Mini 370: Reverse Mafia - Game Over!

[chaotic_diablo]

vote chaotic_diablo

[chaotic_diablo]

The mod said that night choices are made by living players. Those choices must target living players. In addition, after N1, only living players may vote. As a result, the people in limbo must convince the living players that they are protown, so they can get revived. As long as there is no scum alive, then the people revived are safe. People in limbo don't have any powers after N1. As a side note, we can easily lose this game if we revive 2 scum before N1. It fulfills the scum win requirement.

The above is just how I think the game works. IMO, we have to vote the person who looks protown and not scummy. So far, themanhimself has made a quick claim. I'm not sure if he's a good choice for now since he could just be an overeager scum. In addition, he claimed a roleblocker, which is a pretty controversial role.

[chaotic_diablo]

The mod said that night choices are made by living players. Those choices must target living players

...when did the mod say any of that? I don't see it in the rules. In fact, he just said that a cop may or may not be able to target people in limbo, and that he wouldn't confirm that either way.

After this, 3 players will be alive and 9 dead. If at this point the mafia outnumber the town then the mafia win. If not, the most likely outcome, the game moves into Night 1.

Any and all night choices are carried out by only the players who are alive, and they may only target other living players, except that no killing will be allowed on Night 1.

What the mod said was nothing short of "I can't tell you."

[chaotic_diablo]

I've seen a scum Rb before. However, it had some limitations.

Mass claim is bad. With the

adjusted

rules, we don't know whether a powerrole will just die in limbo.

Yosarian seems like a good candidate to revive. Since the mod stated that you cannot target limbo players unless your role

explicitly

lets you, we can determine that Yosarian does not have a role like that by his reaction earlier.

unvote

vote Yosarian

[chaotic_diablo]

IMO, there is too much speculation about the set-up of the game. What we really need to do is to talk about

how

we can find the right candidate to revive.

I'm also not in favor in reviving m4hem just because of the faulty logic and suggestions. For instance, ignoring a revived player's comments yet urging for a power claim revival. Pretty counterproductive by itself.

Yellowbounder isn't a good candidate for the lack of posts and fishing for information on the cop.

The only good candidate is Yos, but that's all. I still haven't found any others, though al_ko and twito might be just from my biases.

[chaotic_diablo]

m4yhem, the problem I'm seeing is that your using alot of WIFOM logic. Your assuming that

good

scum will act in a certain way. That isn't true. You can't just label someone as scum if they act accordingly to your assumptions. More plausible evidence is required rather than "that's how scum is going to think."

[chaotic_diablo]

Chaotic_Diablo- What WIFOM? Seriously, I’m getting tired of that phrase.
Scum do act in certain predictable ways. That’s what the whole buissness of scumtells is about. They have goals they need to achieve and we know those goals, which means that we can make guesses as to how they will behave.

What’s the matter? Are you frightened that someone will notice that you fit the pattern I proposed?

Fos:Chaotic_Diablo

And what’s your alternative plan? Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t make one, did you? NOT HELPFUL. What plausible evidence are you expecting anyway, in a game with no lynches and an unknown setup?

You expect scum to act in a certain predictable way. However, if we were to apply a WIFOM counter argument that works, your argument is WIFOM. For instance, if you can believe that scum will be predictable, we can also believe that scum will expect this and not play that game. Essentially, WIFOM is useless.

Your not relying on scumtells so don't go off-topic. Your just evading the main point.

I don't need to have a plan to explain how your plan is stupid. However, intimidation is a scumtell. Aside from that, don't expect that we will get anywhere

without

plausible evidence. Most lynches in mafia should not be backed with illogical arguments.

Your response is seemingly overaggressive.

Tamuz is on the top of my list for revival.

[chaotic_diablo]

Sadly, I don't think CTD is a good candidate. If we examine him, I don't think he will be very contributive when he's revived. Remember, after we revive our three candidates, the people in limbo can no longer vote. As a result, those who are 'living' will make the final decisions. I'm not confident that protown will be off to a good start with CTD alive this early(no offense). Not only that, but I'm only getting a neutral vibes with his nonissue postings.

I'm willing to consider Thoth though.

[chaotic_diablo]

Chaotic_Diablo- Seems to be suggesting that patterns of behaviour are useless for finding scum. Wants to wait until we have evidence before looking for scum. I think that’s a seriously anti-town argument. We need to look for suspicious behaviour all the time, IMO, since our best defence is not to revive scum in the first place.

Patterns of behavior is the same as black and white. If the game was that easy to play, don't you think the game would be too predictable? You can't find scum just by looking at behavior. You have to find contradictions, faulty language, loopholes, and unexpected turns. If you state that Yos is scum for acting protown, what about the statement that someone else is scum for acting scum? Are you just stating that everyone is scum? You need to have points that support you claim, not WIFOM logic and speculation.
Also, don't misinterpret my use of the word "evidence" as cop claims and etc. It's merely a word to describe that you need something plausible to support your claims.

