, is it of the "ToD, you're wrong, here's why" variety?

[Trumpet of Doom]

"I'm slightly confused" might work a little better as "I'm getting mixed signals here," but I think you get the point.

[Trumpet of Doom]

...was that ever up for debate?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Trumpet, you seem to be missing my points completely. Let me see if I can make this simpler for you.

Point 1) Mason generally means 'confirmed town alignments of all masons in the group to all masons in the group'. So I took DS' mason-claim to mean that, and will continue to do so until he tells us otherwise.

Point 2) If both masons claim, town still doesn't know their alignment; only that they're the same alignment (assuming that they are confirmed, as noted in Point 1, above)

Point 3) Scum, however, knows their alignment (assuming a standard scum ratio, a scumgroup of three players would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the masons are town, unless riceballtail has five scum in this game, which isn't likely.

Point 4) Scum can use that information as they see fit. They could decide to keep the masons alive in order to gain a WIFOM-fueled mislynch, or they could decide to kill the masons, depending on whether the masons appeared to be competent players. DS, from what I've seen, is hardly a threat to the scum if he's town, but the partner could be myself, or Panzerjager, or some other competent player. If the scum decides that the masons are not a threat, they won't kill the masons; instead, they'll kill whomever they suspect of being a cop or a doctor or what-have-you, and now are more likely to hit because they know two players who

aren't

the power-role they're seeking.

Conclusion: In essence, revealing the name (and to a lesser extent, the title, as it might force the other mason to fakeclaim or reveal his role before it's advantageous to him) gives information to both the town and the scum, which is always a double-edged sword. In this case, the extra information clearly helps scum, because it better informs them on how to make night-kill decisions and on which mislynches to push, but

it does not help town

.

The identity and rolename of the mason partner, if any, are for that partner to reveal if and when he so chooses, and no one else.

FomS: Trumpet of Doom

for being so anxious to make public information that is so much more beneficial to scum than town.

1. This probably isn't worth arguing - I don't know I'd be as confident as you seem to be that mason implies confirmed, but it doesn't really matter.
2. Didn't I just say that?
3. Not in dispute (RBT doesn't seem like the type of mod to make an unconfirmed mason pair town-SK), though I'm trying to leave room for some kind of planned claim from two scum players.
4, I think, is where we're having issues.

I'm having trouble seeing why having confirmed town is a bad thing. And if DS's partner and replacement (which I'm guessing will happen - he hasn't posted anywhere onsite since Tuesday) are good town players, scum are more or less going to have to kill them, yes? (Even if DS sticks around and isn't too good, if he claims confirmed and his partner dies, scum still have to get him out of the way because they can't lynch him.) So if scum are sinking their kills into masons because they can't get rid of them any other way - and if DS or his replacement claims confirmed and town trusts it, they're not getting lynched, so scum kinda have to NK them - they're giving power roles some free nights to work. If we have a cop, they get two free investigations. If we have a doc, they get some idea whom to protect. You see what I'm getting at?

That said, I've never actually played with masons except for LotA (which had third-party masons) and an ongoing game (well, not straight-up masons, but similar), and it's my understanding that Phate plays on IRC a bunch and probably has more experience with them than I do... so if it comes down to it, I know I should probably (though somewhat reluctantly - I hate to be proven wrong) go with what Phlight says about how to handle mason claims.

(In other news, I should probably refrain from making decisions on someone's towniness or scumminess after about 11:15 PM GMT-6.)

[Trumpet of Doom]

Phlight: Pretty much the only way I can see the masons being our only PRs (if this game's balanced) is if there are only 2 scum. If we assume 3 scum (and I haven't seen a good reason not to), we basically have to have another PR for balance.

I'd expect scum to try to kill the masons if they're confirmed town and

either's

a good player. What I'm thinking is that they'd kill the good one first (because he's a good player and confirmed town), but then they'd have someone else who won't be lynched, so they'll have to kill them.

That said, I do see the point someone (forget who and don't feel like checking... maybe dramonic) made that if someone else claims mason partner and is lying, they can be counterclaimed... didn't think of that before. (Also, I don't bother with NK WIFOM and who it'd incriminate unless I suspect there's exactly one scum left. Seems like it'd be even less straightforward to figure it out with multiple living scum than with just one. Maybe that's just me, though.)

peanutman: That's an interesting point about Panzer; however, you're setting off warning bells regarding something that I've heard mentioned as a scumtell before and should probably do some research on in my copious spare time... it's along the lines of "first person to seriously accuse someone else of rolefishing is generally scum." Has anyone else heard something like that, or am I just imagining things?

Lastly, I should probably declare that I'll have

limited access for the rest of the week.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I don't know how accurate it is either, wolf, that's why I asked. I'm sure I thought whomever I heard it from knew what he was talking about, but I can't remember who it was.

