Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[VitaminR]

Right....

Anyway,

Random Vote: Thok

Hi all.

[VitaminR]

Umm... bertrand, who did you unvote?

[VitaminR]

Yeah, I actually think it's probable that a few of those comics were added just to make mass claiming a bad strategy.

[VitaminR]

Oh I agree with you there, my list of webcomics is just as long (in fact, I have 11 too). But I don't think all of them will necessarily be represented in the roles.

I wish I knew that feeling, we don't have proper discount bookstores here.

[VitaminR]

unvote: Thok

vote: Adele

FOS: Akonas

I thought it was fairly obvious TSA's statement was sarcastic. And especially after his clarification I don't think there is sufficient reason to put on a third and fourth vote this quickly.

[VitaminR]

I hate myself

Are you okay, Tyfo?

unvote: Adele

I still don't see the merit of voting someone for confusing writing when in retrospect his message can't really be considered ambiguous, but maybe it is not particularly scummy. Initially I thought it was a badly supported bandwagon vote, but my opinion has changed.

Also, on re-reading Akonas's behaviour seemed stranger. Not only was his fourth vote on TSAGod not properly justified, but he also bandwagonned Pie_is_good earlier in a strange manner. Here:

Hmmm.. I think I'll

vote: Pie is Good

to see how he responds, and because, as he said, "I'm all for random voting/bandwagoning."

He votes Pie_is_good to get a response when Pie_is_good responded to the suspicions on him two posts earlier.

Vote: Akonas

[VitaminR]

How is putting on bandwagon votes generating conversation? Following other people's reasoning and suspicions is not generating conversation.

[VitaminR]

Oh.. and could you claim rolename, please?

[VitaminR]

All this talk of power roles is a bit useless. The only people who can judge whether to come forward or not are the roleblocker/docs themselves. They have the information, not the town.

If there isn't a nightkill element, then what's to stop us from no lynching everyday so we all become cult members and win?

Eh? That's not even how cults work.

Also, I think Thok's point was that we might have a cult instead of an SK to partially explain the lack of nightkills. Again, speculation is a bit useless. We need solid evidence, people!

[VitaminR]

Okay...I'll claim then. I'm the cult leader....[/sarcasm]

Well, at least that sarcastic remark was justified and appropriate.

Pie was a sheep, TSAGod had the weird reason. 3 potential lynchs, I'd rather go for Bertrand out of the three but I am in no hurry to vote.

Whoa.. 3 potential lynches? Based on that?

Vote: Nemesis

for limiting the town's scope based solely on two votes on a slow day 2 and a new player's eccentric behaviour.

[VitaminR]

I was saying that for those couple of posts there was a number of people who had said something scummy and I didn't want to speedlynch any of them. That means I was doing the opposite of what you are saying... I was saying we shouldn't lynch any of them now and we should keep this in mind. Lynches this early in the day mean hardly anyone has to actually say something that could come across scummy.

In case you forgot I defended Pie earlier and said Bertrand was acting scummily earlier as well... I also voted for TSAGod. None of those actions did a lot and we ended up lynching someone else because they wouldn't claim. I feel that if we let people slide then we will do the same thing so keep this is in mind later, but I also feel that some people who don't really post are just avoiding suspicion totally and we shouldn't allow that to happen either. I will vote later, just not yet... I want more discussion before we consider lynching someone and because I want more discussion it means that I am not limiting the town's scope as you say I am...

Fair enough. To be honest, it was mostly the categorisation of players that set bells ringing here. Players separating others from the rest in terms of scumminess/potential lynches makes me a bit uncomfortable. It is restrictive and fosters manipulation.

[VitaminR]

In an abstract sense, yes. When it's done in clear terms there is no room for the valuable chaotic process of town interaction and it becomes easier to manipulate for scum.

[VitaminR]

I don't object to Nemesis outlining his suspicions clearly. I object to what seemed to be quick decisions picking out three people as "lynch material" for today right away.

[VitaminR]

Players separating others from the rest in terms of scumminess/potential lynches makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Huh? That's how we decide who to lynch. It can be done in a collaborative manner, but it typically starts with one or two players indicating which players they would consider as potential lynches and why.

Btw, I think the main problem I have with this is that we have no guarantee of Nemesis's alignment. That's why it is potentially easy to manipulate, seeing as it is a possibility is making the list.

If done in a collaborative manner by the majority of players I have no problems with it, but that rarely happens in my experience.

[VitaminR]

Minor correction:

That's why it is potentially easy to manipulate, seeing as it is a possibility

scum

is making the list.