1)I am using scumtells to look for scum.
2)What was your main point again?
3)There are certain behaviours that will help scum get what they want. There are other behaviour which will make them more likely to lose. You don’t need to be a genius to work out the scum are more likely to do things that will help them win.
4)If you are going to critisise my plan, you need to suggest an alternative, otherwise you leave us with nothing, How does nothing help us catch scum?
5)Intimidation is not a scumtell. Townies are more likely to be aggressive in attacking people because they are eager to find scum. Scum want to avoid confrontation because it draws attention to them.
6)What plausible evidence do we have, at this stage of the game? Are you suggesting we wait until the first night? How does that help the town exactly?

1. Like what?
2. My main point is that your using WIFOM logic.
3. Yes, there are certain behaviors, but what makes you think that scum will be most likely to follow those behaviors? If those behaviors are obvious enough to be suspected, it's stupid to try them. A

good

scum isn't stupid, they don't follow the usual behavior and become predictable.
4. Like I said, I don't need a plan to explain how your plan is idiotic. If your plan consisted of jumping off a 2000ft cliff to get to the bottom, I can inform you of the problems. I don't need to provide an alternate one, I'm happy being

alive

than dead. If you want me you want me to make a plan, I can just push you off the cliff and call it a plan.
5. Again, using WIFOM logic. What if scum were to act like a townie and be aggressive? Are you going to ignore those people? Do you even know what a scumtell is?
6. Earlier, Tamuz actually made a good point on Yosarian compared to your argument. Tamuz stated that though Yosarian was helpful, it actually isn't helpful because it's all really just speculation and doesn't help us at all. You stated that Yos was scum because he was helpful. Tamuz's argument was more plausible because it revealed the deception under Yos's guise. Your argument was just a bunch of WIFOM logic backed with no reasoning. If Tamuz had stated that earlier, I would probably have reconsidered my vote for Yosarian.

chaotic_diablo - I don't know where you get the idea that I will be non-contributive once I've been revived. Yes, I've pretty much avoided all the speculation about the set-up, but that's mainly because I haven't really decided on the best strategy, and because I think it can be dangerous to formulate elaborate gameplans already, considering that the mafia already had a chance to discuss things and most likely put a lot more thought into it than the average, independent townie.

The logic I'm using is that if someone isn't helpful now, then how will he or she will be helpful later? Still, you make a good point. You haven't really posted much and it's hard to get a read on you. All I saw was a guy posting nonissue posts. I think I'll switch my stance.

[chaotic_diablo]

I had stated earlier that Tamuz was at the top of my list. Why? Because he gave my something to think about in my vote. I had that opinion before the al_ko's stated phrase. In a different light, mentioning it and responding aggressively seems more like your attempt to distance yourself from me.

Tamuz brings up a point that your theories and speculations are not as helpful as it seems. When I thought about it, the main reason you were chosen to be revived was because of m4yhem. Disregarding your arguments with him, the rest of your posts don't have as much 'oof'. However, even with that, I don't even know if I would have changed my vote. As I said, Tamuz just gave me something to reconsider, not convince me to change.

Point 6 is an example to argue against m4yhem. There isn't anything in there that suggests that all of those were of my opinion. Most of it was my

interpretation

. If you think that I had stated something wrong, then correct me.

[chaotic_diablo]

Scum act differently according to the skill level of the player. I read through a game where Yos was scum; he has leet scum skillz. Same goes for Crashy. I don’t know about the rest of you; if someone is acting obviously scummy, I’m not going to ignore it.
And yes, at the moment everyone is potential scum, although some are more scum than others.

That's metagaming. Depending on the situation, it can be useful or useless. Have you read a game in which Yos was protown? If he uses the same strategy, it basicly makes your points moot.
No matter what kind of reasoning you use, you have to deal with the fact that most of us are not scum. You can say that we might be scum, but it doesn't change the facts.

What do you mean by ‘something plausible?’

Plausible, as in something that supports your claim/point. Simply stating that he's scum for acting in a certain way doesn't mean your right. You have to have something to prove that your right or that I'm wrong.

1. All of them. If I see someone doing something which is a scumtell, I will say so.
2. Fine. I strongly disagree with your main point.
3. They follow these behaviors because it helps them win.
3.a Not all scum are good scum.
4. Last I checked, this was a game and not a life-and-death situation. But if we must use weird metaphors, here’s a better one:
Imagine you are walking along next to a cliff when you see a little boy standing on the very edge.

