Mini 930:Morning People Mafia (Game Over!)

[TeWuicah]

First of all, I apologize for not posting since page 1. Been really busy lately, I'll try to make it up before the day is over.

About fallen's gambit: Seems to me this was doomed to fail from the start. First of all, saying it's a gambit is a sure-fire way to make everyone tread carefully. Second of all, the whole reasoning behind the gambit is flawed and almost completely WIFOM:

Hmm.

Unvote Deer

. The idea behind putting Deer at (originally, before the unvote) was to catch everyone off guard. If someone jumped off the second I put deer so close to a lynch, I'd lean towards them being town. If anybody simply ignored it and pretended that there wasn't about to be a player lynched D1, I'd assume they're scum or at least not pro-town. If anyone actually quicklynched, obvscum. It didn't work for a few reasons, unfortunately, although I am pretty convinced of rzhang's scumminess. I'll do a full reread when I have time.

A scum could have easily wanted to leave that bandwagon, to get some townie cred. And a townie could have easily stayed on it, because it was only at L-2 and nobody would hammer him in anyway, and it was a pretty much random bandwagon to begin with.

Moving on to more recent posts...

the game starts with an empty field, everybody knows the same things (which is nothing) and all decisions are random. the game only gets going when elements have been added to the field that can be analyzed and attacked or defended, and that can begin to guide people to think or do something non-random. i am just doing that, adding elements to the field, so that maybe we can skip the random stage as quickly as possible because it was looking like it would take a long time in this particular game. so far, my only goal was to be a catalyst of the game itself rather than a player of my particular role.

You were trying to accelerate discussion. I get that. But you were going about it in a pretty dangerous and irrational way. Instead of intentionally casting suspicion on yourself, you could have made an attempt at RQS which would most likely have had a similar effect, only you would not look incredibly scummy.

Point is, it's not a good idea to make a random crazy move to get discussion going. It may get some discussion, but it will ultimately just complicate things for everyone.

i really am itching to elaborate on this, but i really feel it is inappropriate because that game is still in progress. all i will say is that i disagree, it is not always right to lynch all liars. some scum are smart, and to find them you must deceive them, and in some circumstances deceiving them also means deceiving everyone else until after the scum has fallen for the trap and things can be cleared up.

You are right in that theoretically there may be a chance for a townie to fakeclaim and win the game, but such chances are very rare and must be considered carefully. Not at all like your earlier example, you can't just fakeclaim when you're about to be lynched in order to save yourself, as the benefit of you living is not worth the risk of the real power role having to counterclaim. Regardless, I also agree with the policy of lynching all liars.

P.S. Can you please make an effort to capitalize? I can't believe I'm the only one getting a headache trying to read your posts.

[jbernier93]

broadly speaking yes townies shouldnt lie, but dont you think it is naive to say that there is never a circumstance in which it can be helpful to town if a townie lies?

There are a handful of cases in which townies should lie. One of those cases might be when an extremely good player (like, one better 90% of the mafiascum population) who has the trust of a town has a theory they would like to test. However, even then, fakeclaiming roles as town is very very very very dangerous, and usually results in more hurt than help.

other people please post, you look bad lurking during a time like this

Not everybody has as much time to post as everybody else, don't accuse people of lurking when they can't post as much as you.

My basic problem with you rz is that you claim to be "helping fallen's gambit" when in fact you were only fulfilling the purpose of the gambit...

Also QFT:

P.S. Can you please make an effort to capitalize? I can't believe I'm the only one getting a headache trying to read your posts.

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

*eats popcorn while watching the rzhang86 and fallen angel show*

k, well, what I'm getting from fitz's argument is that rz has contradicted himself multiple times, saying he is a noob at times, and not a noob at others. While the gambit he was trying does not necessarily make him scum, the contradictions and slip ups don't bode well.

As for me, I don't particularly like the way rz is playing, mostly drawing attention to the somewhat fluffy language. NOt quite enough to make me vote for him yet, and he is getting close.

btw,

UNOFFICIAL VOTE COUNT

Deer - 3

Sucrose - 1

Nobody Special - 1

rzhang86 - 3

smashbro_of_the_SSS - 1


HoS on rzhang86 by fallen angel

[rzhang86]

This is a general reply to all the people that have been commenting towards me.

I will make an effort to capitalize so you don't get another headache... although if you are serious about getting headaches just from reading non-capitalized text then you may have a medical issue...

There is a point of confusion that I thought I made clear but apparently didn't. I was not attempting to perpetuate fallen angel's gambit, I was riding on his gambit to start my own gambit. His gambit already failed when he declared it was a gambit at all, which I already commented on but whatever I guess it wasn't understood. I was undertaking my own gambit that involved voting Deer to L-1. There seems to be some confusion, because I apparently voted him to L-2, even though I'm almost positive that when I had voted the official count stated Deer was already at L-2. When I said that I voted for Deer for the same reason that fallen angel did, I meant that it was to try a gambit, not that it was to continue his gambit.