[VitaminR]

Well...

Unvote: Nemesis

.

The Thok wagon seems to be based on his first two posts Day 2. Other than that, I noticed his hammer vote on Akonas Day 1 and his TSAGod vote strikes me as a bit strange. Although I think this is enough for some suspicion, is there anything else? I am not sure this really sets him apart from some other players.

[VitaminR]

Vote: bertrand

Better than the Thok wagon and I'd like to see him respond to this.

[VitaminR]

Nemesis?

[VitaminR]

What kind of reasoning is that? You want to him to claim results because our doc might be an incompetent player? I'd like to think our doc has reading skills.

Vote: TSAGod

[VitaminR]

1. A doc is no guarantee.

2. I still don't understand how claiming two innocents guarantees the town a loss, even including a three person mafia with godfather, and the two innocents being the gf and a doctor, quite possible the worst case scenario. I also am unsure how the town has a guaranteed win, as well. We still have to find all the scum.

I think a doc is enough of a guarantee not to pressure Nemesis into giving results at this point. I also don't like your second point. Nemesis never said claiming two innocents guarantees the town a loss. I have no idea why you phrased it that way. He never said we didn't have to find scum and he never said the town would be guaranteed a win.

Pretty satisfied with my vote for the moment.

[VitaminR]

If scum is willing to claim scum, I'd consider it. Until that point, I don't think this speculation gets us anywhere.

[VitaminR]

I still want to lynch TSAGod. Other than that, I am suspicious of you for suggesting we try to bribe a member of the scum team and the cult win condition comment earlier.

I think we might need more than one prod, btw.

[VitaminR]

I reckon we should bandwagon to see how they react, and if it gets close to lynch and we're bandwagoning an innocent that Nemesis knows of, he steps in before (possibly directly before) that innocent is called upon to claim. To that end,

Vote: TSAGod

Well I agree with the second part and I think we should be careful with asking for claim in case Nemesis can clear someone, but I'm not sure about the first part.

Bandwagoning purely to get a reaction doesn't work if you set out to do this, because scum will know that is the intention and will remain calm. Unless there is threat (the lynch) behind the wagon, we can't rely deduce much from the reaction. Which I think is hard to do anyway.

I'd prefer to go on suspicions, even if it is hard to do without an abundance of information.

I think a couple of players need to step up and post more.

[VitaminR]

Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?

[VitaminR]

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

[VitaminR]

People? So far it's just me. And yes, pretty much. Why would he be lying?

[VitaminR]

People? So far it's just me. And yes, pretty much. Why would he be lying?

Because given the potential numbers he's talking about:

Reason - because we have 9 alive and 3 or 4 scum left, meaning someone's going to need to change something or else we are going to lose.

...a one-for-one tradeoff with the town player dying first would probably be pretty good for scum right now. Now, I don't think the numbers are quite as drastic as what he's describing, but I'm not going to vote without a bit more information. I'm not averse to the idea of Thok claiming, but I think he should do it without vote pressure, because it isn't clear that vote pressure is safe right now.

Seems overly cautious to me. Two votes on him does not spell danger. If he is speedlynched, scum will give themselves away. With the "SK" dead that does indeed mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow, but it'd be a completely unnecessary to take.

A one-for-one tradeoff might not be a blow to the scum, but it's certainly not that desirable a course to take. I admit that he could be lying, though. However, it seems unlikely to me.

[VitaminR]

I try to assume worst case scenario, because I think it's best to be prepared. That's why I always assume three scum in a 12-player game.

*shrug*

[VitaminR]

Eh? All the other attacks on me? Where?

Seriously, does this constitute a case against me?

[VitaminR]

Sure, and that's the difference between "might mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow" and "does indeed mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow."

I understand that the certainty was probably not justified, but do you genuinely feel this is enough to build a case around?

I like to work around a few basic assumptions as town. It gives me some certainty in an uncertain situation and a method of putting things into perspective.

[VitaminR]

I agree with Nemesis. I'm not sure if Pie should have come forward with that information. I don't think Thok would have ever denied getting roleblocked.

Unvote: Thok

[VitaminR]

So... are we waiting for Thok to fully claim and Coron to catch up?

[VitaminR]

If we're done with the Pie-Thok thing, can we look at StevieT92?

He completely ignores the TSAGod-wagon and precedes to cast two dodgy votes with little justification.

His contributions today:

We haven't lynched a scum yet, and you're talking about a confortable win?. We need all the information we have.

This is in response to Nemesis. He then proceeds to ignore what happens around TSAGod.