‘Boy’ you say, ‘what are you doing?’
‘I need to get to the bottom of the cliff, so I’m going to jump’ he says.

‘Don’t be stupid’ you snap at him; ‘you don’t get to the bottom of cliffs by jumping! What a terrible idea!’

Then you walk off. Now, you may have saved that little boy’s life, but did you help him get to the bottom of the cliff?

5. If scum act aggressive, they get lots of attention focused on them. That is risky and lower their chances of winning.

6. Yes, Tamuz is clever, isn’t he? Well done Tamuz Smile ;

1. All of them? Be more specific. What type of scumtells are you using?
2. You haven't given me anything that disproves my point yet.
3. There's your contradiction. You say that

good

scum will follow a certain behavior, then you rely on those behaviors to catch them. When I suggest that good scum won't be predictable like that, you say that not all scum are good. Your backpeddling.
4. No, I didn't help him get off the cliff, but I helped him live another day. The point that your missing is that following a bad plan can be potentially more damaging than just staying put. I've suggested a bad plan before, however, when the players decided to follow, the end result was incredibly terrible that it put town into an even worse situation. Guess what the plan was? No Lynch!
5. That is still WIFOM. Again, if scum were to do so to avoid suspicion, you wouldn't notice them even if they were right under your nose.
6. Tamuz sure does a better job than you.

If I am right on the feeling of this post,

You are not right on the feeling of the post. I'm talking about something slightly different, but enough to make your point off-topic.

[chaotic_diablo]

m4yhem, WIFOM already covered by al_ko, I won't go over it again.

No backpeddling, because I disagree that good scum wouldn’t be predictable. They will use the behaviour that helps them win, even if I say in thread that that is what they’re doing.
4. The problem with this argument is that I didn’t suggest a plan at all. I explained how I thought scum might act and you freaked out for some reason.
5. I’m not sure you’re reading what I write. I would notice them, because by being overaggressive they draw attention to themselves, including my attention..
6.This point is basically useless flamebait, isn’t it?

4. You accused me of not having a plan. Here are you exact words:

And what’s your alternative plan? Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t make one, did you? NOT HELPFUL.

Your definitely backpeddling.
5. I'm reading, but your straying off your main point.
6. Yes, it is a flame. However, I'm not the only one who can be accused of it. If you want, I can pick out several examples.

Thoth, you took out 9 people on your list. The only ones left are al_ko and I. Is there a chance that you might reconsider adding more onto that list in the near future?

I don't quite agree with the random thing for reasons already explained by others.

At the moment, Thoth is on top with Tamuz second. No one else is on the list yet, but I'll add more.

vote Thoth

[chaotic_diablo]

Chaotic_Diablo- I offer you a peace deal. Let’s agree to disagree? Anyway, I’d like a little more reasoning on Thoth- he hasn’t posted much of interest to me. I’m sorry if I flamed you- it wasn’t intentional; I just tend to be a little too passionate about this game sometimes.

Peace deal is accepted. As of now, I'm unsure of my Thoth vote. Like I said, tamuz makes a good point.

Al_ko, I haven't really questioned your claim(not role), but I'd like to do so now. Could you display some examples of a strong connection with Yos?

I have nothing to add that will not give us any new information. Everyone else has just about covered it.

[chaotic_diablo]

Scum will do that, scum will do this. No no, your wrong, scum will do this and etc etc etc. Enough with it! The argument is ultimately going to loop onto each other and go back and forth. Yes, it's painfully WIFOMish.

CTD is going back to his lurking state. Now I'm getting the impression that his earlier defense was full of empty words. I'll give him more time before I switch my stance on him, again.

After thinking, I'd prefer to bump Tamuz back to the top of my list. I'd like to keep Thoth on my list mainly because he's one of the people who isn't completely out of his mind.

Mr. C is currently at the wee bottom for obvious reasons.

unvote Thoth

[chaotic_diablo]

It's not really a WIFOM issue to use your vote to reward those who you believe are acting in a pro-town way and to punish those who are not. That's not the only deciding factor in who a person should vote for, but it should be significant, because not only are pro-town people more likely to act in a pro-town way, but because it also forces everyone including the scum to act in a pro-town way which limits their options.

No it isn't WIFOM, but it's repetition. We've already discussed how scum might act, there's no need to do so even more. So far, I've seen reworded arguments of the same type. For instance, these two posts are basiclly the same:

Sure, a scum might try to get his partner revived, and would probably support a partner who was going to be revived. However, they would probably want to avoid publically and ovbeously tying themselves to their partners. A scum might support a good guy for revival if it looked like the good guy was going to probably be revived anyway in order to make friends/ make himself look better, or oppose a good guy in order to help his own odds.