Secondly, to address the several comments about my previous game and also lying as town. I was not in danger of being lynched when I fakeclaimed in that game, it was not a move to try and save myself. I fakeclaimed for a completely different reason, it was not to protect myself it was to help town, but instead the real doctor CC'd and town lynched me almost right away without giving me time to even explain (which I did not expect, and which is why I made a point about not letting that happen in this game). That is all I would like to say about that game, because at this point that is the extent of the knowledge available to the public in that game. Someone here quoted my previous game where I said something to the effect of "I am nooby as it gets" but I was not being serious when I said that, but OK you can believe it if you want it is sort of irrelevant. The only point I would like to make that is relevant to this game is that I had thought about the consequences of voting Deer to L-1 (which it turns out was L-2, but I thought was L-1), including that it would most obviously seem like a nooby scum tell at first glance, but that I had in fact taken that into consideration and assumed it wouldn't be a problem because I thought it would be such an obvious "tell" that it would be relatively easy to discredit as being the real reason I made the vote. That is basically the only point regarding my noobiness that I wanted to make, I didn't intend to indicate what my level of experience was only that it was higher than the level it would take to legitimately make that scum tell.

Third, please don't assume that when I place a vote for someone it means that I would like that person to be lynched. If my vote was the hammer then yes that would be a fair assumption, but otherwise it really is not a valid assumption. Votes have many uses, of which achieving lynch is only one. This includes many pro-town uses. Hammering someone without giving a good reason may be scummy in general, I'll give you that. But voting someone to L-1 without giving a reason is not necessarily scummy, and in fact can have powerful pro-town uses. Look, I understand *why* you would at first glance suspect my vote *could* be scummy, but I am saying now that it *could* also be anti-scummy and that my reasons happen to be for the latter even if I do not want to state what my reasons are. Yes this is a "retroactive" statement, but I am also saying that this too is by design.

And yes I am aware that my vote is still on Deer. Whether or not he is my actual main suspect I would not like to say at this time.

Yes, I am attempting to shed light on certain things but still mask certain other things. Again, this is not necessarily scummy. It is just not my style to play completely transparently or truthfully, it is boring and uncreative. This game is about manipulation of information.

[rzhang86]

Sorry, in my previous when I said "anti-scummy" I meant to say "non-scummy".

[rzhang86]

@syke

It looks like you made some mistakes counting the votes and then posted an official but wrong count of the votes. Then some of us made some important decisions based on your official but wrong count. Then it was discovered your count was wrong and you edited the post containing your official but wrong count to the right count. But now, there is no record of the wrong count that was original there, upon which some of us made decisions.

Would you please preserve the wrong counts for posterity, maybe cross it out, and simply append the correct count? Would you please not erase anything you post, including a wrong count? It is all important and relevent information, because things you say affect the unfolding of the game. We cannot erase our posts, I don't think it is fair if you erase your posts even if you do have such powers.

Syke: I have not been in a single game where a VC has been amended that way. In my general experience the count is just edited after the fact. Furthermore if I edit my own post its timestamped and I see no reason to put stamps on my other edits. They are generally post error edits not significant information.

[rzhang86]

@syke

Also, would you make sure that each edit you make has a timestamp that can be distinguished clearly? This is important for us to piece together the chronology of past knowledge.

[water_foul]

I personally don't buy what rz is saying especially because of

And yes I am aware that my vote is still on Deer. Whether or not he is my actual main suspect I would not like to say at this time.

Which looks very anti town to me as sharing information is always a good thing unless it would expose a PR which it can't as we haven't had a night phase yet. With tat said I don't think there is enough evidence to lynch so i will leave it at L-2 but will proceed cautiously with my vote still on him. I think we need a RQS style phase to try to get a better feel for those in this game as I only have a light read on two. I am not suggesting we stay there long but we need a better feel on some of the less frequent players (including myself). Unfortunately I don't have any good mafia questions to ask so please if any one has some speak up. Hopefully we can get a better feel within a page. For general town use here are my current vibes with unofficial post counts (100%=lynch him 50%=neutral 0%=confirmed town)

Water_Foul (4) - 55% Because honestly I have been lurking some, sorry i will try to be more active
rzhang86 (22) - 60-75% for not very solid defense (although a solid one would be difficult), LOTS of multi posts including multiple triples and a quadruple, having a low value per post ratio, and a few scummy actions
Nobody Special (4) - 55% For lurky behavior
smashbro_of_the_SSS (6) - 55% For lurky behavior
chauchaudotcom (10) - 50%
havingfitz (12) - 50%
TeWuicah (2) - 55% For lurky behavior, would be higher without explanation
fallen angel (34) - 40% For very active scum hunting and having a very high value per post count
Sucrose (6) - 55% For lurky behavior
Deer (12) - 45% for his defense
jbernier93 (10) - 50%

