Mini #406, Animaniacs! Water Tower Explosion! [Over]

[Fuldu]

I think you've misunderstood the premise of slapstick comedy, BHNY. After all, who's everyone's favorite Stooge? Moe. Why? Because he hurts

other people

, not himself.

[Fuldu]

And in the second paragraph, you meant to say that you "

don't

think random votes help very much."

And mole was joking about the no lynch bit, but I think his point is that all the things you're suggesting would deter the town from finding things to talk about on Day One. It's pretty minor complaint, but I can see how it might be worth a "mild FOS."

For now, though, I'm comfortable with a non-participation vote.

vote: chamber

[Fuldu]

I was defending you? Sorry, but I honestly didn't even notice your posts since they arn't very serious. You havn't said anything really that is worth defending. The only stat I gave was 1:4 mafia/town ratio, which is the most widely accepted ratio for mafia games.

Maybe I am a kill joy, and perhaps I do take mafia a bit seriously, but I'm out to win, and I don't think the strategies put forth by fritzler/mole so far are helpful to a town win.

To clarify, for newer players who might not be familiar, the widely accepted ratio Foolster is talking about here is 1:4 scum/player, which means (barring neutral win conditions and other uncommon additions) a 1:3 scum/town ratio. I know Foolster meant the right thing, he just got his statistics terminology a bit screwed up.

[Fuldu]

Foolster: It just depends on how you're defining the ratio. You defined it as scum:town, at which point for every five players, one would be scum and four would be town, which is 20%. The generic assumption is 25% scum. If you had defined the ratio as scum:players, then it would be right--for every four players, one is scum.

This is verging on threadjack, so we should probably let it go, but I didn't want to give the relatively new players in the game the wrong idea. And, just to clarify, 25% is a general guideline, not by any means a hard and fast rule.

In-game, if chamber isn't expecting to participate more than once every couple of pages, I'm comfortable leaving my vote on him. If it succeeds in getting him to talk more, fine. If not, then he probably isn't going to be much use to us anyway. For at this point in Day One, with no other obvious leads, that's good enough for me.

[Fuldu]

Okay, so now chamber and Foolster lurking is scummy, but Blake Judge lurking isn't.

Please explain why I shouldn't vote for you.

Blake Judge, I think this is the best summary of why the bandwagon on Jerry makes sense. I was okay with his behavior when it was just about you, but once he explained that his vote on Foolster was in consequence of what he viewed as scummy lurking, then the level of inconsistency became scummy.

unvote: chamber; vote: Sailor Jerry

[Fuldu]

Well, it's not me. Sorry to disappoint.

Crud. And here I thought that your last post of yesterday...

Okay, so now chamber and Foolster lurking is scummy, but Blake Judge lurking isn't.

Please explain why I shouldn't vote for you.

...was an attempt to look like you were suspicious of Sailor Jerry, while actually trying to give him an out by explaining himself, and giving him a clear point to work against. Oh well. Do you mind if I leave my vote on you anyway, in case other people got the same impression I did?

I actually found that to be a sound argument against SJ. Giving players the opportunity to explain themselves, especially on Day One, is just common sense. I don't think that mole was providing Jerry with any particular foothold on which to build a defense, just pointing out that if he had one, everyone would like to hear it.

[Fuldu]

It's just so absolute. No qualms about putting on a fifth vote that early at all. Thesp's sixth vote and Fritzler's hammer are more understandable to me, and how Sailor Jerry went from 3 to 6 so quickly was strange. I wouldn't be surprised if there was scum in there.

I'm sorry, you're going to need to explain that a little better. Putting on the fifth vote was scummy, but putting on the sixth and last votes wasn't?

[Fuldu]

I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out. If mole had said "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you. Did you have some other reason to be less suspicious of Blake Judge?" then I could see what Thesp is trying to get at. As it is, all I see is a neutral attempt to get SJ to provide more information about his views. Something which, by the by, could have resulted in less "we didn't get any information from the SJ lynch" babble from VitaminR.

And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now. As the object of VitaminR's suspicion, it's hard to disengage such concerns entirely from the notion of OMGUS, but really. a) VitaminR has repeatedly suggested that we didn't get any useful information from yesterday's lynch. b) VitaminR has voted for me on the basis of an, ummm, unusual read of information from yesterday's lynch. c) VitaminR has acknowledged that he recognizes that these two facts are in competition and that the former undermines the latter.