2)The waiting game: I can see more cunning devious scum supporting townies today, as an extension of the buddying up method, in the hope that once the townie they vote for is revived, that townie will then revive them out of gratitude.

Fos:Al_kohaulic

His last post gave me scummy vibes anyway. But my scumdar might be broken; the signal changes everyday.

The amount of speculation of etc etc etc is looping over and over and over and over...

[chaotic_diablo]

m4yhem, I'm not trying to prevent us from finding scum. However, there are certain discussions that will harm us. For instance, stating an idea already presented by a player earlier. As much a you find it helpful, it isn't since it's just a repeat of what we already know. If you take a look at CTD's prodded post, it's all info we've seen before.

I'm not buying the Mr.C vote. Even when he's hinting at a power role, it's the same as voting for inhim since he claimed a power role. Besides, the argument is too confusing. For instance, say I vote someone without reason and keep supporting a bandwagon on that person with the words "he's scum." I could be a cop hinting at a posible guilty result, but ultimately it isn't helpful.

Why do we need a roleclaim from tamuz? We didn't get one from Yosarian.

[chaotic_diablo]

Reptition is harmful because it prevents us from focusing on the main issue, mainly who to revive. I don't see how repeated speculations will solve that dilema. It's more of a way to sidetrack us.

That's a particularly bad suggestion, "Claim if they want and if they die, it has nothing to do with me." I'd at least put it into less scummy statement. For instance, suggesting that players who have power roles risk a claim if they think it will be helpful.

Anyway, I'll add more into the pro and con list.
Pro
1. Gives town of any information that are 'bizarre,' meaning we will know of what kind flavor roles that will be out there
2. Allows town to make a better decision on revival choices
Con
1. It gives scum information on the power roles.
2. It gives scum a better idea on what to claim.
3. Claiming is done one by one, hence there is time for scum to accomadate it

I don't really share the same suspicions that CTD and Mr.C are scum together.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm in favor of the SK able to kill in limbo to counter the mass claiming. It seems that scum can't kill us whenever they want, so perhaps a

limited

SK? Though only live players can send in a choice, the mod's word is absolute, so it could happen. Another counter would be that a cop would also have a randomly generated number and can't investigate immediately. Same goes for the doc and any other role.

There are too many unknown factors. Usually we wouldn't even consider a mass claim on day one. Is it really going to help us that much?

m4yhem, I'm not sure if you read my sentence correctly, but there's "don't" between the "I" and "really."

[chaotic_diablo]

It isn't that I got the impression, but I always expect more than one killing group. It's no different from having a vig. I'm pretty sure that the mod will find ways to fit certain roles in.

[chaotic_diablo]

Yeah, I have trouble imagining how there could be a SK in this game. How could he win?

Same as every other SK, when he/she is the only one alive. "Alive" being a term that is a bit different from the usual one.

[chaotic_diablo]

Let's say that everyone is in limbo except for the SK, then the SK wins?

[chaotic_diablo]

I've been thinking about that, and the only explanation I can provide is that there are some roles that are not run-off-the-mill. This is a theme game, so there might be a way for the SK to win. It's not like we can anticipate every single factor. This game is really about how

we

can get to the goal, not how

they

can get to the goal. We just have to keep an open-mind and expect what might happen.

IMO, there might be roles that revolve around the 'revival' portion of this game. For instance, a role that can send someone back into limbo and a role that can revive. Or a role that can switch players in limbo and living. Perhaps we can even have a role that prevents a revival for a day.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm fine that we can assume that a SK isn't in this game. However, we should keep in mind that it still might be possible. We are not really in the sort of situation to the point that every possilbity could also be a liability.

I'd like a vote count.

[chaotic_diablo]

Screw this. We either revive someone or not, I'm tired of the stalling.

vote tamuz

[chaotic_diablo]

I know that we

have

to revive, but at the rate we're going, we'll never reach that point.

[chaotic_diablo]

m4yhem, your trying awfully hard to prevent my revival, not that I would consider it due to my recent lack of posts.

Aside from that, support for Thoth was brief, as opposed to what you said as "much of yesterday." In fact, you can claim that I supported Tamuz the longest and that is probably more truth than with Thoth.

Mr.C is going overboard. No matter the arguments behind it, there is nothing there that suggests that he will be a good person on the podium.

As of now, no one is a good candidate. However, I could say that I'd only consider Thoth just to mock m4yhem.

CrashTextDummie: logic deficiency, revive Mr.C? no way
yellowbounder: lack of post
Thoth: lack of posts
M4yhem: egotistic, "I'm the only good candidate for revival!"
al_kohaulec: indecisive, 5-10 pages of stuff that all ended with "screw this"
Twito: lack of posts
themanhimself: questionable claim
chaotic_diablo: jerk, screw you
lordy: not enough contribution
Mr. César: don't ask

[chaotic_diablo]

If I had to choose someone, it would be CTD. Not only does is he not in favor of both players who have been revived, but he is also the one who thinks differently. Whether he is scum or not, I'm not sure.