As you can tell my scum meter is sensitive

[jbernier93]

Third, please don't assume that when I place a vote for someone it means that I would like that person to be lynched. If my vote was the hammer then yes that would be a fair assumption, but otherwise it really is not a valid assumption. Votes have many uses, of which achieving lynch is only one. This includes many pro-town uses. Hammering someone without giving a good reason may be scummy in general, I'll give you that. But voting someone to L-1 without giving a reason is not necessarily scummy, and in fact can have powerful pro-town uses.

I'm sorry, but that's not really how its supposed to be used. Votes are supposed to
A) Put pressure on a lurker/scummy player
B) Indicate who you find to be an appropriate target for a lynch
and it's mostly B, really. A hammer is the same as any other vote, they are all counted as one vote by the mod.

[fallen angel]

Will respond to all the other stuff in a bit, but I'm kinda short on time. So only gonna comment on post 133 for now. The hammer is basically just the nail in the coffin. If anything, the first vote is stating most intent to lynch a player, instead of just bandwagoning or finishing off the imminent lynch. It's also pretty stupid to put someone at L-1 without a reason. I mean, seriously. Especially if you're town. How does it *help* the town?

[Sucrose]

@rzhang
So if I'm understanding you right, your gambit was to make an irrational move and see how the players respond, right? Would you consider your gambit a success? If you do think you've spotted scummy replies, what good does it do to keep this information to yourself?

Hmm.

Unvote Deer

. The idea behind putting Deer at (originally, before the unvote) was to catch everyone off guard. If someone jumped off the second I put deer so close to a lynch, I'd lean towards them being town. If anybody simply ignored it and pretended that there wasn't about to be a player lynched D1, I'd assume they're scum or at least not pro-town. If anyone actually quicklynched, obvscum. It didn't work for a few reasons, unfortunately, although I am pretty convinced of rzhang's scumminess. I'll do a full reread when I have time.

Mmm, I disagree with this, especially since you announced you were pulling a gambit. Scum don't like attention on them, and by openly targeting the players on the bandwagon, that's what you were doing. Unvoters could be scum trying to take the heat off just as likely as they could be townies trying to avoid a lynch. I consider eagerness to please the town to be a scumtell. (although it can also a newbie tell)

[Sucrose]

EBWOP:(Although it can also be a newbie tell)

preview is your friend.

[Nobody Special]

My apologies: the last two days have been horrendously busy (with no advance warning, either); I will catch up and post tomorrow.

[Deer]

The gambit was filled with WIFOM, and I don't think it could have been used to make a solid scum case on anyone. That being said, I don't find fallen scummy for having attempted it. what I do find scummy, though, is rzhang's defense of his vote on me and the fact that right now, he is basically refusing to scumhunt by not telling us who his top suspect is.

[fallen angel]

I apologize for the delay. Will post as soon as I can. >.<

[havingfitz]

Lot of individual posting dry spells. I think the

mod needs a prod.

[chauchaudotcom]

I don't like the vote, or how fallen angel responded. No vote yet, but explain yourself rz

Could you explain what you didn't like about FA's response before? Also, why did you choose to unvote during FA's gambit knowing that there probably wasn't going to be a hammer?

That being said, I don't find fallen scummy for having attempted it. what I do find scummy, though, is rzhang's defense of his vote on me and the fact that right now, he is basically refusing to scumhunt by not telling us who his top suspect is.

What exactly is scummy about his defense? From what I gather fallen and rz did it for the same reasons, to gauge reactions. EXCEPT, that fallen said it was a gambit beforehand and rz waited until after wards to say it. But what makes saying it after more scummy? (Not suspicious but

scummy

)

Water_Foul (4) - 55% Because honestly I have been lurking some, sorry i will try to be more active

Am I the only one irked by this? The only time I've seen someone evaluate themselves they turned out to be scum. I see no reason why town would ever need to evaluate themselves.

[havingfitz]

I just completed a game where one of the scum had done a comprehensive player assessment in which he included himself. Don't recall if he rated himself slightly scummy or not.

[water_foul]

Water_Foul (4) - 55% Because honestly I have been lurking some, sorry i will try to be more active

Am I the only one irked by this? The only time I've seen someone evaluate themselves they turned out to be scum. I see no reason why town would ever need to evaluate themselves.

I really only posted that as my way of apologizing for not being active... Which is why it is only slightly on the scum scale... Please do not misread that as an admission of guilt.

