Mafia 60: Face-to-Face - Game over!

[IH]

MBL, did you look at the post directly afterwards?

= |

[IH]

Dear Patrick:

unvote, vote CES

I've never ever seen scum suggest no lynch, especially a non-newbie scum. Also, it's pretty obvious that no one here will support it, since this is an invitational. Like Patrick, I think the people using this as a reason to attack are scum.

I found this faulty, because there has been cases where scum suggest no lynch and such.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

*nods*

Then again,

When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

= Emo scum-tell.

Apologies, I've been sick.

unvote

Sigh.

I don't like the logic of saying that the AndrewS wagon was scummy. I maintain that it was there for a valid reason. Then, she says she see's an "Emo scumtell" but no vote at all, even though she unvotes.

I need to admit that with so many people around, I'm getting a little confused.

I'm not taking specific post notes now at page 9, but the person who's bothering me most right now is IH, with that clear reach. I've read through again, and I'm still swinging here and there over Andrews VS Mgm issue.

Still no vote, seems noncomittal.

Until her 21st post, she had about as much content as Nightfall in this game.
Don't like the Andrew defense.

[Fritzler]

And obviously if she was scum and there was a real vig, the real vig wouldn't kill tonight for that very reason.

You know there could be 3 vigs in this game right? But I believe the claim. It doesn't sound like a scum's fakeclaim.

FoS Glork

yea

we need to give her a target befoer hand and to have her kill, so no other vigs would do it, to further help those odds people are talking about, because no other vig would target someone if scumvoid is

heck, another vig should probably not kill anyone, that way if scumvoid is mafia there's only one kill

just because

it makes sense in my head

shut up

unvote, vote: andrew

[Nightfall]

This is taking tooo long...
anyways unless I turn up something huge later on while I'm still going over stuff, my vote stays with Ether but could move to Andrew rather easily to complete a lynch.

And IH, I wasnt the only one without much content at that point. Why did you, and why do you continue to direct those comments towards me?



*Here's everything I've got so far.*


Adele
-Believed AndrewS' no lynch vote was against the towns best interest.
-Agreed that even if it was just to garner reactions it is scummy enough to recieve a vote.
-Touches on Glork's hyper activity this game.
-Unvotes Andrew saying that the ends to his suposed point does not justify the means.
-Joins the SV wagon because Vind is on it.
-Says that she wasnt completely sure if Glork was truthfull with his no lynch vote.

AndrewS
-Votes CD because of his username.
-Votes no lynch claiming that the odds are against us lynching scum.
-Unvotes and attributes his proposal to the fact that we were still in the random vote stage and didnt seem to be going anywhere.
-Backs his no lynch idea insisting that he was frustrated with how long it was taking for us to get out of the random vote stage. Also states that he is not a newbie and that his actions were not because of inexperience.
-Says that he guesses he should explain his actions, claiming that he was really just testing us to see how we react.
-Says that he wouldnt reasonably attempt to push a no lynch. He then votes Adele claiming that she is the most lynch hungry.
-Says that what he proposed led to reactions and reasons for him to vote Adele
-Votes CES claiming that CES doesnt care what Andrews reasons were and that CES is avoiding his "questions". (I have seen no such questions except for a why would I really propose a no lynch inquirery...)
-States that random voting paterns are impossible to get info from. And repeats that hos proposal was just an attempt to get more info.
-Tells MgM to read the game.
-States his past experiences with the game saying that he is not a newbie.
-Says that he is beyond a shadow of a doubt pro town.
-Says that he believes many of the people that are voting for him are doing so because he disagrees with their logic.
-Says that hes told his reasons for his actions, and if he is lynched and turns up town we should look at those voting him.
-Lists his top 3 suspects CES, Adele and Thesp.
-Says that Thesps logic is wrong and that he is assuming that his intent follows his actions.
-Says that if he was scum he would know that he wouldnt be able to convince the town to go no lynch.
-Votes MgM
-Tells MgM to read the game for his reasons for voting him.
-Claims that he decided to go ahead and vote no lynch because it was something "spectacular that everyone would notice".
-Says that Mgm was the only one that misinterpreted Glorks no lynch vote
-Claims that he reread and that he finds IH scummier than Glork and SV.
-*There is something I am noticing here...and I will come back to it eventually*
-Explains that he is suspect of SV and Glork because of their bandwagoning while less so of IH due to his lack of bandwagoning.
-Repeats that nobody but Mgm thought that Glork was serious.
-Tells thesp that his no lynch vote was a "prod to start the game"
-Tells me that I say that I'll post something tommorrow too much, when I had yet to actually post it all game.
-Explains how if there are 2 nightkills the next night then SV must be telling the truth about her vig claim.
-Rolls off odds of there being additional vigs' in this game, and votes IH for "being on the band wagons and being lynch hungry". All while a few posts ago he said IH was less scummy because he really didnt do those things...