It looks to me like peanut's saying that Panzer's pushing for a wagon-to-claim in 77 was rolefishing. Looking at it, I think it's a stretch at best to call it that, although I agree that his push to lynch DS without his/his replacement's even saying whether they're confirmed to each other or not is WTF (but not fishing).

[Trumpet of Doom]

Claim makes sense, and I like what people are saying about Panzer's 133.

Unvote; Vote: Panzerjager.

(Should be L-2, for people who care.)

[Trumpet of Doom]

If I have a role that targets, I targeted Trumpet of Doom in the last day/night cycle.

If I have a role that inspects for alignment, I didn't receive a result.

If I have a role that tracks or a role that watches, no one targeted Trumpet of Doom and Trumpet of Doom targetted BridgesAndBaloons.

I would like for everyone to hypoclaim in the above fashion in their next post. Whether you do have a role that targets or not, claim that you do and claim a result. Vigilantes, if any, should consider lying, lest they become obvious. This gives very little information to scum and means that if/when an investigative role dies, we'll have all of their information.

Are you serious? This gives plenty of information to scum, because they'll know who to go for to kill information roles - and as you yourself said, assuming we have a cop(/tracker/watcher) and a doctor is a terrible idea.

In other news, your claimed hypotrack result on me is BS.

Vote: Phlight.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Trumpet of Doom doesn't want a hypoclaim because he's scum. Although I didn't claim a result on him that implicates that he's scum (I hypoclaimed one, which is quite different), you can see the way that he absolutely freaked out.

Phlight wants a hypoclaim because they're scum. Although I made a completely reasonable argument for why hypoclaiming is a bad idea, you can see the way they just blew it off. (See what I did there?)

For those who need me to restate why hypoclaiming is bad

*cough*Phlight*cough*

, here it is:

Phlight's hypoclaim is this:

If I have a role that targets, I targeted Trumpet of Doom in the last day/night cycle.

If I have a role that inspects for alignment, I didn't receive a result.

If I have a role that tracks or a role that watches, no one targeted Trumpet of Doom and Trumpet of Doom targetted BridgesAndBaloons.

So unless there's:
(a) a mafia RB who
(b) targeted Phlight, scum now knows - repeat, KNOWS - that Phlight's not a cop.

If everyone hypoclaims, scum can take that info and use it to figure out who might have a PR worth killing. I can't believe I have to explain this. And I didn't vote him strictly for hypoclaiming an incriminating result on me, I'm voting him for suggesting that everyone hypoclaim in the first place - the result he hypoclaimed merely sealed the deal.

2/3 of my top three possible scum have now refused to hypoclaim; let's see what SC does.

SC already claimed mason. Pay attention, scumbag.

@Trumpet: When you voted for PJ you went out of your way to say that he was on L-2 when he was actually on L-1. If you were scum it seems like a pretty good tactic to me, somebody too lazy to actually check the votes could come along and vote for him thinking they were putting him on L-1 when they were actually hammering, and stating what the vote count is in your post implies you've actually checked it is true, otherwise why bother saying it? Please explain.

There are a variety of things it could be, and I'm not sure which of these it was:
- I miscounted
- I thought it was 8 to lynch
- I didn't see one of the votes before mine (maybe one of ML's and dramonic's, since those two were right next to each other and both in short posts)

Take your pick. Hopefully those are all satisfactory.

[Trumpet of Doom]

So... Phlight hasn't responded to (and certainly hasn't refuted) any of the points I actually made about why hypoclaiming is incredibly pro-scum and he's a scummy person for suggesting it, instead only trying to build a case on me

after

it became clear that his hypoclaim wasn't going to get me lynched? Can we please lynch the incredibly obvious scum already?

After his first few points, he completely ignores DS until the claim

I believe we call that "bullshit." In my posts between the one you quoted and the claim, I

only

talked about DS.

Are you serious?
<snip>
In other news, your claimed hypotrack result on me is BS.
<snip>

*cough*Phlight*cough*

<snip>
I can't believe I have to explain this.
<snip>
Pay attention, scumbag.

This is not a townie who thinks he knows who the scum is. This is not a townie who knows he knows who the scum is. This is scum playing for an audience.

Right, because of course I've

never

played like this as town - oh, wait... I know you think meta's a reasonable defense, Phlight, since you tried to use it to clear Panzer. So take a look at mine.

A townie would not argue theory with someone he was this convinced was scum - why would you? What's the point in arguing theory with scum? Unless Trumpet of Doom is either very inexperienced or very childish, there's altogether too much bravado here for this to be anything but acting.

