Mini 392: Jungle Republic - Game over!

[LyingBrian]

Vote: Thestatusquo

why did you hammer w/o giving ShadowLurker a chance to defend himself again, or at least to claim?

which brings up an interesting thought... why would ShadowLurker claim President/Seer

after

the lynch, when he was really just a Republican/Townie? any ideas, anyone?

[Lucresia]

UGH that really ruined our chances Well..I still don't understand not just shadowlurker's way of playing, but he said we killed our president? But he was then a republican? I'm a little confused at why he didn't claim either..?

[Lucresia]

oh sorry didnt see the last post. I have no idea why shadowlurker claimed once he was already lynched. Even though shadowlurker seemed overly guilty to me, I still was hoping for a claim. why did you throw the last vote on him thestatusquo? Not enough for a vote, but def. a big FOS. And a question to ponder on the game setup. There is no form of doctor? If this is true, how will we ever be able to have our president reveal themselves? Perhaps the president has some sort of protective ability?

[Lucresia]

sorry for the double post but another thought concerning the president's protection. Maybe the president isn't able to be abducted on certain nights?

[Thestatusquo]

because jathan must be quicklynched at all times.

[Nai]

Vote: LyingBrian

It is my opinion that, though thetatusquo quick lynched Shadowlurker, there was a huge bit between LyingBrian and Shadowlurker that leaves not much to the imagination. Lyingbrian was the driving force behind that lynch, and I think he's the guilty one between them.

[sprontalic]

It is my opinion that, though thetatusquo quick lynched Shadowlurker, there was a huge bit between LyingBrian and Shadowlurker that leaves not much to the imagination. Lyingbrian was the driving force behind that lynch, and I think he's the guilty one between them.

I have to disagree with you there. Upon reconsideration I think those that mindlessly bandwagoned are just as or even more suspicious than Lyingbrian himself. I admit that Lyingbrian used some pretty bad logic in his accusation of SL, most of which I disagreed with. But Lyingbrian did spur much discussion yesterday and may yet prove useful. I think those that would be better plays are those that unwittingly joined the bandwagon without any logic of their own...blatently trying to get the weakest link lynch regardless of how much sense that bandwagon makes.

Upon a re-read I'm going to

vote: TSQ

. First and foremost he hammered completely out of the blue. Secondly he voted Lyingbrian in post 123...within 24 hours he changed his stance completely. Why the sudden change...especially when it matters most? Thirdly TSQ doesn't chance stance in 24 hours...he chances in less then that, somehow managing to vote rastapopolous before hammering SL. That simply reeks of opportunistic voting to me.

And I'm going to

FOS: germy, Cadre, Lyingbrian

germy for blatently bandwagon for no reasons. Begin by firing a few "I don't like the way SL is playing" then gets defensive when questioned by Lyingbrian then pops in the big 1 minus lynch vote when the bandwagon has gained enough momentum...during which he never used his own reasoning when casting his vote.

Cadre for voting on gut feeling which was never justified even when asked...and then just allowed the bandwagon to continue when he even admitted at one stage "no summy vibe from it".

Lyingbrian for reasons I posted prior to SL's lynch.

I'm sure there're others, but I really can't be bothered search at this stage. I think looking at four different people is enough at this stage.

[Zindaras]

Wow, this was a quick night.

I'm doing some design for a game right now, I'll post some opinions afterwards.

[Zindaras]

Okay, I reread the game, and a couple of things caught my eye:

-TSQ. He defended SL throughout most of the day, then suddenly, out of the blue, hammered him.
-germy. He added little content throughout the day and put SL on Lynch-1.
-Friday-13th. She was the first to vote SL and never added a lot afterward.
-Lucresia. Was very insistent on lynching SL.

I'm not entirely sure I like the way LyingBrian has been playing either. I'll go ahead and

FoS: germy, Lucresia Friday-13th

and

Vote: TSQ

until he comes up with a good explanation for hammering ShadowLurker.

[LyingBrian]

- Posts #151-153
@Lucresia

i thought the idea of an open setup was that everybody knew all the roles before the game started... i rechecked and didn't see anything about a doctor or a protecting/hiding ability for the President/Seer... maybe i'm misunderstanding the definition of open setup?

- Post #154
@Thestatusquo

love the defense... only adds to your scumminess & does not help whatsoever...

confirm vote: Thestatusquo

- Post #155
@Nai

i'm curious how i could've been the "driving" force behind his lynch when i'm only 1 vote out of 7 needed... yes i built the case against ShadowLurker, but germy & Thestatusquo hammered him & Cadre didn't unvote him... unfortunately, by the time i got home from work that night, ShadowLurker was already lynched, or i would have unvoted him to give him a chance to claim at least...