ChannelDelibird
-Votes for Andrew for voting him over his username.
-Votes CES for wanting to …lynch progress?
-FOSes Andrew for his reasoning behind his no lynch suggestion.
-Asks Mgm if he prefers lurkers to people that post/talk to much.
-Says that Glork is acting like someone else this game and that he is being rather unhelpful. He also Votes Andrew for using the “If I was really scum I wouldn’t do that” comment.
-Corrects a vote count
-Apologizes for a lack of recent posting
- Agrees with IH that the random SV wagon is a bad idea.
-States that we should have all been voting Andrew a long time ago


CES
-Votes Thesp
-Asks Glork to vote Thesp
-Foses Glork for lying
-A few posts of negotiation between Glork and CES about the order they should lynch people.
-FOSes Andrew
-Votes Andrew
-Mentions how he plays differently IRL than he does online
-Says that no lynching is bad for information flow.
-Gives Andrew a small list of reasons why he would vote no lynch if he was scum.
-Says that he doesn’t see town doing what Andrew did.
-A few jokes
-FOSes Patrick for “misrepresenting” Thesp
-Explains to Ether what part of Andrews “real reason for voting no lynch” is WIFOM
-Votes SV as part of the random wagon
-FOSes IH and says that the wagon isn’t random.
-FOSes CBird for agreeing with IH
-Votes Andrew claiming that SV’s claim is provable
-Makes a few comments promoting the idea of SV revealing the name of her vig target before we go into the night phase


Ether
-Votes Buddylee
-Tells Glork his avatar is weird, and unvotes.
-Votes Andrew and claims that the whole idea of voting a no lynch right now confuses her.
-(After Andrew gives his “real reason” for voting no lynch) Votes IH and says that she really doesn’t like the reaction Andrew is getting from other players.
-Says that a few reasons that people are voting Andrew are “bullshit” and “shrug”s them off. She also posts this : “The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what?” NOT understanding that this is a BIG WIFOM.
-Posts “I haven't the slightest idea what's up with Mgm. I don't like him, but I like IH less.” Followed by a statement that she “loathe(s) the misrepresentative voters” for calling WIFOM on Andrew.
-States that a real push for a no lynch is as unlikely as Andrew says it would be. She then rips into Mgm (“Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy.”) and calls Buddylee hypocritical for his comment “In other news, the Thesp-Glork axis gives me hives.”.


Fritz
-Votes Thesp
-Says Andrew is not the play.
-Votes SV
-Works out a deal with CES to lynch Thesp and SV
-A few posts about “why isn’t scum dead yet” and why aren’t more people voting SV
-Says that if there is a second vig they should not kill anyone in order to reveal whether SV is mafia or not. He also votes Andrew.



