Mini 1030 - White Flag Mafia (Game Over)

[yabbaguy]

Day 1 Vote Count

RedCoyote ( 1 ) friend,
yabbaguy ( 0 )
Jack ( 0 )
Data ( 0 )
Haschel Cedricson ( 1 ) RedCoyote
Friend ( 0 )
cloudocean ( 0 )
Robbnva ( 0 )
cateraction ( 0 )
drmyshottyizsik ( 3 ) Scott Brosius, jack, haschel cedricson,
Scott Brosius ( 0 )
Not Voting ( 6 ) yabbaguy, cloudocean, cateraction, drmyshottyizsik, data, robbnva,
Total Votes ( 11 )

Deadline: May 18th at 11:00 EDT
With 24 able to vote, 13 needed to lynch.

I'll start by weighing in on the fascinating players at the moment.

@Friend: I'm going to say quite the opposite. I'm gonna say that dr isn't smart enough to realize that doing this sort of "bah I got hammered" gambit is blatantly obvious.

VIs can be scum. They have been known to pull ridiculous gambits and blend perfectly. See O175: Picking Simplicity in the yGDB in my sig for an example (player in question: Heilograph).

I don't want the Day to end though with two blank player slots. I think the opportunity to beat the Mafia to the kill is lost (there HAS to be 3 Mafia- it's illogical given the premise of this game to have 2) anyway, so I'll inhibit the vote. Still,

FoS: shotty

.

Robb is being naïve and nothing more IMO. Yes, in theory D1 lynches aren't always Town, but to suggest that our first instinct is wrong solely because of this is a misuse of statistics. I think that's the one flaw in mikeburnfire's flash- he cites D1 leading probably to a Town target. It may be true, but it's misconstrued and turned into alarmism by newer players unnecessarily.

I think lack of knowledge of Jack's meta is detrimental to some players as well. He's going to one-line through the game, and that may kick him in the ass or lead to a very successful game. Maybe he's scum- but I haven't seen concrete evidence of this.

Don't derive relationship tells before a flip.

[Friend]

The thing is the way he said it didn't seem forced IMO.

[Jack]

Have you seen a VI pull that gambit?

I have seen VI's do all kinds of things. Soft claiming watcher day 1 as scum watcher...trying a "I just replaced in, should I roleclaim before I read I've found it makes people trust me" gambit...moreover, I was scumpartners with a VI seeming player, our qt ended up 500+ posts, he frequently suggested gambits.

This one was a bad gambit--because it was obvious.

[Friend]

Eh maybe you're right.

##vote: DMSIS

Either way if the wagon does go through we're bound to gain some good stuff.

[Jack]

I'll start by weighing in on the fascinating players at the moment.

@Friend: I'm going to say quite the opposite. I'm gonna say that dr isn't smart enough to realize that doing this sort of "bah I got hammered" gambit is blatantly obvious.

This exactly.

The thing is the way he said it didn't seem forced IMO.

This oppositeofexactly.

Also, he was on top of the votecount earlier "watch out guys I'm L-2" etc

[Friend]

You have a point there.

[Haschel Cedricson]

(there HAS to be 3 Mafia- it's illogical given the premise of this game to have 2)

Premise

This game has exactly one mafia with three members. If two out of the three mafia members are eliminated, the remaining mafia member waves a white flag and surrenders. Thus, the town wins.

Thanks for the hard-hitting analysis, chief.

[Haschel Cedricson]

EBWOP: Robbnva, why are you voting for drmyshottyizsik? Be specific.

[zoraster]

My spreadsheet got messed up somehow, so I'll redo it in the morning (so votes will be slightly delayed). However:

cloudocean replaces caelum

[Jack]

lol. At least twice I saw that cloudocean had posted in one of the subforums and was like "why hasn't he posted in our game??" and then checked the list and realized he wasn't playing, oh those unmemorable c-names.

[RedCoyote]

I find 79 and 82 to be completely unbelievable. Read it in the context of drshotty-scum thinking he's been caught having inside knowledge of the mafia role pm and backtracking to save himself. He votes robbn for confirming in thread even though he did the same thing...it's not like he made a genuine mistake.