[Fuldu]

I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out.

Why can't they be both? Certainly it could be the former under the benefit of the latter, correct? I'm also highly doubtful Sailor Jerry would have been so blatant as to phrase it in the manner you have suggested would have been obviously scummy.

It

could

be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion. In a large game with multiple scum teams, trying to get scum lynched

could

indicate one scum team trying to gain an advantage over the other, but that shouldn't be the first conclusion you jump to without some evidence above and beyond the simple attempt to lynch scum.

And obviously mole (not SJ) wasn't going to phrase it as blatantly as I did, but I wanted to phrase it blatantly for the purposes of my example so that the distinction I was trying to make was obvious.

[Fuldu]

The second part is a simple analogy:

Your argument is of the following form:

A is a behavior that might have either pro-town or scummy motivations.

Because of circumstance B, a player who exhibits behavior A is arguably more likely to be scum.

Player X exhibited behavior A and circumstance B pertains, so player X is arguably more likely to be scum.

For your argument, A="try to get a bandwagoned player to defend himself," B="said player turns out to be scum," and X="mole."

In my analogy, A="push for a lynch on a particular player," B="said lynch is successful and said player turns out to be scum," and X="whoever." B is more likely to pertain is whoever is scum because 1) in general, scum have more information than town, 2) scum can discuss amongst themselves who is likely to be scum, and 3) scum can work together to get the player in question lynched. But the proper conclusion is not that in large games with multiple scum groups it is a good idea to lynch successful scum hunters.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "arguably more likely" involved is a tenuous argument and of, in my opinion, little predictive power. From a meta standpoint, does this allow scum to "defend" their partners by suggesting that they attempt to defend themselves? Yes, but so what? mole, if he was actually behaving in the manner you've described, offered SJ nothing but the suggestion that maybe he should attempt to defend himself, a conclusion that anyone with even a modicum of Mafia experience or, frankly, common sense ought to have come to on their own. And scum without either of those things aren't going to talk their way out of the wagon.

And I think it would have been good for the town if SJ had taken the opportunity to defend himself. Is it possible that he'd have diverted our attention and avoided lynch? Yes, but on Day One that wouldn't have been the end of the world. But whether that happened or not, we would have had more to work with in the long run. Forcing scum (or players generally) to offer opinions benefits the town, and so mole was doing something that doesn't in any reasonable way say to me "arguably more likely to be scum." Think how much more we'd have to work with today if SJ had started pointing fingers and then we'd lynched him anyway.

[Fuldu]

Thanks for ignoring my post Fuldu. (Actually it seems everyone missed it)

Vot4e: Fuidu

got your attention? Please answer my questions. (Scrolll up to my last post)

I don't understand this whole argument about multiple scum groups. This is a mini game, so isn't it moot?

I did read the post, and I've just now read it again, and unless I'm missing something, all the questions in it are directed at Thesp. You even end with "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?"

-----

You didn't vote me, nor have you expressed suspicion of me.

I didn't vote, but you have the other part right at the beginning of what you quoted.

And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now.

Except that, in rereading the post in question, I can see how the word "that's" lacks clarity and might be seen as referring to Thesp. But it wasn't, that was me expressing suspicion of VitaminR.

As for the comments about the non-gut pieces of the basis for your vote, yeah that was a little patronizing. Sorry. I find the argument difficult to respond to, but not because I believe it has any merit, so I was left without anything constructive to say about it.

[Fuldu]

I guess I don't really see the argument against Fritzler. Foolster's main point is that Fritzler hammered the SJ without giving SJ time to dig himself (and potentially others) in deeper. This is fair, so far as it goes, but it doesn't take into account that this really is how Fritzler behaves all the time. It's always annoying and often pointed to as poor play worthy of suspicion, but I haven't seen that it correlates in any useful way with whether or not he's scum, and complaining about it in other games hasn't seemed to make him any less likely to do it.

VitaminR's argument is a similar one regarding a different behavior, Fritzler's willingness to flat out insist that he knows something about someone and then shift gears two days later. VitaminR says he hasn't seen this sort of behavior before, but here, too, I can say with some confidence that it's fairly typical of Fritzler's unabashedly aggressive approach to mafia.