- Post #156
@sprontalic

back to the WIFOM debate, i understand what ShadowLurker & yourself were saying about the need for equal probability & i can understand your point, but it doesn't mean i agree... if a player always acts suspiciously, do you not ever lynch him, b/c he might be town?!? THAT is ridiculous... i found ShadowLurker suspicious for reasons already covered, and so voted him...

- Post #157-158
@Zindaras

well in those 2 short posts you've managed to become more helpful than your counterpart... what i don't like about your post is

I'm not entirely sure I like the way LyingBrian has been playing either.

seems to me like you're riding everyone else's coat tails w/ this statement... interesting how you didn't give any reasons of your own why you don't like my play...

[Thestatusquo]

You can vote me, but I simpy hammered shadowlurker because he must be quicklynched at all times. It's a nul tell for me, since I would do it as both scum and town.

I might be scum, yes, but voting off of something like that makes no sense for two reasons:

1) I've already explained how I would do it both town and scum, but if you don't buy that
2) It is much less likely a scum would do that then town, because scum wants to avoid that kind of pressure. Come on now, I'm an experienced player; do you really think I'd have 'opportunistic voting' as one of my scum tells?

[Zindaras]

- Post #157-158
@Zindaras

well in those 2 short posts you've managed to become more helpful than your counterpart...

I'm awesome, I know.

what i don't like about your post is

I'm not entirely sure I like the way LyingBrian has been playing either.

seems to me like you're riding everyone else's coat tails w/ this statement... interesting how you didn't give any reasons of your own why you don't like my play...

While I like the way you generally respond to a lot, I disagree very much with your WIFOM argument. The way SL was lynched seems quite odd to me, and I'm getting the impression that that argument was the main one.

[Zindaras]

You can vote me, but I simpy hammered shadowlurker because he must be quicklynched at all times. It's a nul tell for me, since I would do it as both scum and town.

I might be scum, yes, but voting off of something like that makes no sense for two reasons:

1) I've already explained how I would do it both town and scum, but if you don't buy that
2) It is much less likely a scum would do that then town, because scum wants to avoid that kind of pressure. Come on now, I'm an experienced player; do you really think I'd have 'opportunistic voting' as one of my scum tells?

Could you point to earlier games where you've done the same?

[Thestatusquo]

How about every scum chat game I've ever been in with Jathan.

[Zindaras]

I really don't know anything about that. Is there anyone else alive in the game who knows this better?

[Thestatusquo]

Looking at the list, no. But you could go into scum chat as some random sn and watch a couple games.

[Zindaras]

Hmmkay.

So what are your opinions on all the players in the game right now? I'd like a nice lil' list.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP:

Unvote

until further notice, no desire to see a speedlynch.

[Thestatusquo]

Lying brian and Rastapopolus, or whomever has replaced him are scum.

[Thestatusquo]

NAI and Kingpin are town. and I just noticed you replaced Rosta. Guess that means you're scum. Surely not from anything you've done. But Rasta was scummy as hell.

[Zindaras]

What I meant was a list with opinions on every living player left remaining. Not sure why Rasta was so horribly scummy, though.

[LyingBrian]

- Post #160
@Thestatusquo

but I simpy hammered shadowlurker because he must be quicklynched at all times.

do you want to explain this?!? this statement in itself is enough reason for a vote...

I might be scum, yes, but voting off of something like that makes no sense for two reasons:

1) I've already explained how I would do it both town and scum, but if you don't buy that
2) It is much less likely a scum would do that then town, because scum wants to avoid that kind of pressure.

this is basically the same reasoning that ShadowLurker used! i'll submit again, that if you commit a suspicious action, regardless of whether or not you commit the same action as confirmed town or scum, then you should be voted... call it WIFOM, call it circular logic, call it whatever you want, but it does not make any sense to me why i should let a player who is acting suspiciously continue to do so...

Come on now, I'm an experienced player; do you really think I'd have 'opportunistic voting' as one of my scum tells?

it may not be a 'tell', but it doesn't mean you're NOT scum...

- Post #161
@Zindaras

While I like the way you generally respond to a lot, I disagree very much with your WIFOM argument. The way SL was lynched seems quite odd to me, and I'm getting the impression that that argument was the main one.

that's the nice thing about opinions, i don't need you to agree w/ mine, for me to be right ... i may have a slight misunderstanding of 'WIFOM', but my points are still valid... i don't think you should throw them out, b/c my classification may be incorrect... if you think that the WIFOM was the reason for my vote, then you may need to do a re-read... i was voting for ShadowLurker b/c he was suspicious... the way he reacted to the WIFOM, only made him seem more suspicious, thus i never felt a need to remove my vote...