Sorry, Jack. I don't see it this way. Those are exactly the two posts I'm talking of. If anything I think better of him for admitting to his mistake rather than acting as though he's obliged to defend Robb. It's too abrupt of a change, in my mind, when I read him as scum. Why would the doc think he would get a slam dunk in voting Robb otherwise?

---

How do you reconcile that

Wait a minute, wait a minute. When did the doc focus on "it's too early to make cases"? The closest thing I can find to this is post 36, where he actually responds to a question directed at Robb. Even here, this is more critical of Jack for having no basis for his vote rather than complaining about the fact that Jack had a case.

---

RC wants alternative lynches? Great, he can be one.

Cute.

But I'm finding that the more I read over the doc, the less and less impressed I am with how he's getting strong armed. I've never been in a game with players advocating ending a day before all the confirmations were in. That's absolute insanity, and it tells me that there is some sort of underhanded motivations in that grouping (of whom I consider Friend, HC, and Data to be the primary culprits, although Jack is getting preferential treatment due to having experience with him, and Scott hasn't really had a chance to iron out his position).

---

so am I really in the minority here? lynching a nilla townie is not considered an acceptable loss on day 1?

No, what your saying is actually very logical. The way you say it, however, could probably use a little more nuance.

---

Thanks for the hard-hitting analysis, chief.

This is kind of a wise ass comment, but it's actually very funny and, more importantly, pretty perceptive. I'll take it even further and say that I'm scratching my chin as to why yabba even bothered to say that other than to make it look like he was doing more than he is.

[Friend]

So RC decided that bussing was a bad idea with this mechanic I see

[Haschel Cedricson]

How do you reconcile that

Wait a minute, wait a minute. When did the doc focus on "it's too early to make cases"? The closest thing I can find to this is post 36, where he actually responds to a question directed at Robb. Even here, this is more critical of Jack for having no basis for his vote rather than complaining about the fact that Jack had a case.

Well, sure, he didn't use those exact words; that's a paraphrasing I used because I didn't feel like going back and find the quote. Here it is:

Dude stop pushing for a lynch pre game

Translation: Pre-game is too early to make cases.

And you haven't really acknowledged my point, which is if drmyshottyizsik had honestly misread what Jack was saying, he would have tried to expose Jack's case as awful, awful reasoning. Before he said "Oh I see what Jack meant now," do you really think drmyshottyizsik was playing like somebody who had made that specific misinterpretation of Jack's case?

Really

really?

[RedCoyote]

I don't understand the tangible difference between the two (trying to expose Jack's case as awful v.s. defending Robb against Jack's case). You'd have to ask the doc what he actually thought Jack meant (you're jumping to conclusions when you claim to know what it was), but I'll tell you that I was less impressed with the doc before he flip-flopped than after (if it isn't already apparent).

[Haschel Cedricson]

You'd have to ask the doc what he actually thought Jack meant (you're jumping to conclusions when you claim to know what it was)...

Well it's a good thing I did exactly that, then:

he is saying that rob confirmed in thread because mafia's pm's dont say to confirm by pm, and it makes sense

And elaborate on how you misread it.

I thought he meant all games, not just our mod

[RedCoyote]

Actually that's fair. I had forgotten that you had asked that. So your conclusion is that because the doc wasn't aggressive enough against Jack, even though it was obvious that he didn't agree with him, he's scum (among other things, but this being the crux of your vote)?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Actually that's fair. I had forgotten that you had asked that. So your conclusion is that because the doc wasn't aggressive enough against Jack, even though it was obvious that he didn't agree with him, he's scum (among other things, but this being the crux of your vote)?

Sort of. There's a huge difference between Jack having a bad case and Jack having no case. Doc played it as the latter, when his self-professed belief should have played it as the former. Therefore he's lying about his belief, and everything else looks bad from there.