[TeWuicah]

Yes, I am attempting to shed light on certain things but still mask certain other things. Again, this is not necessarily scummy. It is just not my style to play completely transparently or truthfully, it is boring and uncreative. This game is about manipulation of information.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Yes, on some roles and especially scum, you are going to have to lie and manipulate, but I don't think it's to town's advantage to needlessly complicate the game. For town, that is most players, I think gaining trust is far more important than trying to manipulate people.

Nothing I've seen so far suggests strongly to me that you have scum interests in mind though, so I'm going to let you do your thing and see what, if any, results you get. At the very least you should make this game interesting.

Water_Foul (4) - 55% Because honestly I have been lurking some, sorry i will try to be more active

Am I the only one irked by this? The only time I've seen someone evaluate themselves they turned out to be scum. I see no reason why town would ever need to evaluate themselves.

I just completed a game where one of the scum had done a comprehensive player assessment in which he included himself. Don't recall if he rated himself slightly scummy or not.

Would both/either one of you explain why this would be a scum tell, other than a few anecdotal examples? I agree that it's a strange and perhaps dumb thing to do, but I don't see why that would make you guys think he's scum.

[sykedoc]

FYI: Could barely log on yesterday. The school's network is having a freakout. Be a little patient.

People who have posted during or after wed:
TeWu
Foul
Fitz
Chau
FA
Deer
NS
Sucr
Jbern
Smash
zhang

Fitz your claim is a bit unfounded. Mods are not here to break up dry spells. If someone who posted on Wednesday has not posted by the end of Friday, I am then required to prod. I do not prod people who have posted in the last two days

[sykedoc]

Vote Count:

rzhang86(4): Deer, water_foul, havingfitz, jbernier93
sucrose(1): Nobody Special
Nobody Special(1): chauchaudotcom
Deer(2): rzhang86, sucrose
smashbro_of_the_SSS(1): TeWuicah

This one is

correctable

. I want to make sure I'm entire back on track since I was about crashed for a day. Make sure you hit preview before you do it if you see an error, I only need one person to notice if it's wrong.

A few things:
I do not timestamp posts outside of my own. Nor do many other mods.
I do not cross out edits. Nor do many other mods.
I do not prod until someone has been out for enough time. Nor do many other mods.
I will be as blunt as necessary to express these points.

6 to lynch.

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

I don't like the vote, or how fallen angel responded. No vote yet, but explain yourself rz

Could you explain what you didn't like about FA's response before? Also, why did you choose to unvote during FA's gambit knowing that there probably wasn't going to be a hammer?

Here is the respons I was looking at.

*sigh* I meant you're actions did nothing to help my plan. It honestly hurt it, seeing as all attention was drawn towards you afterwards, so nothing was gained.

I get that. But you're saying that you're neutral. If you are town, instead of focusing on that, try and redeem yourself instead of saying "Well, I can't prove it to you." You aren't getting lynched within the next real-life day or more, (at least, not if the town has *any* commons sense), so get out of the hole you dug. I meant giving up on anything useful. All you're doing is saying "I'm not scum but I can't prove it. Oh, and I did everything useful with FA's gambit."

Nope. I'm just trying to figure out how you think you're helping in the least bit.

I mainly didn't like the top paragraph, since I'm getting the faint smell of him saying "well, it was a good plan for us as scum, but unfortunately it got screwed up." This

As to why I unvoted, I didn't have any good reason to vote Deer, as I had no suspicions on him, but I did not consider the gambit taking place.

so, I will

vote: rzhang86

for the same reasons as the others, and the fact that he seems to be acting like he controls the game already, something scum practically are, since they know everyone else is town.

HE IS AT L-1 DO NOT VOTE AGAINST HIM YET

[havingfitz]

I just completed a game where one of the scum had done a comprehensive player assessment in which he included himself. Don't recall if he rated himself slightly scummy or not.

Would both/either one of you explain why this would be a scum tell, other than a few anecdotal examples? I agree that it's a strange and perhaps dumb thing to do, but I don't see why that would make you guys think he's scum.

I didn't say I thought water foul was scum. I was sharing a similar instance to what chau had mentioned in the last game I finished. I was sharing a coincidence. I have been in other games with non-scum who have rated themselves as well (though I don't recall any instances where they didn't rate themselves as completely townie).

[havingfitz]

Fitz your claim is a bit unfounded. Mods are not here to break up dry spells. If someone who posted on Wednesday has not posted by the end of Friday, I am then required to prod. I do not prod people who have posted in the last two days

I wasn't asking you to break up a dry spell for other players. I was saying I thought you needed a prod. We hadn't seen you since Tuesday and there was a lot of confusion it seemed regarding vote counts. We missed you.