- Posts #162-167
mostly blah, almost like we're playing SpeedMafia

- Posts #168-170
interesting... accusations & justifications w/o any backup... in general, i dislike the play style you're demonstrating Thestatusquo... i get the feeling you're not putting your cards on the table, like you're operating a big scam, and that feels scummy... and how the heck do you get a scum vibe from 3 posts?!? the 1st one was a confirmation post, the next was after the site was down letting us know she was still here, and the 3rd was just i don't know, but i did notice Rastapopolous is a 'Townsperson' as far as # of posts, and she may not have the best grasp of the English language or typing skills, but i have no clue how that makes her scum...

i see absolutely no reason to move my vote...

[Thestatusquo]

- Post #160
@Thestatusquo

but I simpy hammered shadowlurker because he must be quicklynched at all times.

do you want to explain this?!? this statement in itself is enough reason for a vote...

You obviously know nothing of Jathan and my dynamic. How is "this alone" a reason to vote?

I might be scum, yes, but voting off of something like that makes no sense for two reasons:

1) I've already explained how I would do it both town and scum, but if you don't buy that
2) It is much less likely a scum would do that then town, because scum wants to avoid that kind of pressure.

this is basically the same reasoning that ShadowLurker used! i'll submit again, that if you commit a suspicious action, regardless of whether or not you commit the same action as confirmed town or scum, then you should be voted... call it WIFOM, call it circular logic, call it whatever you want, but it does not make any sense to me why i should let a player who is acting suspiciously continue to do so...

1)Way to ignore the first point I make, which is the most important one. Extend it, at the point where I do this as both scum and town, there is no reason to vote for me off of it. I'll expect to see you moving your vote soon.

2)Your conception of wifom is very very wrong. Wifom refers specifically the circular logic. http://www.mafiascum.net/cgi-bin/wiki.p ... ront_of_Me

Where wifom falls appart is when the scum player has such a disincentive to do the act that the recursive thinking confusion is not worth it to undertake.

In this case, I have incurred I think 5 votes, because of an act that I did yesterday. If you think a scum player would think that the wifom defense is worth this pressure, than you're really, really dumb, and I can't wait to play against you when you're scum.

3)Why should you let a player who's 'acting suspiciously continue to do so?'
That's

[]

obvious, dude. Your job is not to find suspicious players, your job is to find scum. At the point where what is considered suspicious is subjective, and at the point where I do that specified act regardless of alignment, your arguement falls to shreds.

Come on now, I'm an experienced player; do you really think I'd have 'opportunistic voting' as one of my scum tells?

it may not be a 'tell', but it doesn't mean you're NOT scum...

So you're going to stop voting off of the basis of fact, and vote on the premise that I might be scum? That is very very very stupid. Towns job is to find and go after scum tells. If you admit that what I did is not a tell, then you're saying you're basically just going after me randomly. Well, you could go after anyone randomly. Theres a specific stage of the game for this; it's called random voting. We're not there anymore. This point you just made is tantamount to saying "Yeah, you're not scummy, but I'mma vote for you anyway.

- Posts #168-170
interesting... accusations & justifications w/o any backup... in general, i dislike the play style you're demonstrating Thestatusquo

You dislike my playstyle? Fine. Dislike my playstyle. Having a playstyle you don't like does not make me scum.

and how the heck do you get a scum vibe from 3 posts?!? the 1st one was a confirmation post, the next was after the site was down letting us know she was still here, and the 3rd was just i don't know, but i did notice Rastapopolous is a 'Townsperson' as far as # of posts, and she may not have the best grasp of the English language or typing skills, but i have no clue how that makes her scum...

Riiiiiight here i amSorry about not postin i havent been lurking suspiciously honest!So please guys...give me a wee chance to prove my innocence eh my thingy hasnt been workin since forever.

Hm.So r we meant to b voting or what?I havent had time to read it all yet...

This post is more interesting if you look at the fact that there was no pressure on her whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing pushing her, and yet she's acting like a guilty kid who needs to prove her innocence. This is scummy as hell. Guilty concience tells are one of the best for noobs IMO.

i see absolutely no reason to move my vote...

And I see absolutely no reason why it should be on me, since your argumentation is a bunch of missconceptions, and a 'dislike of [my] playstyle. But suit yourself.

[Thestatusquo]

I'd also like to point out, that you're conceding essentially my whole position when you say 'this is the same logic shadowlurker used!!!!!oneoneoneoneon"

Shadowlurker was town,

[]

. At the point where you admit town uses that logic to, it's yet again another reason that can't be used to say I'm scum.

[Kelly Chen]

Vote Count

2 - Thestatusquo (LyingBrian, sprontalic)
1 - LyingBrian (Nai)

not voting: Thestatusquo, KingPin, Cadre, friday-13th, germy, Lucresia, Zindaras

With 10 alive it is 6 to lynch!