Glork
-Votes Andrew
-Foses CES
-FOSes Fritz
-Foses Zind and CES
-Votes CES and Foses Zind and Pat
-Asks why he looks like scum
-Says that Andrew is looking like a good voting alternative
-Votes Andrew
-Votes CES
-Claims that the town is so bandwagon.
-“Guys we should No Lynch. Just sayin'.”
-“Honest answer? Depends on the game, the players, and how I feel at the time.”
-“EBWODP: But that suggestion of No-Lynch was totally serious, I assure you. , Unvote CES, FOS/IGMEOY: CES , Vote: No Lynch”
-“It gives us information from night actions!!”
-“But we're more likely to kill a townie that way! It's only Day One, and we have nothing to go on!!”
-Votes Mgm for not paying attention.
-Says that hed kill everynight if he was vig
-“Alright, let's take an informal poll? Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?”
-“So what you're saying is that I, knowing that AndrewS picked up flak for voting No Lynch, and even participating in the ensuing bandwagon on him, decided to vote No-Lynch for some ulterior motive (presumably to push through this day without a lynch)?
Yeah. Right.”
-Foses IH for telling Thesp that he has his on him.
-Votes Ether
-Says that by his experience scum are less likely to defend partners as opposed to townies.
-Says we should bandwagon whoever he rolls
-Rolls thesp and says we should roll again.
-Rolls SV and votes SV telling Thesp he made a good find.
-“In all seriousness, at this point, I think I'd be okay with an SV lynch.”
-Says that he doesn’t like pats comment that a short time until deadline means that we need to decide which vote leader to lynch.
-“I don't think AndrewS is particularly scummy. I don't even necessarily think that his wagoners were scum, as I would have been very surprised to see him actually get lynched based on the NL suggestion. Slap-on-the-wrist and an overall IGMEOY feeling is about what I expected. And, to be frank, that's more or less what happened.”
-Asks for Thesp’s opinion on SV’s coles notes versions of Andrews posts.
-Votes Andrew stating that SV’s claim is provable.
-Votes Mgm.

[IH]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

A mysterious suggestion. I'm sure the game will get under way just as every other game does.

Patrick answered with this. Not quite sure what he meant by it...

Very well. Unvote

I suppose that I just thought that since we'd been playing a while and still were randomly voting that we weren't getting anywhere. If the town thinks that we can lynch mafia today, though, I'm all for it.

Yeah. You know. The second page.

:Goodposting obv:
AndrewS is leet right? I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum. I doubt he would seriously expect to convince us all to go no lynch, especially when we don't even have an even number.

This does not mean that he did. It was a serious suggestion, or I believed so by the wording, as previously stated.

I'm not a newbie. I was just getting frustrated with the fact that it had been 2 full days and we were no closer to finding anything out than normal. Yes, I understand that random votes are a normal part of the game, but I also understand that it occurs until someone slips up and says something stupid. In an invitational, I assumed that nobody would be so stupid to do such. Apparently I was wrong.

I repeat. It was unprompted, and had only been two days in onto the second page.

I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum.

Interesting. The last time I made that suggestion about someone who had experience and was suggesting No Lynch, I was wrong. My vote's been justified.

= )

vote: AndrewS I don't really care about a no-lynch vote; it's too blatant for me to care particularly. That it seems you weren't expecting FoSes for it concerns me a bit more. Er, I'm confused about that post I just quoted.

(On a fluffy note, let's see what I can spark.

Damn I'm face-to-face!)

Wasn't Ether pushing for my lynch because I also went after AndrewS?

Alright, alright...Guess I'll explain. I voted no lynch and said that in order to get peoples' reactions. Many times, by doing or saying something unexpected, you can learn a lot from simple reactions...And while I haven't gotten anything concrete from it, I do believe that I have sort of a feel for who to watch for. Not enough for a vote, mind you, just sort of a feeling for it.

I hate this reason. As I've stated before (and will again) I always suspect anyone who does something "just to get reactions". This is a ticket out of any thing they've done, and I personally believe it is scummy.

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

The benefits for Andrew.
1.Town takes him up on it. no lynch.
2.Town doesn't take him up on it. Some find him scummy, others call them scummy, he's credited for "starting discussion"

Even worse is if he is scum, he'd have had a chance to converse with his buddies. If they came to what at least SOME of the town would do (vote Andrew), is it not implausible that they could have already come up with a way to throw suspicion on someone else?

Vote: CES for being way too talkative.

Like MGM's first post.

scum.

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

The best he had at this point was a weak metagaming point.

scumscum

Which CES counters effectively.

I play differently in real life games. I didn't rack up my post count by only being active when I'm scum.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

I'm going to break down this post, little by little.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented?

AndrewS Has effectively "Cleared" himself., as he tries to do here. Since no scum have ever done it, and he did it, he must not be scum!

Can you see the logical fallacy here?

As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

Even though voting for a nolynch is usually considered scummy, he does it to see who's lynch happy. Therefore, anyone who voted him for what most would consider a scummy move is scum because they're lynch happy.