I think "egotistical" is the word you're looking for. I'm a trumpet player, it comes with the territory. And considering this particular theory dispute is the main reason

why

I think you're scum, it makes perfect sense for me to explain why I'm right and you're

wrong

scum as much as necessary to get the point across. Hanlon's Razor does not work in your favor here.

And I'm sorry you can't read and thought those comments were supposed to be reconciliatory ( ).

---

In other news:

Claim makes sense, and I like what people are saying about Panzer's 133. Unvote; Vote: Panzerjager. (Should be L-2, for people who care.)

This, however, is much more suspcious. TNM has already brought up the odd and misleading L-2 comment. But the other thing I don't like is that he adds his vote near the end, echoing everyone else comments without adding anything new. I get the feeling he knows the lynch is inevitable and he's best to be on the wagon.

Uh... what? If I'm scum, wouldn't it be better for me

not

to be on the wagon, so that when it hits a townie, I can say, "hey, I knew that was a bad wagon?" (Yes, I know that's WIFOM... what would you expect in a response to a statement like that?)

Also, there's something not right about the "for people who care" comment. What did you mean by that Trumpet? If, as you say, the L-2 comment was an innocent mistake, what were you looking to add with the second part of it?

I meant exactly what I said. I know there are players who'll support a wagon like that regardless of where they might fall on it, but there are some who won't get on near the end of a wagon early D1.

@dram: Any half-decent doc would have protected SC last night. The only reason I can see for scum to try to kill him would have been to test for a doc's existence.

@SC: I'm thinking that 213 wasn't finished when you posted it. Could you fix that, please?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Do we want to massclaim? I'm suggesting it more or less on "why the hell not" grounds, as I think I can guess the setup already, but I want to make sure. (I'll reveal my thoughts afterwards if we do it.)

In other news,

SC is pretty much confirmed town

ML's a ninja.

[Trumpet of Doom]

No vig should have shot last night, and I'm kinda opposed to 4 for mod-side WIFOM reasons. I'm thinking choice 1, though I suppose 3's not entirely out of the question.

Sig'ed :}

You're welcome.

[Trumpet of Doom]

So the only guy who hasn't agreed with massclaim is the one who hasn't posted yet today. Cool.

Next question: How do we want to determine order? I'd say let SC pick, since he's (a) fullclaimed already and (b) confirmed. If for whatever reason people don't like that, dice and popcorn work as alternative methods.

Also, barring anything crazy happening during massclaim, peanutman is probably my top pick for scum at this point.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I was going to suggest that SC directs the claim

Now we're even.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Popcorn is where whoever just claimed says who they want to have claim next. For example, "I'm story XYZ, role PQR. Player N, claim next."

[Trumpet of Doom]

Little Red Hen. VT.

peanutman, you're next.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Observations:

TNM's claim virtually ensures that he is, in fact, not mafia, so we can't lynch him today. Like the rest of you, I'm thinking he's SK, not town.

However, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment, while it's in town's best interest for an SK to claim (so we know one player not to lynch today) and it's in mafia's best interest for an SK to claim (if they kill him, they avoid the potential for a kingmaker situation), it's not in an SK's best interest to claim today if they want to have any chance of winning (we don't lynch them today, but they'll almost certainly be NK'd tonight; if they claim now, their only chance of winning is if they can get to kingmaker). So I agree, I'd like them to claim, but I won't hold my breath over it.

Between {peanutman, ML, lobster}, I think peanutman's the most likely scum, which might be partly because his play here is reminiscent of his scum play in Mafia 102 (link's on my wiki page, if you're interested; it's also my only scum game in the last 12 months) - that said, I haven't seen his town play and am not likely to get a chance to do so in the next few days. I'll take a closer look at the other two at some point.

[Trumpet of Doom]

...I had some really good reason thought up earlier, and now I can't think of what it was. Something to the effect of "I don't think mafia would claim vig and pick those two targets, especially given that peanutman's already suggested that "run over" is the mafia kill flavor. They'll just draw the SK kill if they do that - it seems like the risk outweighs the reward."

[Trumpet of Doom]

Between {peanutman, ML, lobster}, I think peanutman's the most likely scum, which might be partly because his play here is reminiscent of his scum play in Mafia 102 (link's on my wiki page, if you're interested; it's also my only scum game in the last 12 months) - that said, I haven't seen his town play and am not likely to get a chance to do so in the next few days. I'll take a closer look at the other two at some point.

There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here.
1) You say I'm most likely scum because my play is reminiscent of my scum play in a different game, even though you admit that you've never read any of my other games (how could you even make that comparison?)
2) Related to the first point, you lay out a bold statement (that I am most likely scum), and then qualify that your reasoning for it isn't so strong and that you won't be able to follow up on this for a few days. It is manipulative to make such a statement at this point in the game, followed by weak reasoning and no desire to confirm it.
3) You claim I'm the scummiest without even looking at ML or Lobster. You can't judge amongst 3 people by only looking at one of them.