I reckon we should bandwagon to see how they react, and if it gets close to lynch and we're bandwagoning an innocent that Nemesis knows of, he steps in before (possibly directly before) that innocent is called upon to claim. To that end,

Vote: TSAGod

Vote: Adele

When you are bandwagonning to get a reaction, you don't go out and claim it. Either this is a bad play, or an attempt to warn your scumbuddies.

I didn't like this vote at the time and I don't like it now. Especially since he fails to respond to Adele's response to it. No comment at all until:

I try to assume worst case scenario, because I think it's best to be prepared. That's why I always assume three scum in a 12-player game.

*shrug*

You seem to sure to not be scum, and all the other attacks on you, so

unvote, vote:VitaminR

Another fantastically supported vote. Note how he completely ignores my questions after this. What other attacks? Again, no response.

The rest of it:

I would like to see this claim then, thanks. You have seemed to be getting more scummy lately, and you say you have some emphasis for a case on Thok.

I think Thok's roleclaim is suffecient enough where we can lay off him at least for now.

Little productivity, no response when questioned.

Vote: StevieT92

[VitaminR]

I'd support a Stevie and a TSAGod lynch at this point.

Stevie for points noted earlier and TSAGod for justifying rolefishing with baseless exaggeration and never responding when called on it earlier today.

Is anyone else interested in lynching at all?

[VitaminR]

Could you show me a vote with little reasoning, Coron?

Exams now, but I should be able to respond some time later today.

[VitaminR]

That was on Pie's information to get Thok to claim,

which the town collectively decided to do

.

[VitaminR]

Well that's why I asked for clarification when he first came forward with the information which was

before I voted

.

His response:

The evidence is not 100% conclusive, but it's pretty incriminating. My knowledge of his actions so far has been consistant with my knowledge of a scum's actions so far, and that's about all I can say on the subject without giving too much away. Also, I have a chance of catching him in a lie if he claims wrong.

At that point in the game, it felt it was enough to follow up with a pressure vote.

[VitaminR]

We're not going anywhere like this.

unvote: Adele; vote: VitaminR

baaaaaa! Don't follow me like a sheep.

The irony is beautiful. You're pushing me for low content votes (which you still haven't provided adequate examples of) and the support you're getting is equally low content (worse actually).

I don't see what there is against me. Yes, I've used my vote, but I've always provided clear reasoning and I haven't bandwagoned excessively.

Coron (or any of the people on the bandwagon), I'm not sure why you find me scummier than Stevie, Adele, TSA or any of the people shamelessly jumping on a deadline rush.

TSA, I have 4 votes.

Honestly, I am really frustrated with this game. Participation is at a low and now I am slowly being run up for the deadline over nothing substantial. Run up in such a way that, with this participation, I'll still be strung up if I claim.

I've attempted to find scum and I think there are good lynches in Stevie and TSA, but that's all I can do.

Btw, did anyone else notice Fuldu build a case against me earlier yet join this wagon purely on deadline rush? He's distancing himself already. I haven't seen him come back on his strong earlier suspicions of me anywhere.

[VitaminR]

2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!

I found this insulting, btw. Where have I done anything to warrant this?

[VitaminR]

Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first.

He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like. I considered what I knew and decided to trust him.

Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.

[VitaminR]

Perhaps I should have outlined that in the thread, but I think it's obvious from the questions I asked first that I gave it some thought before following. Generally though, I think you can assume people think before posting.

[VitaminR]

By looking at the reasoning they give?

[VitaminR]

EBWODP: When called upon it, obviously. Do you seriously expect people to outline all their thought processes?

[VitaminR]

Anyway, how does that even matter? It should be clear I gave it thought and I gave my reasoning. Why am I a sheep?

Sorry for the triple post.

[VitaminR]

He doesn't say it's circumstantial anywhere. These are the posts I based my thinking on:

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say this:

Based on my role, I have a little bit of a reason to suspect Thok. I'd like to get a claim from him.

The evidence is not 100% conclusive, but it's pretty incriminating.

My knowledge of his actions so far has been consistant with my knowledge of a scum's actions so far, and that's about all I can say on the subject without giving too much away. Also, I have a chance of catching him in a lie if he claims wrong.

Is it so difficult to comprehend I followed him on that?

[VitaminR]

Well fine, but that doesn't make me a sheep. That doesn't make it low-content. I can't defend myself if you're just going to revert back to the terminology I used, indiscrimate of the reasoning indicated.

Either accept the justification I've given (which you haven't contested) or cling to your interpretation of two lines. I'm not going to defend something I can't defend.