= |

I believe CES is the most town at this point, especially with his arguments.

The exchange between him and Andrew in posts 93-96 are filled with CES goodness.

FOS: CES You don't care about my intention? That seems rather interesting to me. If I were to use this as a godfather, that would be an incredibly silly move. As for the reactions that I've gotten, it has sparked discussion and led me to suspect Adele. I was hoping for more, but I can only work on what I am given after making the move.

Some fun Wifomy logic! "If I were to do this as a godfather, that would be silly, so I must not be one! But Adele is still scum"

unvote; vote: IH. Watching Adele and Mgm; I'm not really focused on IH in particular.

I don't know if I'd believe Andrew if I came in to see his reaction before anyone else posted. I do know that I really dislike the responses to him. I thought the original vote was a null tell. Where's the WIFOM? Just what are you people arguing?

Voidie, you've acknowledged this without really touching it: posts 53 and 57. Thoughts?

She thought it was originally a null tell, but earlier she voted him for it? Please correct me if I'm wrong but

FoS:Ether

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

Patrick I never understood why you thought Andrew was more town because of the way the wagon built up.

Posts 109-111 suddenly nails CES with three votes after he says "But he mentioned no lynch, and it'll be fun!"

I especially don't like SV's post 111.

I think the ppl who just shouted Wifom are suspect. Like Ether, there are several ppl I could vote.

Did you not understand the Wifom Logical fallacy that was pointed out? Why did you think they were suspect for voting based on a nolynch/WIFOM fallacy tell?

In my experience, scum tend to suggest "no lynch" more than town do, perhaps because it eliminates an early voting record (sometimes it's hard to go after a non-scum in a game where you're scum), or for who knows what reason. Regardless of justification, it tends to be somethings scum do more frequently (yes, town does it too, but not as often, I believe).

:GoodPosting:

Think what you will....It's your decision. As for Thesp's question, no, I couldn't tell as easily who was willing to jump quickly. Random voting patterns are impossible to discern information from. This was simply my attempt to bring out information on day 1 rather than lynching randomly. If I'm lynched for it, then so be it.

I really don't like all of these things from Andrew Jumping out at me. His Nolynch suggestion, his bad defense full of logical fallacy, the appeals to emotion...... = (

Hmm, I could've sworn I unvoted you. I think I'm messing up my games.

Unvote: CES
Vote: Glork

There's only one situation in which no lynch on day 1 is a viable choice. Now isn't one of them and Glork is experienced enough to know it.

Not paying attention count-1

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

I seriously think there's some kind of fallacy in here. It's just like.... you don't see any case on Andrew, because of the way his wagon built up and he couldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch, so it's just as good as if he didn't....

Andrew knows the ppl he is playing with, and he is semi experienced. I doubt he thought he could push a no lynch agenda through. As for the wagon, I made it clear that I thought there was oppotunistic scum on it. It felt more like going for an easy lynch than bussing a scumbuddy.

CES says he only had 400 something posts. Going with a long Hiatus from who knows how long, and I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never played with him before the last month or so...

Also, if you'll notice, Patrick apparently doesn't think that any town were on the Andrew wagon. His two options are Opportunistic scum and Bussing. What about Town hopping on?

Thesp's post 151 is good.

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make? While it may not be that convincing if I am not a given, I am simply trying to explain my thought processes.

So you say. This cannot be proven to us though.

Post 160 is also good by Thesp.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

Not paying attention count-2.

I am able to post once or twice per game per real life day.

So far this game has been running for 3 days (not including today).
I have only not posted in the last two days because I have been trying to take in everything that has been said.

I will FOS: AndrewS though.
I would say more, I had actually planned to, but then I read Thesp's latest comment and just like MGM thought "Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself". So yeah, as odd as it sounds, and as hard as it feals to say.... I currently agree with Thesp.....

If you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and wash my mouth out with some soap...

I don't see a post per day or so. = |

If anyone has any questions that I can answer, I would be more than willing to. Otherwise, I have posted my story, everything that I know to post. When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

More appeals to emotion.

Certainly. CES, Adele and Thesp.

I'm going to sum up Andrew's reasoning.