1. That's not the only reason (see: "partly" because), just the one that's quickest to express (because it means I don't have to go find anything else). By the end of this week, I should be able to put together a reasonably decent case based on your play here - but probably not before, I'm a tad swamped IRL. (Hell, I might as well just declare

LA until Friday.

)
2. "No desire?" Where the hell are you getting this? Lack of ability at present, I can see and will freely admit to. Lack of inclination, OTOH, I'm pretty sure I've never said or implied - and your suggestion that I have does not work in your favor.
3. I have a read on you, not on the other two (hell, half the time I can't even remember lobster's in the game), and it's a scum read, so if deadline was in five minutes, I'd vote you. You've called into question the strength of said scum read, but I'd point out that even if you're right and it is only a weak scum read, weak still trumps null.

Also, of note: You've played with ToD-scum as recently as or more than anyone else. If anyone in this game knows me as scum, it's you.

No votes have been placed.

With 6 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Trumpet of Doom V/LA to 2/26/10.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Case on peanutman:

one thing that Dramonic first raised but then got lost with the mason-business is Panzerjager's calling for a claim with only 4 votes on DS. That's an early call for a claim IMO and definitely requires some explaining. At that early stage, it's just rolefishing more than anything else.

I think I mentioned this before, but asking for a claim with only 4 votes isn't actually what Panzer did. What he did was ask for a wagon to a claim. So we've got misrepresentation here. (And then the "first serious rolefishing accusation tends scum" thing... my brief scan of recently completed games seems to indicate that scum do, in fact, seem to make the game's first fishing accusation more often than chance might suggest, but I'll still take it with a grain of salt.)

I also don't like the way that Phlight jumped on the first person who didn't agree that the hypoclaim was a good idea.

Trumpet of Doom doesn't want a hypoclaim because he's scum.

Does this mean that anyone who doesn't want a hypoclaim is scum? I think's it's the wrong approach here. Phlight, if you had proposed the idea first and gotten discussion on its merits, it would have been more valuable. And then you voting for Trumpet right after your hypoclaim is just very odd. Do you expect all those who hypoclaim to then vote for their "hypo-suspect" or whatever? *snip*

Claim makes sense, and I like what people are saying about Panzer's 133. Unvote; Vote: Panzerjager. (Should be L-2, for people who care.)

This, however, is much more suspcious. TNM has already brought up the odd and misleading L-2 comment. But the other thing I don't like is that he adds his vote near the end, echoing everyone else comments without adding anything new. I get the feeling he knows the lynch is inevitable and he's best to be on the wagon. Also, there's something not right about the "for people who care" comment. What did you mean by that Trumpet? If, as you say, the L-2 comment was an innocent mistake, what were you looking to add with the second part of it?

I'd hope that even by that point, it was clear that Phlight and I weren't scumpartners. Since we didn't have reason to suspect a second scum faction (=SK), trying to cast suspicion on both of us seems unwarranted.

I agree completely with a massclaim.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs
would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

That being said, no one throw a vote yet!!! With 3 to lynch, a misplaced vote could end the game with the 2 maf pilling on.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

Hold on. Is there a possibility to have a regular 3-member mafia team with a townie who has a PR that would break this situation (i.e. can't be lynched, or townie with 2 votes)? Would that work with the balance? I bring this up because I've never seen a 2-member mafia team in a mini game, it seems from the outset rather unbalanced.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

Between {peanutman, ML, lobster}, I think peanutman's the most likely scum, which might be partly because his play here is reminiscent of his scum play in Mafia 102 (link's on my wiki page, if you're interested; it's also my only scum game in the last 12 months) - that said, I haven't seen his town play and am not likely to get a chance to do so in the next few days. I'll take a closer look at the other two at some point.

There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here.
1) You say I'm most likely scum because my play is reminiscent of my scum play in a different game, even though you admit that you've never read any of my other games (how could you even make that comparison?)
2) Related to the first point, you lay out a bold statement (that I am most likely scum), and then qualify that your reasoning for it isn't so strong and that you won't be able to follow up on this for a few days. It is manipulative to make such a statement at this point in the game, followed by weak reasoning and

no desire to confirm it.

3) You claim I'm the scummiest without even looking at ML or Lobster. You can't judge amongst 3 people by only looking at one of them.

-------

Case on Lobstermania :

- Very little posting (without much content compared to other players). Has been cruising along without putting much visible effort into the game.
- Has inquired about the NKs a few times

Also, no one has brought up the two night kills. Is it too early to consider it?