[Robbnva]

EBWOP: Robbnva, why are you voting for drmyshottyizsik? Be specific.

specifically?

because we have done the 2nd best thing you can do on a day 1, located a vanilla townie instead of a cop or a doc. there is no point is trying to find somebody else to lynch in my opinion because of the chance the next person we pick not being scum, could be cop or doc (or some other power role)

On day 1 the odds that you actually lynch scum is very small percentage so your next best and safest bet is to hope you get out of there with a vanilla townie.

Do I really want to lynch a townie? NO of course I don't

Do I want to lynch scum? Well yea no question

It is day 1, do I think that if we move on to somebody else we will nail scum? possibly, but the odds are still against it

so we really have 2 options as I see it. 1. lynch the nilla townie or 2. vote no lynch (if that is even possible)

personally I am not a huge fan of no lynches unless we have outed a power role early, the fact that we have outed a nilla townie (one acting slightly off mind you) is a safe move, although it may not be the most ideal move.

I hope this explains my thought process a little better, apologies if It came off the wrong way.

[cloudocean]

vote: Robbvna

Your post is basically saying that you don't think Shotty is scum, but you're policy lynching him because he claimed and you want to protect "PR's." That and you're basing your next lynch on chance which means you're not interested in scumhunting.

[Scott Brosius]

It wasn't the hammer. DMSIS is

not

smart enough to pretend to be hammered and say "welp I'm town" as scum.

Even if he's a VI, this reaction does not take any mental capacity to do. This is a really bad defense of shotty

Eh maybe you're right.

##vote: DMSIS

Either way if the wagon does go through we're bound to gain some good stuff.

You back down from your argument very easily. Reads like you don't want any conflict and want the argument to go away.

Unvote
##Vote: Friend

Oh never mind sorry. I'm L-1 and lynch a VT over scum is never good dumb ass, you sound so scummy Rob

but the odds of actually nailng scum day 1 is very rare so getting through the day with just a nilla townie is considered a safe lynch.

I may sound scummy but the logic is true.

so now we run somebody else up the flag pole and hope they are scum, but if they are a cop or a doc or something else, we will all go, DAMN lynching the nilla wasn't so bad afterall but I will play along, I would much rather nail scum

##unvote

I don't think this is as bad as people make it out to be. Not saying Rob is town, but I think people are exaggerating this and twisting it to make it seem scummy.

[Friend]

YEAH I HATE CONFLICT RIGHT

I want people to argue with me. Come on, do it.

[Jack]

Scott is scummy

[Haschel Cedricson]

I hope this explains my thought process a little better, apologies if It came off the wrong way.

Do you think that drmyshottyizsik is scum? If so, why? If not, who do you believe is scum?

[yabbaguy]

cloud, the game uses a special voting syntax of two leading pound signs before the word vote.

This is kind of a wise ass comment, but it's actually very funny and, more importantly, pretty perceptive. I'll take it even further and say that I'm scratching my chin as to why yabba even bothered to say that other than to make it look like he was doing more than he is.

I was probably falling asleep posting that last one at 10:25 PM. I expected to just roll into this game having come from the MD thread devising this setup.

@Scott- I do think Friend switched opinions rather quickly, but consider this: the situation is rather straightforward, either: A) shotty miscounted the votes and thought he was lynched B) he knew it was L-1 and lied. There's not really a Town motivation to do B. I think in this case, it's actually permissible if you believe it to be true.

That said Scott- what do you make of shotty in this game? You never refuted or accepted the wagon, IIRC.

[Robbnva]

vote: Robbvna

Your post is basically saying that you don't think Shotty is scum, but you're policy lynching him because he claimed and you want to protect "PR's." That and you're basing your next lynch on chance which means you're not interested in scumhunting.

Seems no matter what I do, I'm scummy anyways but I'll take a shot at this

No I don't beleive shotty is what he claims to be
yes I want to protect PRs
I am interested in scumhunting, lyinching shotty will actually accomplish protecting a PR AND give us a vote count to look at for possible scumhunting

if we pull off and go after others, I'm not going to bitch about it, I will still scumhunt, but if we out a PR I will be pissed.

But this is just my personal opinion, you guys can make up your own minds on what to do and how to play