I'm not especially enthusiastic about either Skruffs vote without justification or JDodge's justification without vote, but the former could be simple bandwagoning for information and the latter wouldn't tend to indict JDodge unless Fritz turns out to be scum. Which is something to keep in mind for later, but isn't, to my mind, sufficient reason to pursue either of them today.

[Fuldu]

Fair enough. Male.

[Fuldu]

I'm back. I hate to say it, but this switch over came at a good time for me, because I had no time earlier in the week. I should be up and running now, though.

[Fuldu]

I'm not sure how to argue with not liking my "position on the Sailor Jerry wagon," but I was trying to give HurriKaty the opportunity to claim, which is usually valuable, even if scum are stalling.

[Fuldu]

I'm not sure how to argue with not liking my "position on the Sailor Jerry wagon,"

This refers to the point I brought up earlier, which we've already gone over.

Yes, I know what it refers to and I've accepted that you believe it, but given that I still find the argument bizarre, I have a hard time responding to it.

but I was trying to give HurriKaty the opportunity to claim, which is usually valuable, even if scum are stalling.

Well you didn't post, so that wasn't really evident.

I suppose, but if I'd posted to say "Yeah, I think HurriKaty is a reasonable play, but I'd still like to wait until she claims," then you'd just be making a slightly different argument against me.

[Fuldu]

Grumble. I don't like that the only argument posited against me is VitaminR's. The HurriKaty piece is fair, but I still think the Sailor Jerry piece is stupid. If Thesp or (perhaps especially, since he explicitly indicated agreement) Foolster wants to explain how my position on that lynch is the most suspicious, I'd like to hear it.

But, since it looks like there's enough support for a wagon on me to push a claim, I'll save us all the trouble. I'm Ralph, the security guard. I have an investigative power similar to Fritzler's, except that I can identify whether a player is human or non-human (the mod has clarified for me that any characters that are not explicitly human (and, in particular, the Warners are not explicitly human) will return a non-human result). My Night One investigation was on Fritzler. I wasn't in favor of that wagon yesterday because I knew he was human. From last night I have an investigation result on a living player who hasn't claimed. I can give that info if it's called for.

[Fuldu]

I'd like to hear from Ether first. Also, did we lose some of the gender claims to the server issues? I can't find Ether's gender claim at all. I recall her having claimed male, but I don't see it anywhere.

[Fuldu]

I'd approve a mass sspecies claim.

I disagree. Not only are some character's species vague (IE Yakko, Wakko and Dot), but it's far too revealing as to what everyone's role is.

And, just to clarify, I don't learn a person's specific species, I just learn whether they're human (e.g., Hello Nurse) or not (e.g., Yakko, Wakko, and Dot). So there's no reason to go as far as actually claiming species.

[Fuldu]

Also, before we move forward with this... If there's any desire for me to prove my ability, we obviously need to do that before the mass anthropoclaim. I only have one credible result (since the other investigation was Fritz), but I can do that first, and then we go to Ether. I think the mass claim is slightly more valuable if everyone participates, but if I'm under suspicion by more than just VitaminR, this is probably going to be my best opportunity to do anything concrete about that.

[Fuldu]

Fuldu should claim his result.

I don't mind starting with Ether or me, but I think there is enough consensus for such a claim.

I'm not sure that there's anyone other than you. I was assuming you'd want it, and the only other vote that was on me, Foolster's, pulled back from that position. I'm willing to give my result, but I'd like someone in addition to VitaminR to ask for it.

That said...

I think we should wait until the mass-claim is over for Fuldu to claim his result.

...this won't work. Either I'm telling the truth, in which case I genuinely have a result, or I'm lying, in which case I'm the remaining scum and everybody else should be expected to tell the truth. So I would just pick someone and agree with their claim. Wouldn't prove anything.

[Fuldu]

I didn't realize we were waiting for me. I already said I wanted Ether to go first.

[Fuldu]

I'm here. However, I largely won't be for most of the remainder of the holiday weekend. I'll check in as I can.

[Fuldu]

Thst leaves 3. By my calculations if we line up each one and lynch them in a row (allowing a claim from them to gather information, lynching if they refuse) we will have 7 people at the end even if they make a kill every ngiht and the last on is the scum.

I think your calculations are seriously off-base. For one thing, there are only eight people alive right now, so even if no kills were made, the first two lynches would bring us down to six.