The only part that bothers me is the two PR's NK'd N1.

- He random-voted for TNF on Jan. 20th, acknowledge that RVS was over on Jan 26th., and then, on Feb. 3rd

I'm going to keep my vote on TotallyNotMafia for now. He seems a bit trigger happy and that's not sitting well.

From his RVS-vote to this post, he didn't mention TNF once. Why wouldn't he have unvoted when he had acknowledged the end of RVS? He didn't mention any lingering suspicion on TNF until Feb 3rd. (By the way, following the post that I quoted, he has posted a total of 5 times without really contributing to the scum-hunting).
- Promised posts twice, having delivered late without much content both times.
- Has only voted once in the whole game, the whole 3 days!!!!!! And it was his RVS-vote.

I am cautious about placing a vote just yet, given that we are in MYLO, put he is definitely my top pick for scum.

Bold: Misrepresentation, as pointed out at the top of this page.

In general: Does anyone else see a problem here? He says, "There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here," which sounds like he's building up to "you should be lynched for this post alone," then he goes and builds a case on lobster, stating that lobster, not me, is his top pick for scum.

---------------------------------------------------

After DS's mason claim Trumpet was saying that DS should say who his mason partner was. His reasoning was that with two confirmed town they would draw the nightkills away from possible cops or docs, but it's just as likely that it would narrow down possible cops or docs for the NK (with the other mason outed that's one less person who may be a cop or doc), and this may have been what ToD was thinking. Essentially he's dressing up his rolefishing in a pro-town way.

Counterargument: If I was trying to rolefish, I wouldn't have argued so damn hard against the hypoclaim. I'm a beast when I can get everything broken down to a logic puzzle (see D6 of Suzumiya Haruhi for a shining example from me-town), and a hypoclaim would have given me so much to work with as scum that there's no way I'd want to pass up that opportunity.

Question to all, but especially peanutman: Does metagame information hold any value to you? (SC, you don't need to answer this - I'm reasonably confident you'll say no.)

...wow. lobster's post is not good at all. Couple this with the townread I'm starting to develop on ML, and I'm feeling ready to call scum as {peanutman, lobster} mafia, TNM SK.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I think I mentioned this before, but asking for a claim with only 4 votes isn't actually what Panzer did. What he did was ask for a wagon to a claim. So we've got misrepresentation here.

Let's look at what PJ said before throwing out the word misrepresentation.

I think he needs some more pressure and a claim about now.

You have done plenty to warrant pressure and a vote

Second quote immediately corrected with :

warrant a claim..not a vote.

Lynch him. If we mislynch, at least his mason partner can be confirmed and help us in lylo. It's a good scumclaim.

Looking at all the first three quotes, are you seriously telling me, ToD, that he was asking for a wagon that would eventually lead to a claim?

Pressure usually takes the form of votes, yes?

To add to it all, the fact that he called to lynch a claimed PR immediately after did seem like scum trying to find a PR.

I agree. That wasn't the part of your post I was objecting to.

I'd hope that even by that point, it was clear that Phlight and I weren't scumpartners. Since we didn't have reason to suspect a second scum faction (=SK), trying to cast suspicion on both of us seems unwarranted.

I never claimed that you were scum-partners. I raised suspicions on two things independantly. Obviously, not all of our suspicions our correct. But for you to just disregard my whole argument because "it was clear" that Phlight and you weren't scumpartners is just avoiding the main argument.

The right way to deal with a situation like that: "Okay, X and Y probably aren't scumpartners. Assuming one scumteam, it only makes sense for me to really be worried about one being scum, and right now the one that I'm more worried by is X. If Y does more scummy things, that might change, but for now, I'm thinking X and not Y is scum." Note, of course, that it's possible for both players in that scenario to be town.

However, what really bothers me about this point on your case is that you misquoted me to better your argument. If you read the whole post, you will see that I also cast suspicion on Dramonic. According to your logic, that must mean that I think you are all scum partners. Correct?

That's a huge leap in your logic. There wasn't anything preventing dramonic and Phlight from being scum together. There wasn't anything preventing dramonic and me from being scum together. That whole debacle early D2 should have shown that Phlight and I weren't scum together.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

At this point in the game, with 2 scum, 1 confirmed townie and 2 unknowns, I would rather have more information than less. As part of the uninformed majority I would like as much information as possible to find scum. By revealing the PR (vig or SK), it increases my chances of picking scum from 50% to 66%. I will take those odds in lylo any day.

You're missing the point. Everyone else agreed to massclaim, but they all sounded like "sure, why not" - well, except maybe SC. Simply put, with what we already knew of the setup, massclaim wasn't going to be terribly helpful about what roles were in the game and would really have only told us books (okay, and given us a lead on

vig/

SK). Your eagerness was unnecessary from a town point of view.