At the moment, I distrust Mr.C. He's had people argue for him on the reasons on why he should be revived.

[chaotic_diablo]

Because I think you’re scummy. I’m sure you can understand, if town, since you’re doing the same thing to me.

Yes, I'm doing the same thing minus the effort.

Ok, I exaggerated. The mutual support is still there. Plus, Tamuz was the popular choice. Your support for him is therefore meaningless.

Yes, you exaggerate. That makes your point meaningless. Don't try to make a small point important by stating that it is still 'there.'
My support for Tamuz isn't meaningless since I was the first to endorse him. Popular or not, I had him on my list before anyone else. You probably supported him out of popular opinion so that makes your own support meaningless.

Go ahead. As long as you understand that you’re setting yourself up for pages upon pages of ‘ZOMG!!! C_D and Thoth are scum!!11!!!! type spam.

Sure, go ahead. Make yourself look stupid.

Look at your own list. I

am

the best candidate for revival

I looked at my list, and your

not

the best candidate on my list.

And I suppose I’ve always been the one agreeing with popular opinion? Never had any controversial ideas of my own, and so forth?

Nope, not one. Sarcasm gets you nowhere.

[chaotic_diablo]

Hi Zindaras

C_D- What I find interesting is the way you seem to be playing down your connection to Thoth. This is in contrast to the way Yos straight-up admitted that he looked more favorably on Al_Ko because they agreed with each other. Why would you want to play down your connection to Thoth? I wonder...

Some of your remarks are bordering on flamebaiting again, which is odd because I thought I was being polite-ish when I addressed you.

Anyway, the main arguement against Crashy is the Dummie/Mr.Cesar interaction. So what do you make of that?

I downplayed your exaggeration, not the connection. Obviously you tried to make it seem important when I called you out on it. In fact, I find it it interesting that you find the need to exaggerate in order to prevent my revival. If my actions are scummy enough, then why need to make it bigger?

Not really. I'm just being rude in a polite way. Your response was borderline provocative, especially when you try to twist my post into suggesting that you were the best candidate on my list when you're not.

Calling people names is poor sportsmanship.
Mr.C made people argue his revival while not doing anything himself. CTD in the wrong state of mind and tried to help him. I wouldn't want to revive any of them. Interaction is there, but not strong enough to suggest that they may be partners. There needs to be a two-sided connection, not one.

Probably voted Thoth because he endorsed me and had support from Al_ko. Other than that, nothing else.

Good replacement. Better than Mr.C. Let's see if CTD tries to revive Zindaras.

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't think we should go for somebody neither of you two support, a common scum tactic is to distance yourself from your allies, and if you're town, the reason you may be looking away from players you don't support is probably because you're picking up on scumtells from them.

Another reason they may be looking away is because the unsupported think differently. That's the whole point on picking someone who they don't support; we don't really want all jack***es or all smart***es judging. We need to have a mix between the two for balance. People with like minds we have a hard time thinking up of changes.

Still, good point. It would take a decently clever scum to pull it off, even if it is a common tactic. In this game, it would take more effort to make it happen. Unfortunately, both candidates who were revived fit that category.

We should either go with it or not, otherwise we'll have another 5-10 pages of [insert preferred negative pronoun].

[chaotic_diablo]

I trust tamuz slightly more than Yos, but I'm also at a neutral level in terms of 'trusting,' as in I don't overly distrust any of them.

m4yhem, my American rationality says your jokes suck.

If the cop doesn't claim, then we either go with Tamuz's or Yos's plan. I favor Tamuz's plan since lordy already said the stuff about Yos's plan.

[chaotic_diablo]

CrashTextDummie-Undecided upon. He rebutted alko's points and was willing to revive Mr. C, but he was also pushing for c_d to be revived. I could be convinced to revive him.
Thoth-I don't like him at all. I can't remember his points (and he didn't make a lot), which is always bad, yet a lot of players seemed to be willing to revive him. I don't want to revive him at all.
al_kohaulec: Doesn't feel right. Agrees with a lot of people. Voted Thoth. Don't want to revive him.
chaotic_diablo-I definitely do not like c_d. He seemed to try to wurm himself into a good spot with Yos. Voted Thoth later. Do not want to revive him.
Yosarian2-The wagon on him was quick. He's either scum, or scum wanted to get on his good side. He's a good player and his posts make sense. However, I'm not totally convinced of his innocence, mainly because he seemed to like c_d (if my memory serves me well, which it may or may not).
Tamuz-Tamuz...I honestly can't see how he got revived. He doesn't seem to make too many great points. Also supported c_d at a moment.