Here's what I think you're suggesting:

Lynch A (seven alive)
Night kill (six alive)
Lynch B (five alive)
Night kill (four alive)
Lynch C

That's all fine, provided no one has lied about anything. But imagine, for example, that Thesp has lied about his gender. This wouldn't in any way be the mod screwing us (and frankly, I'm not quite sure what you meant by that), but it would mean that it's possible that Thesp would be scum still alive at the end of the process you've described (and with a successful night kill, would win). Because of the way we're handling gender/human claims, the same could be true for either Fritzler or myself (which is why I remain somewhat personally wary of not proving myself now, while I can).

[Fuldu]

FULDU:
Your count is correct, but still 6 alive at the end isn't bad.
Why did you give Thesp as an example of all people? Do you seriously believe that Thesp could be lying? this seems like covered ground already.

I agree that you should prove yourself before the day's over, but that's only me.

Look at my numbers again. 6 alive assumes that the scum never kill anyone. If they do kill people, your plan hands them a win. The night after we've discovered that none of the three people in question was scum, they make a kill that puts the count at one scum versus one town.

I gave Thesp as an example because his situation was the first one I could remember that fit the possible lying criteria. It doesn't have anything to do with the likelihood of his lying; I just wanted to describe the scenario with a concrete example.

As for proving myself, I'm not clear how you expect me to do it "before the day's over." Either I do it before the blahgo situation resolves itself or I can't do it at all; something I think I've explained at least once already.

[Fuldu]

Then the one other thing is if you could pick the person to claim human or not next. Thanks.

[Fuldu]

My result last night was on Foolster and gave a not human result. I can only think of one character that would be humanish other than the Warners, and it's not a very major character.

[Fuldu]

This was the character I was assuming, as well, but like I said, it doesn't seem like a very strong claim to me. Can you speak to the validity of the Good Idea, Thesp?

[Fuldu]

Foolster has done an admirable job of describing who he thinks should be claiming and focusing suspicion on them, despite the fact that he falls into the same male/non-human category that they do. Thesp, you never responded to my question about whether Foolster's claim to have sent you a Good Idea is something you can verify. It's a bit surprising that our last three claimers were all plain townies, but it's not impossible. And if Thesp can't verify the Good Idea, I think Foolster is the right lynch for today.

[Fuldu]

Thesp, you never responded to my question about whether Foolster's claim to have sent you a Good Idea is something you can verify.

I had -

This was the character I was assuming, as well, but like I said, it doesn't seem like a very strong claim to me. Can you speak to the validity of the Good Idea, Thesp?

I can't, Sweenytodd gets it right in the next post:

@Fuldu: I went back to look at that...

Hey Thesp, I know this is going to sound cryptic, but did anything happen to you last night?

And then Thesp responded:

I RECEIVED NO UNEXPECTED PMS OR NOTIFICATIONS LAST NIGHT. EXPLAIN THIS IF YOU THINK IT WORTHWHILE. IGNORE IT IF YOU THINK IT NOT.

So it would appear that the action did not go through or Thesp denied it at that time...

Why do you think Foolster41 would lie about something easily verifiable?

Oops. sorry. I saw the post coming after your request to have Foolster claim and missed that bit in the middle. I thought I remembered you saying something and then couldn't find it. It didn't occur to me that it was before Foolster had fully claimed.

And, yes, if we're going to give him a pass even though the verification didn't check out, then it would make perfect sense for him to lie about it.

[Fuldu]

Just so that I'm clear, the premise of this no lynch is to have Fritz and I check to see if anyone's lying and go into tomorrow with additional information, right? Is there anything more to it than that, because while that's fine, so far as it goes, those that have claimed male non-human are presumably telling the truth about that and we won't ever catch them in a lie if they're the remaining scum.

[Fuldu]

Is there anything more to it than that, because while that's fine, so far as it goes, those that have claimed male non-human are presumably telling the truth about that and we won't ever catch them in a lie if they're the remaining scum.

That's true, but what about those

not

claiming male non-human? I sure wouldn't mind clearing them, in case one of them is lying. If someone's claiming to be human, for instance, and they're investigated as non-human, what would you think the best course of action is?

The idea for the extra information isn't to try to gain more info on the three in the spotlight for being male/non-human, it's to further clear (or entrap!) those who haven't claimed that. Since we're at an even number, with no real expectation of a double-nightkill, now is the perfect time to no-lynch, so we can do just that.