But then Lobster still threw a vote.

True; that's a point against lobster, but it doesn't help you.

On a side note, don't we all want to look town?

Town shouldn't need to try to look town. If it happens, great; if it doesn't, oh well. Scum, on the other hand, do need to try to look town - that's actually one of the more reliable tells I've run into: if it looks forced (or unnecessary, or like something a townie shouldn't need to say), it probably is.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

As I said, I was thinking through the set-up and I've never seen a 2-scum team in a mini. If you feel it's scummy to suggest it, that's up to you. I just want to make sure that we've thought through every scenario.

Well, if you haven't seen one, you haven't looked hard enough - it's my understanding that town's lost every 2:10 vanilla run on this site, I've heard about 2:2:8 setups, and I've (officially) played in a 9:2:1 setup, so such things are by no means unheard of.

But the scummy part is the role suggestion - there's really no role that could stop endgame from occurring right now with a 3-man scumteam: bulletproof townies can still be lynched, unlynchable townies can still be NK'd, we would have known about a doublevoter by now (and I'm not convinced it would stop endgame anyway), and I don't think there are any other options. I just want to make sure you've thought through every scenario ( ).

As for your general statement, I don't see a problem. I am not close-minded to assume that if someone raises suspicion on me, they must be scum. Townies make bad arguments all the time, in all games. I know that I've made some weak ones in this game.

My issue is, that's the second time this game you've said someone's a stronger suspect for what I feel is a weaker reason (the first was 204; for this one, I'm not completely sold on the "lurkers are scum" idea, and your post came before lobster's awful 279).

Finally, regarding meta reads, I don't hold too much weight to it.

...figures. Guess what one of my favorite methods of defense as town is.

I mainly feel it can be manipulated by everyone.

Yeah, you'd think, but I'm living proof of the opposite.

Still waiting for a response from Lobster. I will vote for him tomorrow afternoon unless he provides a great post and addresses the main accusations against him.

Eh, I'll take a lobster lynch (with or without bussing) if I can't get one on peanut.

[Trumpet of Doom]

In 91, ToD also jumps heavily on DS/SC-town.

90 was my longest post attacking DS, sure; I'm not sure I'd call it heavy, but whatever.

In 111, it looks like ToD is assuming that there are definitely masons in the game and does not consider that DS might be lying about a mason claim.

In 128, I explicitly said I was trying to leave room for a planned claim by two scumpartners. 111 leaves room for a planned fakeclaim, but the point I was trying to make was that whether or not DS was telling the truth, we pretty much had to have at least one other PR.

In 145,

Phlight: Pretty much the only way I can see the masons being our only PRs (if this game's balanced) is if there are only 2 scum. If we assume 3 scum (and I haven't seen a good reason not to), we basically have to have another PR for balance.

More assumption of masons, plus first instance of anyone bringing up 2 maf, which is really interesting in light of what we know now.

That paragraph was a response to Phlight's 129:

No, you cannot assume that there are other power roles worth protecting.

Let's say the masons are the only power roles we have because there is no guarantee that we have others:

I invite you to explain to me how 3:9 with town's only PRs being a pair of confirmed masons is at all balanced. (And I still wasn't assuming DS was telling the truth.)

In 287 and 289, ToD makes a couple of horrible arguments against peanut:

I agree completely with a massclaim.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs
would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

That being said, no one throw a vote yet!!! With 3 to lynch, a misplaced vote could end the game with the 2 maf pilling on.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

Hold on. Is there a possibility to have a regular 3-member mafia team with a townie who has a PR that would break this situation (i.e. can't be lynched, or townie with 2 votes)? Would that work with the balance? I bring this up because I've never seen a 2-member mafia team in a mini game, it seems from the outset rather unbalanced.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

I don't see any of these as scumtells.

"Overeager" is sort of a subset of "trying to look town," which is the only subtle tell I can consistently catch scum with (scum being really obvious doesn't count). The last one... see below.

Why is a setup the 3 member maf with a town vote manip PR "not a possibility"?

Because in all probability (as I explained in 289), we would have figured out its existence by the start of D3: we would have seen a doublevoter or a voteless player by this point (and been able to infer the existence of a vote thief because someone would have looked like a doublevoter or a voteless player). BPs can still be lynched, unlynchable townies can still be NK'd... if you have any other ideas, I'm all ears.

Why is the suggestion of the setup scummy?

It's counterproductive and, if we take it seriously, demoralizing: It suggests that if we mislynch, we will lose the game immediately. That's only true if we lynch the SK - if we lynch anyone else, there will be a N3.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I thought you were saying before it was just as likely I was scum as SK, changed your mind after nobody took the bait?