If anyone else wants me to address anything, I'm up for it. I still believe somewhere that the town will respond to logic and is not just waiting for the unvote-reflex after I claim.

[VitaminR]

Limited info? Look at the quotes! It's pretty clear. I didn't say like 5 words. I asked him two questions and then decided to follow based on the response.

I'm tired of arguing this, you're too determined to see scum where there isn't. Cling to it if you want.

[VitaminR]

I just found it interesting to note that you didn't cite that. I felt like you were the only one who had some justification to vote me and I was surprised by the fact that you didn't bring it up. If you do believe in my scumminess, it helps build the wagon against me and it gives you justification. It would have you set you apart from the deadline-sheep crowd.

[VitaminR]

Glad to see we got the deadline retracted. Nemesis, I know you're pretty much cleared for the moment, but can we see some comments on the game from you?

Coron, can you explain to me why my vote was a bad thing in the first place? It was pressure to get Thok to claim. Where was the harm?

This is the case I see against me, btw:

- A "sheep-like" pressure vote on Thok.
- Assuming that there are 3 scum.

Anything I've missed in this cavalcade of scummy debauchery?

[VitaminR]

Okay.

- A "sheep-like" pressure vote on Thok.
- Apparent certainty about the number of scum in the game in one comment.

That better?

I don't think Coron is scum. He's misguided, but the way he's clinging to this and continuously arguing it comes across more pro-town than anti-town to me.

[VitaminR]

Coron, I am going to attempt to make you see logic one more time. Sorry.

Let's look at the progression in your case against me:

First it's:

He's been rather jumpy with votes with not much in terms of reasons all the time. Not to mention the way he's posting rubs me wrong.

Slightly vague, but it makes sense in principle.

Let's see the evidence against me:

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

One vote? So in the progression from claim to evidence the scope is already narrowed significantly. Where first it is a posting pattern, it is now one vote. Quoted without the questions I asked first, I might add.

Interpretation of evidence:

1) those people could be scum
2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!
ok, maybe I missed something here, but as far as I can tell pie's "information" was just a little, "he's acting too worried about cult"

Aside from the fact that you show no knowledge of what actually happened by completely misquoting pie, there is not much to this. 1) I assume was in response to my argument that it was a majority decision and is therefore pretty much irrelevant. 2) remains as the "salient" point. Presented in a nice ad hominem fashion, but there is a point here. My vote was "sheep-like."

More interpretation when questioned:

You followed someone who claimed to have "inconclusive evidence from their role", without even making them claim it.

Very sheeplike.

Another misquote of Pie and the situation, it's 12 posts and 3 days later and you still aren't properly aware of the context of your evidence. But that doesn't matter, it's "sheep-like" again. This time based on the fact that I didn't make him claim it.

Pie specifically indicated his information would be useless if he claimed it.

When pushed on this:

Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first. He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like. I considered what I knew and decided to trust him. Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.

How do I know if you think if you don't post anything about it in the thread?

I refute the reason behind your central point, the fact that I didn't make Pie claim before following, and you move on to outlining thought processes? Where does that come in?

The next bit:

Then how do you catch scum for sheeping(which is very easy and good for them).

That's stupid.

Moving on to general strategy? What about the specific case we're talking about here?

But

you seem aware of this and bring it back to:

Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?

Well let's see where this leads us.

Unvote: TSAGod

Vote: Thok

when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.

Now Pie had "circumstantial" evidence! The third misquote! It's now 21 posts and 3 days later and the context still eludes you.

Anyway, your point here is that I did ask questions first, but because I did not explicitly acknowledge the response I was merely following it. Why did you think I asked the questions? Because I was going to follow anyway?

The next comment:

Is it difficult to comprehend that

the terminology

you used as your "logic" was very scummy?

Now it's terminology? First it was a posting pattern, then it was one vote, now it's the terminology in that one vote? Evidence abounds!

To sum it all up we get this masterful recap:

you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.

5 words is incorrect. I asked 2 questions before it. Essentially this boils down to terminology again.
Limited info? The easiest thing possible? Show me! Show me how Pie would have ever got away with saying that without claiming relevant information.

Okay, so what do we have? Terminology? This essentially equals one line.
You haven't given any proper arguments as to why context or reasoning was scummy.

That means this is your case:

Well let's see where this leads us.

[VitaminR]

That was probably overly bitter. Sorry about that.

[VitaminR]

Well then state your case. You've only given me one example. That leads me to think that is your case.