Anti-CD much? Your singing these players out for having a connection with me in some way, shape, or form. I don't find your analysis reasonable mostly because it's heavily CD oriented to the point of absurdness. You tag on "he supported CD" as though it's a taboo. You have other reasons to exclude these players, but I find it extremely strange how you always reference back to me.

[chaotic_diablo]

Voted self first. Quickly changed to Yos. Tried to get Thoth revived on very thin reasoning.

And that's just from the first few pages.

Wow, a rushed bandwagon and I'm the only one blamed? Not only that, but I also get priority dibs on Thoth? This can't get any better.
Don't hold back at my expense. The next 6-9 pages sound interesting.

Not a taboo. I just find it scummy. Seeing how I'm suspicious of you, I find people who support you scummy as well. As you say yourself, I have other reasons as well. I find it slightly odd that quite a few scummy players can be associated with you.

You have other reasons, yet they don't seem to be the gist of your reasoning. The way you reference me to other people multiple times and use it to deem their actions invalid is strange.

Self voting early to try to start a bandwagon on yourself is bad. When you have reasons, I'm okay with it.

This is such a highly detailed and well-thought out explanation. It really supports your point well.

Whether random is good or not, it's our only option if things don't get anywhere. It's just an issue that is saved for the last minute.

[chaotic_diablo]

Where did I say you were the only one to be blamed for that. Don't misrepresent my words.

Where did you say that anyone was to blame for it? You conveniently stated that the wagon was rushed, yet didn't mention any connection with anyone else except me. I didn't misrepresent your words, you just failed to give correct/sufficient information.

Note how I'm suspicious of all the people supporting Thoth.

Note that "all" is really just "two." The part that you prioritize my vote over Al_ko's is apparent.

Where's the other 6-9 pages of suspicion? You're deliberately not responding to portions of my posts.

You did it in your first post, if memory serves me well, and you didn't state any reasons.

Crap logic. You twisting the intentions of my post.

[chaotic_diablo]

[quote="Oh yes, let's look at the voters:

Yosarian2, al_kohaulec, chaotic_diablo, CrashTextDummie, themanhimself, Thoth, M4yhem

Yos voted himself. Alko gave a nice big post with reasoning, but I'm suspicious of him. I'm suspicious of you, as you posted little reasons in your vote. CTD I'm suspicious of for supporting you, as I said before, so no surprise there. theman is the only one where you actually have a point, so that's noted. Thoth is scummy, his vote for Yos being one of the reasons. M4yhem simply dropped the hammer.[/quote] You're evading the point. You're not explaining how they are suspicious because of their vote on Yos. You just said they voted for yos, then gave reasons to suspect them that has nothing to with their vote. My point still stands.

Prioritize? I did no such thing. I said both of you were scummy for doing it, but alko's been posting somewhat better since then.

Yes you did.

Uh-huh. Saying he's okay with Thoth, but not really stating any reasons.

Al_ko doesn't get one too?

They're in my analysis, if anything.

No they're not. You've only explained it up to the "Thoth" vote which constituted to "just the first few pages." I still want the next 6-9.

Twisting the intentions?

You did not post intentions. You did not post reasoning. You only voted yourself.

You're twisting it again. Not only did you fail to refer to the

right

sentence, but you also failed to give an explanation on how the self-vote is scummy.

[chaotic_diablo]

Know how really quick bandwagons in normal Mafias (and yes, I do consider this a quick bandwagon, especially on this site) are usually bad and scum-driven? Same goes for this game, except that here, scum wants to drive themselves.

So they're scum for rushing a bandwagon? How is my vote any different?

[qoute="Zindaras"]Well, if that's the points you want to make, I can't argue with them[/quote] The point is supported by the one below it.

Read more. I quoted the post where Alko voted Thoth, as well, saying it was scummy. You, however, said you were okay with reviving Thoth, there, without stating any reasons.

Excellent point. I get the blame for

both

mentioning and voting Thoth while Al_ko has a pass for bringing it up without logic.

[qoute="Zindaras"]A self-vote without reasoning is scummy because there's no reason behind it. It's simply an attempt to start a bandwagon on yourself. [/quote] Crap logic. You can't apply reasoning to a vote that you already claimed to have no reasoning. In addition, you're using crap logic when you attempt to guess and fabricate my motives. I didn't vote to start a bandwagon, I voted in spirit of the early random vote staging. If anyone should be accused for self-voting without reason, it would be Mr.C, no hindsight included.
The sentence I was referring to was in post 288. You quoted it, then twisted it to apply to an action that is barely even related to it.