SK was part of scum, last I checked.

it's like you're trying to convince others of someones scumminess rather than just make the case yourself.

That's what a case is supposed to do, yes?

(Warning: Pretty much everything in the rest of this post will be WIFOM. If you don't like it, oh well - I don't really have other options, since I'm defending myself from WIFOM in the first place.)

Counterargument: If I was trying to rolefish, I wouldn't have argued so damn hard against the hypoclaim. I'm a beast when I can get everything broken down to a logic puzzle (see D6 of Suzumiya Haruhi for a shining example from me-town), and a hypoclaim would have given me so much to work with as scum that there's no way I'd want to pass up that opportunity.

This is a very poor counterargument because:

1) You were being voted by Phlight after his hypoclaim, so not voting for him after that would be like an admission of guilt.

Really? Because apparently Phlight believes the exact opposite. And if it came down to his word vs. yours, I'd probably go with his.

2) It seems to me that a mislynch on Phlight is just as good if not better for scum than any rolefishing you may have attained from it.

Scum want to find and kill PRs. Not that I'm egotistical or anything (okay, I am), but I'd like to think I'm one of the best players on the site at deducing who does and who doesn't have PRs from something like that. And considering that in Phlight's next-to-last post before they got hammered, they said that at least two of a three-player set that included our two masons and myself was scum, I'd absolutely leave them alive to try to get at least one town-driven mislynch.

3) Defending one situation with that of another seems pretty scummy to me also, it's like you thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing after and thought "Well if anyone ever accuses me of of rolefishing I can use the phlight situation to defend it."

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. I "thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing" after... what?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Yes, but it's the appealing to other people with the question I don't like. It's like what Phlight said, it seems more like you're playing to an audience and trying to convince everyone that someone is scum rather than actually trying to find who the scum is.

I swear, if people would actually read my completed games, we wouldn't have half of these problems.

I mean that whether you are town or scum it would have been stupid to go along with the hypoclaiming after he fake-claimed you, which makes your counterargument moot.

"Guys, chill out. It's just a hypoclaim, he's not necessarily saying he actually has that result."

And what the? That doesn't make sense to say you would go with his word...he was saying that you were scum for the way you reacted...so what exactly are you saying? The more you defend yourself the more it seems like you're just trying to win an argument, and pulling up anything to explain your actions.

For the way I reacted, yes. How I would have reacted as scum would probably be more likely to make him think I was town. (Does your head hurt yet?)

But the whole scenario of you going along with the hypoclaim is ridiculous because in everyones eyes at that point he was basically saying he had proof you were scum, I cannot imagine that anyone as scum would ignore that and go along with the hypoclaim.

Apparently you haven't read my only game as scum in the past 12 months. I barely even cared that I was getting lynched.

Here's what my thought process might have looked like if I was scum: "Oh hey, Phlight's suggesting we hypoclaim. This is awesome! I can get so much to work with from this! ...wait, he's saying he tracked me to B&B last night? (if I didn't make the kill) Okay, I know he's not a tracker, and if people get on me for that, I can just say he's not actually claiming he had that result. (if I did make the kill) Hm. If he's a tracker, I'm SOL at this point; hopefully he isn't, but I can't go too overboard on trying to discredit him because I really would like the hypoclaim to happen and then hope I don't get lynched. Let's see what I can do. (if I expect my partner to be able to get something useful out of the hypoclaim regardless of my survival) Sure, let's see what happens."

I'm thinking that at some time down the track after the whole hypoclaiming thing you may have thought back on it and thought "that would be a good counterargument to use in case someone accuses me of rolefishing."

Perhaps. Even so, can you argue that what I said was wrong?

Basically the thing I have a problem with is instead of explaining the accused mason rolefishing you defended it with something completely unrelated saying that if you really wanted to rolefish you could have done it with the hypoclaiming. That's like someone defending a murder by saying well if they really wanted to murder someone they could have done it some other time but they didn't. That's a terrible defence imho, and one that I think scum would use when they have no way of defending the initial action.

When I asked for the name of the other mason, I genuinely believed it would be pro-town to have that information out there. When dramonic pointed out the upside to having the mason stay hidden, I realized that it was a good reason to keep the other mason hidden.

Actually, it's a subset of "WIFOM", which you're apparently very good at.

Thank you for the backhanded compliment. If you don't want to treat it as a scumtell, I can't make you. (Would you like links to games where I've used it successfully?)

Oh, I don't think it's likely either. But the certainty with which you said it is what caught my eye.

So you're saying me being that certain is a bad thing, but you don't show why? Am I missing something?

Not sure I see how that's scummy. We've got to treat it as LYLO at this point, right? We probably have N3, but that still might lead to town loss without any recourse. So, I'm not sure how the setup spec changes anything.