CES for being CES-y and joking around for saying "lets lynch"
Adele for his fallable argument of anyone voting him for doing a scummy thing is probably scum because they're lynch happy.
Thesp for all that omgus-ee goodness.

The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what? (I don't mind Thesp's statistics argument, incidentally, and it even rings a bell, but I don't feel it's good enough for a lynch.)

So... you don't think that Andrew was scummy because town wouldn't go for a nolynch?

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this is an invitational. We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or sleep with). Off the top of my head, I don't remember even newbie games on 'Scum where an unoptimal no-lynch agenda actually got through. It in no way made Andrew more town; just, I didn't find it scummy. (Now, his own behavior after the vote...well, if his wagon didn't go ridiculous, I'd probably still be on it.)

I know we know what we're doing.... but you cannot convince me that it was not serious. Since it's an invitational, it makes me even more convinced. There's no newbies to suggest it. How would experienced players take it coming from

another experienced player

? Andrew didn't know that.

Many of the people who placed votes on him did so for bullshit reasons. IH, can you explain how a vote for no-lynch equates to an actual no-lynch? Seems pretty harmless to me. Where specifically was the WIFOM you were talking about?

...."Can you explain how a vote for a nolynch equates to an actual nolynch? Seems Harmless"
"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

not paying attention count-3

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

Though he was on both of them I believe.....

I'm not really feeling the CES wagon.
Unvote, Vote: IH
He just seems to be cruising along too easily on this AndrewS thing, and I don't like his reasons. I don't see much curiosity from him. Also, the sucking up to Thesp... I've seen that before.

MGM wrote:
I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

This caught my interest. Are you saying that Andrew bandwagoners have made themselves into easy targets for oppotunistic scum? Are you going to look at IH's play with a straight face and tell me that he isn't oppotunistic scum? >_>

I was sucking up to Thesp... for agreeing with his reasoning? Bullshit. There's not much curiosity to be had when I see something scummy my friend. Sorry that I'm "opportunistic scum" for voting for/going after someone who is scummy to me.

I'm not going to say anything about IH's play before checking his posts.

As for the quote. I don't say the bandwagoners made themeselves into eassy targets. That would imply the wrong causal relationship. I'm saying they're not opportunistic for bandwagoning, but that the people attacking them for their bandwagoning are the opportunistic scum.

What did you think of my play by the way? You kind of ignored Patrick's question.

I think you are missing the whole point of the argument, as this is entirely mis-stated. The question is not, "Could this affect the lynch for the day?", it's "Why is he voting No Lynch?" His motivations are not necessarily equivalent with the expected outcome.

Truth. Truth.

TRUTH

Thesp: You have a problem in your logic: You assume that my intentions follow my vote, and that I intended for the town to go no lynch. I did not. I did want to see reactions. As such, we have more information now than we would have normally for a day 1 lynch. It won't be entirely random. That was my goal, really. But, no, I never truly intended the town to go no lynch.

mmmm. You assume we know that you're not lying scum worming their way out.

Glork doing the same when he knew it was a stupid move is scummier.

Not paying attention count-4

Thesp, I could say the same about you. If I was scum, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to convince town to go no lynch, what would I profit from suggesting it? If you accept the fact that I did not expect the town to go no lynch, you must logically assume that I had another reason for voting it. What do you suppose that reason was? Saying it is because I am mafia makes no sense, because if I do not expect the town to go no lynch, and it does not, it merely makes me a target. Saying it was to attract attention to myself then clear myself is absolutely ludicrous. There is no defensible way that you can say that you thought that I didn't believe the town would go no lynch yet am still mafia.

Err, actually there is, and the argument's been out on the table. Which means we still do not

know

of your true intention until you are confirmed innocent, which won't happen until we're down to one scum and a cop claims, or you're dead.

igmeoy:Thesp... Even though you're strongly supporting an Andrew lynch, I don't like how you're kind of... turning it into something else.

I still maintain that with this being invitational only, Andrew didn't know how a nolynch suggestion would go. I mostly believe this because of the scummy defense which... doesn't look to good for him.

This was stupid on my part. I most definitely Misread Thesp's posts at the time.

Mod whenever you get back can you prod MBL for us please?
I agree with what Thesp said about Nightfalls last post. I could see a link between the two of them because Nightfall attacks him on several points then only FoSes him, then votes Ether. Misrepresents her too. Looking at Ether's last post I didn't get the vibe of "AndrewS can do no wrong".

err..... how couldn't you?