I'm skeptical about your cop claim. I can't argue that you're not a cop, but I just want to bring something up. If we revive you, then you get to investigate people in limbo. However, that sounds really broken since it would mean scum would have no chance in being revived. You investigate during the night, then the live players just revive that person. It comes to night again. You investigate, revive, repeat. Isn't there something that limits your role? Even if we assume that the godfather is immune to investigation, the odds are still in town's favor.

[chaotic_diablo]

C_D- Aww, you poor scum. My heart is breaking for you. But can’t you wait until you’ve officially lost before complaining that the setup is broken?

You know what? I'll feel much better knowing that you're a jackass when I turn up town. Even better is that I'll officially call you a jackass if you turn up scum.
If you claim that scum have already lost, then the setup is broken. Is the opportunity to insure a town win too good to pass up? As good as the role sounds, it isn't wise to revive someone who isn't here to vouch for his own revival. I feel like he just told us something good, then went up and left, leaving us with no opportunity to question him. The way I see it, people are already filled the blanks about his role themselves. Why should they do it? Let Zindaras do it himself.

A miller and godfather won't balance the game. Scum already have a handicap, so I don't see how this is a solution. If we can't rely completely on a cop investigation, then obviously we must make sure that the cop is the right choice. We have all the time we want, why rush it? We've already rushed one bandwagon, let's not make the same mistake twice.

[chaotic_diablo]

C_D, my friend, you won’t ever be able to call me a jackass, because I’m all town, baby! And why on earth does me calling you scum upset you so, Mr. Scummy scummy scum scum? I would have thought an innocent man would just ignore me.

You've been implying lots of crap about how I'm scum, yet haven't provided a single shred of evidence. About the only thing you got was the exact same thing as Zindaras, and you even downplayed those clues. I've already been ignoring you for quite a while on that regard, but I'm afraid your last comment was pretty much just an insult. If you're going to end up provoking someone, don't question why he's "aggressive."
If you do turn up scum, then I'll get my wish yet. We're just have to see if the title is well-deserved or not.

And I don’t really think the scum have already lost. Channel is a smart guy, therefore the setup is balanced. I still don’t see why that means we shouldn’t revive the cop.

I already think Zindaras is the right choice. He acts like a cop. I suppose I will have to wait for the rest of you though.

Also: “Scum already have a handicap.” What are you referring to here?

Usually, I would agree that the set-up would be balanced in some way. However, we don't know how. Therefore, I'd like to have a direct source tell us first before we revive him. This might include a possible delay in his investigation or a sanity problem. I don't care what it is, but there has to be a catch and I'd like to know beforehand.
Intricate plans are made with sufficient information, not with little bits of scrap iron. That's why they are more effective end-game, it's because all the information has been revealed. The way I see it, it's too premature and I think they will all backfire sooner or later.

'Scum already have a handicap' refers to the delay in which they can kill. I can't honestly see any other benefits for scum other than prevention of identification. Like town, a no lynch would harm them, so I don't see how a no kill will help scum either.

I'd say the biggest issue as of right now is the part where people are directing the cop. It would be better to convince Zindaras to take the course of action, not tell him what to do.

[chaotic_diablo]

The cop is not always the best choice. For instance, if we revive you now, then there could be a one-shot scum player who could kill you immediately after. That just makes the revival a waste of time. The reason why we revive people who are anonymous is to keep scum guessing. Even if you claim cop, we don't have enough information to make the timing or the preparations to revive you safely. We've discussed this as a town for several pages, but it's all just theory. The safe approach would be to not rush the bandwagon, but make sure it is the right revival.

vote Zindaras

I'm good with his answer.

[chaotic_diablo]

bad karma m4yhem

Rushing the bandwagon, then asks questions when they could have been answered before. Even worse is the fact that some of those questions have already been asked

and

answered.

I agree with not reviving twito due to investigative immune godfathers, but I'm not that much convinced to revive sherlock yet. We still need to hear from him.

[chaotic_diablo]

Chaotic_Diablo- against looking for scum, tried to stall cop revival, just generally creepy, overagressive

Do you have anything to support your points?

I stalled the cop revival in order to obtain information. Coincidentally, it is the same information that you just tried to obtain this very day. That was whole freakin purpose that I stated in multiple posts, posts that you happened to not 'read'.

IMO, we should focus more on who to revive rather on who to investigate. No matter what argument is brought up, anyone has an equal chance to be scum, whether they lurk the most or post the most. Ultimately, I'd rather Zindaras to make the choices rather than have a slight chance of scum influence.

I can see how people can see sherlock as innocent, but not how people are convinced of his innocence. We haven't heard from sherlock yet.