Counterproductive is scummy because it distracts from actual scumhunting.
Demoralizing is scummy because it demotivates the town and makes them think it's going to be really hard to win, so why bother trying? (This particular version also makes us paranoid, because we think more players are trying to get us lynched because they know it'll help them win.)

If we lynch town today and go to N3, then regardless of whether we have an SK or vig, if they want to win, they have to, have to,

have to

hit mafia tonight. Which will lead to either a kingmaker endgame (which town can win if both other players are NK-vulnerable) or a standard 3-player LyLo.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Talking about the setup, specifically about number of scum in the game, as a certainty suggests that you might know more about the setup than a townie, a vanilla for that matter, would.

Until and unless you can show that my certainty - based on the facts that we have six players left alive, no dead scum, and the game's not over - was unfounded from a townie, you can't use it as a scumtell. (Link is to the post where SC said there was no way for there to be 3 scum. )

Counterproductive is scummy because it distracts from actual scumhunting.
Demoralizing is scummy because it demotivates the town and makes them think it's going to be really hard to win, so why bother trying? (This particular version also makes us paranoid, because we think more players are trying to get us lynched because they know it'll help them win.)

Really don't see it, especially the demoralizing part. We're trying to find maf here, no matter what.

Yeah, okay, demoralizing was a bit of a stretch. Counterproductive, though, I stand by.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I wasn't saying ML was being counterproductive/demoralizing, I was talking about peanutman. Specifically, this post.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Sorry Trumpet but I don't really care about your other games, I haven't been playing for long enough to know if metagaming works, my opinion at the moment is that you can just pull up any old game where you were town to give an example where you've acted the same way...and considering as scum you'd be trying to act as town as possible it just doesn't hold any value for me.

Really? Because my opinion at the moment is that you're just going for what you think is an easy lynch.

Perhaps I'm picking up too much on semantics

Yes, yes you are.

but in my second newbie game where I was scum (until I had to replace out) I was accused of a scum-slip which wasn't actually a scum-slip at all it was just mis-interpreted and I felt like saying "I genuinely meant..." but I thought the word "genuinely" would give me away.

So if you expect someone else to have had that thought process (and I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect me to have, having seen my play thus far this game), wouldn't my saying "genuinely" actually make me

less

likely to be scum?

I also fail to see how speculating on the setup makes someone scum, even if you think it's counterproductive that doesn't necessarily mean they are scum.

I feel like a broken record.

Counterproductive is scummy because it distracts from actual scumhunting.

And distraction from actual scumhunting is scummy for reasons that really ought to be obvious (you're keeping people from scumhunting; if you're town, you want people scumhunting because you win if you find the scum and lynch them, but if you're scum, you don't want people scumhunting because they might lynch you and your partner). Have I made myself sufficiently clear?

And I'm pretty sure I have no choice but to do this so:

Dear God,

God Bless little Macavity, and keep him safe and Locked,
Although his name confuses me like wearing sandals with socks.
God Bless little peanutman and keep him always salted,
God Bless little SC too, for against DS we revolted.
God Bless little lobstermania, and God Bless his mum,
God Bless little Trumpet though I think he's lying scum!
God Bless Mum and Dad and Gran and Sis and Bro and Pop,
But I ask Dear God - nay beg of you - please make this madness stop!

Amen.

Night-night!

---

[joke]Guys, quit screwing up my master plan. The idea was that scum would think it was 3 to lynch, jump on my wagon to try to get a quicklynch, and then be disappointed and have outed themselves when it didn't work.[/joke]

[Trumpet of Doom]

...um... wow.

Yeah, I could definitely support a DP lynch today.

Flavor analysis really doesn't seem like it'll help (I mean, if someone had claimed James T. Kirk or something, yeah, but not in this situation). And there's this beauty:

The rest are either just animals, or in the case of the mouse, internally consistant and hint at the role.

Not characters or such.

(Similar to the kitten titles being consistant and hinting to role)

Uh... what are you talking about? The Little Red Hen is a character. The Pokey Little Puppy is a character. The Tawny Scrawny Lion is a character.

6 left, lynch scum to 5, SK kill to 4, mafia kill to 3. Of course if the presumed SK is bullet proof, as recent MD threads have complained about, then we're kingmaker.

6 left, lynch SK to 5,mafia kill to 4, endgame.

Of course this assumes a bullet proof SK.

This is also setting off alarm bells. Only really considering the worst case scenario? IME, the only players that do that are scum.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Vote: DocPotter.

Should be obvious. Unless I miscounted again, that's the hammer.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I love how people only listen to me when I'm wrong.

Frankly, we deserved to lose this game. DS, Panzer, Phlight, lobster, me...