[VitaminR]

Yeah I admit I messed up on this one. I've stated that somewhere already I think though. Point stands though, even if something is "decided apon" by "the town" that doesn't mean you get to blindly follow it, which is what you were trying to use as evidence that I shouldn't be suspicious of you. Also note I wasn't trying to quote pie but rather some other person, can't seem to recall who at this point though.

I am not trying to use it as evidence that you shouldn't find me as suspicious. I'm using it to point out that all it did was apply pressure to get there quicker.

I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).

I've admitted the vote was mostly superfluous. Just pressure to get things moving.

for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.

Really? How easy do you think fake tracker claims are to keep up?
I thought Pie was going to claim Tracker. As I've said before, Roleblocker doesn't bring conclusive evidence at this point. His response to my questions fit a Tracker. That's how I read "his actions so far are consistent with scum."

[VitaminR]

Okay, let's look at those votes.

Day 1
I voted twice in this day. Jumpy!

Adele and Akonas for easy bandwagoning. First vote on Adele, second vote or something on Akonas after FOS'ing him earlier when he had none.

Day 2

Voted Nemesis because one of his comments struck me as odd. First vote. I admit this was not a good vote, but I don't think there was much to go on at the time. Day 1 did not bring much information.

Fourth vote on bertrand on cop-claimed information. He did basically claim SK after, though I suppose he's technically neutral.

Day 3

First vote on TSAGod. I stand by this one. His defence for fishing was based on nothing and he didn't answer when called upon it. I'd still like to lynch him.

Second vote on Thok. I admit this was a useless vote, but it didn't do much harm either.

First vote on Stevie. I stand by this one too.

Okay, so I use my vote and I am an active player. I've voted about twice every day, three times once. Why is that so scummy? Only the Nemesis and Thok votes are not that well-reasoned, but I haven't bandwagoned. Two second votes and one fourth vote. Four of them were first votes. Is it scummy to use your vote to judge reactions? Yeah, I've voted 7 players. So what?

I'm going to pull up some stats to compare in the following post.

[VitaminR]

Adele:
6 votes. 2 without reasoning at all.

Fuldu:
6 votes. I admit a lot of them are well-reasoned, but even he cast a badly-supported vote on Pie.

Nemesis:
4 votes here, but he hasn't used his vote at all today.

Pie_is_good:
7 votes! Another scum! Some good votes here in general, though.

Stevie:
5 votes. In

12 posts

! Not responded to questions regarding reasoning at all.

Thok:
6 votes. Stevie-vote without reasoning and a few votes that were stretching it Day 1.

TSAGod:
4 votes. None with reasoning after Day 1 except for a jump on the bertrand wagon Day 2.

Tyfo:
4 posts...

Looking at this 7 votes does not really stand out. Most have voted around 6 times and I am certainly not the one with the least reasoning behind his votes.

[VitaminR]

Strange how I come up with different stats. Why does the amount of players matter?
Is this a scum tell? Voting different players?

Explain why please.

[VitaminR]

*sigh*

Fine.

I'm not a bandwagon hopper, I've played this game like I play every game. Even the certainty is something I always do.

I really don't get why I have 4 votes because of this, but apparently I am the only one.

[VitaminR]

Here's a nice shiny claim:

You're Fighter, the fighterest fighter in 8-Bit Theater. You want to help people, which is why you're a light warrior, and so is your bestest friend Black Mage. He's such a nice guy, you can't imagine what life would be like without him. If Black Mage gets lynched, and you're part of that lynch, you'll be so overcome with grief that you killed your besterest friend that you'll commit suicide.

Apparently this is the only thing people react to. I've left out my win conditions, because I'm hoping there is a Black Mage out there, though I doubt it's a red herring, who has a similar mechanic and I don't want to reveal too much.

[VitaminR]

I've joined three wagons in the game. I haven't bandwagoned excessively. Also, I haven't changed my playing style because I expect players to claim before they are lynched. I don't understand your reluctance at all.

I did ask Akonas this Day 1 because of my role, though:

Oh.. and could you claim rolename, please?

I was pretty annoyed that he was speedlynched.

[VitaminR]

What??

[VitaminR]

Why, though? I can't think of anything that would lead you to vote me on my claim.

[VitaminR]

Ah! You're Black Mage! Bastard.

[VitaminR]

Okay, a quick run-down. I have no faith in this town, but I am not leaving without comment.

Scum:
Stevie
TSA

Possible 3rd Scum:
Fuldu
Adele

I'd say Fuldu.

[VitaminR]

Although I guess Thok could be scum with a nemesis.

[VitaminR]

Very enjoyable game. Glad to win something.

Day 3 was poor play I think, but that's probably residual bitterness over getting lynched.