I wasn't suggesting that we should lynch a claimed male non-human and I should stop investigating the claimed humans. No lynch would make sense if we knew that scum had lied, but I still feel like we should be trying to deal with both groups at the same time. If we lynch a male non-human today and

then

Fritz and I investigate our respective questionables, I feel like that accomplishes more than no lynch followed by investigations. Otherwise, we're dealing with the potential scum liars and putting off the potential scum truth-tellers for later.

[Fuldu]

If we lynch a male non-human today and then Fritz and I investigate our respective questionables, I feel like that accomplishes more than no lynch followed by investigations. Otherwise, we're dealing with the potential scum liars and putting off the potential scum truth-tellers for later.

Given the even number of people alive, why not investigate, then lynch? Why must we lynch, then investigate?

I think this conversation would be entirely different if we had an odd number of people alive in the game, where a no-lynch would reduce the number of lynches we'd get by one, but here a no-lynch doesn't - it gives an extra night without taking away a day. It's essentially

giving

us an extra investiation. (Granted, that's presuming all investigative roles remained alive throughout the rest of the game, which is unlikely, but I hope my point comes across here - it would give us a

forwarded

investigation at the very least.)

It also makes you have to make up an extra investigation if you're a lying scumbag, which I particularly like.

I guess. We can no lynch later, but we might not have anyone left to investigate at that point. Sure, that makes sense. I'm not sure it's really that big a deal, but I see your point now.

As to your last point, if I'm a lying scumbag, then I shouldn't have to make up any results, since presumably everyone else told the truth and I can just agree with them. Which is why back before the mass claim I kept offering to prove myself, because I knew I wouldn't be able to at this point.

[Fuldu]

I got human on SweenyTodd.

[Fuldu]

It's not that we're suspicious, precisely, it's that we're the ones not confirmed by some sort of investigation.

Also, I'm on vacation until Sunday. I'll probably be checking in occasionally, but I wouldn't count on my presence in a timely fashion if it's required.

[Fuldu]

vote: Foolster41

I think his claim is the one I feel the least positive about.

[Fuldu]

I got a "no result" on VitaminR last night. He has claimed townie and Pinky, so it seems unlikely to me that it has anything to do with his role. Before I push for his lynch, I'd like to verify that nobody else has claimed anything that might arguably have caused this behavior. I can't see anything, but I've been known to miss obvious explanations for odd outcomes.

[Fuldu]

i go a no result also

...

mass roleblocker?

Interesting. On someone other than VitaminR?

[Fuldu]

Well, we seem to be dealing with a role that blocks all night actions. I thought Thesp's role may have been a trigger for that or something. In retrospect, that doesn't really make sense, because it help scum.

Alternatively, one of Fuldu/Fritz is a scum roleblocker lying about their result to cover themselves and spread confusion, but that doesn't seem all that likely.

Well, a death occurred, so it's unlikely to have blocked

all

actions, unless Thesp's death was triggered in some other way. But a scum roleblocker who can block all other actions seems improbable (even only once), and if Fritz or I were a scum roleblocker who can block a single action, it wouldn't make any sense for either of us to block the other. I'm inclined to agree that Thesp's death caused the mass block.

[Fuldu]

I'm here and have done a cursory read but no analysis. First impressions are that something feels wrong with Fuldu. I'm out tonight and all day tomorrow so expect a substantial post on Sunday. Does anyone have any questions for me?

One question for Fuldu for now - what is the flavour reasoning given for your human/non-human investigation ability?

As the gate guard, I see a lot of people and non-people come and go, providing me with insight into distinguishing one from the other.

[Fuldu]

I'm back from complicated real world difficulties, hopefully for some time.

Seol, I'm sorry you're displeased with the quality of my role flavor, but that's something you'll have to take up with the mod. As to the ambiguity, though, I don't think the role has been in any way ambiguous. My result on Foolster was unequivocally "not human." Foolster wasn't certain what he should claim, but that's a lack of clarity unrelated to my role results. I was told that any character that is not explicitly human would come out not human and that has been the case. I'm not even sure who the other ambiguous character you're thinking of is.

Also, I think something that's missing in the discussion of whether I am a scum-roleblocker who saved his block in order to further my lies. If it weren't for Thesp as an alternate explanation, such a lie would have no reasonable cover to hide in. And the notion that as scum I'd save a roleblock for later use in the hopes that something unexpected would happen the night I decide to use it that people might think was the cause of the roleblock is just silly.