[chaotic_diablo]

C_D- You didn’t ask the cop any questions though. How did you hope to obtain information just by waiting? I don’t believe you, quite honestly

What do you think the whole point of stalling the cop revival? Make myself look scummy? Get ready to be proven wrong.

Usually, I would agree that the set-up would be balanced in some way. However, we don't know how. Therefore, I'd like to have a direct source tell us first before we revive him. This might include a possible delay in his investigation or a sanity problem. I don't care what it is, but there has to be a catch and I'd like to know beforehand

My intentions.

Yes, I've been wondering about the borkenness of my role. There are no clues whatsoever to any sanity problems in my PM. I've got a few theories, but I'll reveal those later (or even in this post).

It's RIGHT THERE.

Um...That’s just wrong. Scum act differetly from town, otherwise finding scum would just be a random coinflip. I can’t believe you believe that.

I worded that incorrectly. Sorry, my intentions were actually that the behavior of sherlock has nothing to indicate protown vibes. All he has is a cop investigation, which you yourself stated that we couldn't rely on completely. As a result, an investigation will only give us an equal chance to know if he is scum or not despite the arguments for/against him. People are making arguments for him, preventing us from actually getting a read on him. If scum can be determined by behavior, then let him do it, not come up with excuses to vouch for his revival.

[chaotic_diablo]

But I believe scenario one to be the case, because a sane cop would balance the fact that the town’s normal source of concrete information is cut off. By this time in a normal game, we would know the alignments of four to six people, based on lynches and nightkills. Not knowing which bandwagons are good or bad is a fairly significant handicap for the town. There may not even be a godfather.

That's a good point. Usually there is an information role included in every game, so it would be most likely Zindaras is cop. However, his saneness isn't proved by this.
If we had more than one cop, then obviously there will be many different sanities. This causes counterclaiming to be worthless. In a view, a smart cop would realize this. In a normal game, a cop would investigate the claimed cop and see if there are any problems with it. As you can see, it actually brings more information for us. I'm not quite sure how it will work out in this game, but we still haven't accounted for Zindara's brokeness, something Zindaras himself stated.
Because of this scenario, it makes your suggested scenario two and three more likely. Scenario one is most probable, but I still think we should keep an eye out for the other two.

Yos, what if inhim was scum, but acted by his own accord? I just don't get the sense that scum would try a risky maneuver like this unless they were super coordinated. I've seen STD try a stunt and his scum members had no idea what he was pulling. He failed and got lynched.

[chaotic_diablo]

Chaotic- I think you were trying to think of a way to prevent the cop from being revived altogether, and the stalling was just to give you thinking time. That quote don’t mean a thing; the point is you made little effort to work out if Zindaras was lying; you made no arguments against him, you asked him no questions. As for the sanity issue, how exactly were you planning to work out his sanity without reviving him? I still don’t buy it.

You accuse me of stalling for other purposes, I want you to back it up. "I think" doesn't prove anything.

Is this right? The quote means nothing? Want to provide reasons for that? My point was that you failed to be attentive and asked questions that were already answered. Don't go onto a different point.

I

stated

that I believed his claim, but I demanded to know if he knew of any limitations to his role. You're theory is a bunch of crap since there's no point in making an argument against someone who you believe to be cop. In addition, you can obtain information in more than one way. Why do I have to ask a question? Isn't demanding it good enough? IMO, if you asked for the same information, then wouldn't that mean I demanded for meaningful information?

IMO, if we have a sanity issue, there will be another cop. We can have that cop fix the situation. If you want a direct approach, then I'd say we test his sanity by making him investigate a possible person who may be confirmed in the future. However, I don't like directing the cop and there are plenty of other variables to mess things up.

As for the Sherlock-should-make-his-own-arguments thing; wow, you actually have a point there. The problem is that waiting is really boring, and so I fill the time by speculating.

That's a crappy way to refute my point. If you think it's a good point, don't try to cover it up with BS.

At this stage in would be really nice to hear from the man himself, i.e. Sherlock. But since he’s nonresponsive, let’s talk amongst ourselves some more.

WOW. I've been stating that for what? The entire freakin day?!

Why are some people convinced that scum will be able to kill tonight? They are given a randomly generated number, so balance issues don't play into it. It's completely random.
Aside from that, I think reviving either the RB or the doc is just taking a gamble. The doc revival forces scum to kill the doc, revealing their presence. However, we lose the doc, a powerful role.
The RB revival can possibly locate and prevent a scum. It actually tells us who is scum if the RB is succesful. However, it's a gamble and we don't know if he blocked right if we don't have a prior scum kill. No NK doesn't mean anything since scum could still be on delay or that we don't even know if scum is alive yet.

So reviving the doc is more 'generalized' and 'insured' while the RB is more 'specific' and 'chance.'