Not really, IH. Scum will staunchly defend townies at time to make themselves look good. In fact, if Ether turns up scum, at this point, I'd be more inclined to believe that AndrewS is pro-town.

Eh, I'm still not convinced on this.
I'm kind of neutral on MBL's post 206.
[quote="MGM"[I am reading the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not fallible. Just like anyone else I'm prone to forgetting and overlooking stuff. If you can't agree to that, I could say you're not reading the thread too. I had to repeat a question in post 191 because you failed the answer it earlier. Either you didn't read it, or you purposely choose not to answer a question directed at you. Neither is a particular townish reaction.

We disagree about each other's actions. That doesn't mean that the posts of either of us is less intelligent than the other. We're in an invitational, so we can assume we're both good enough players. What you said is a logical fallacy according to the MafiaWiki http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... the_Person

Not paying attention count-5
Eh, I'm pretty neutral on Patrick's post 210, but he doesn't seem to be seeing a lot of things that seem to jump out.
Even though I don't agree with post 224 from Zind, I think it's townish.
I like Nightfalls post 248.
Post 253, Ether still "doesn't see" the wifom logic.
The dice wagon starts on 260. It goes Glork, MBL, Adele, Zindy in consecutive posts.
10 posts later CES hops on.

FOS:MBL, Adele

I would FoS Zindy, but he gave valid reasons that satisfied me.

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what Mgm at least attacked as WIFOM, and he was the first. I in no way believe that an attempt to get people arguing prevents the instigator from being scum--but a serious push for a no-lynch is as unlikely as Andrew said it was, and this is what was attacked.

Speaking of which, Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy. Hey, Thesp--what was your alternate theory?

....So... one person's reason invalidates the whole argument?
Posts 291 and 292 make me laugh = ).
Don't like MBLs 314

SV: Placing the last vote would be bad for me regardless: If the lynched was scum, it would look like bussing. If the lynched was town, it would be me trying to get rid of townies. I just want to make sure that we do lynch someone before the deadline.

Which is awesome when several people do that. In fact, it makes it hard for someone to get to the point of hammertization when people hold back their votes. I'm adding this to the "list of crap spewed forth from the mouth of AndrewS this game" tally.

LAWL

Glork, in post 344, you say you think that SV's paraphrases are a bit propogandic and falsely incriminating. What do you think of it now with a vig claim out?

Perhaps even literally.

My ideal vigging scenario (I know you're all on tenterhooks ) would be if SV took town input, picked out about 3 solid targets (and told us who, possibly) and random.org'd between them. Randomisation is a valid methodology in Game Theory precisely because of WIFOM issues (although the textbooks don't call it that), and I'm always uncomfortable playing stone-paper-scissors if I don't even know who the opponent is.

I'll try to pick a better target for my vote today - if not, I'll try to present a valid reason for failing. I may well be unable to post over the weekend, so please excuse that, but I'll certainly be back Monday. I'm not lurking.

When I look at this post all I can think is.... "protecting scum buddy by randomising with townies"

Um, Adele, I don't see how picking 3 targets rather than 1 would in any way be a boon to the town. It's not like she's a cop, her target is hardly influence the scum's nightkill. Picking 3 targets would only make the pool of possible investigations smaller.

QFT

I still find this worrying. On a dice roll you go along and ask someone to claim. It seems strange that you'd be 'putting together' a case only after she's virtually confirmed. I would have thought you need a case before you vote.

Not with a deadline. If you want to, you can do a meta on me, as this is one thing I almost ALWAYS do at a deadline announcement is to vote for the highest wagon.

unvote, vote:AndrewS

for all those logical fallacies that was never settled and such.

FoS:Ether

Igmeoy:Mgm

[IH]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

A mysterious suggestion. I'm sure the game will get under way just as every other game does.

Patrick answered with this. Not quite sure what he meant by it...

Very well. Unvote

I suppose that I just thought that since we'd been playing a while and still were randomly voting that we weren't getting anywhere. If the town thinks that we can lynch mafia today, though, I'm all for it.

Yeah. You know. The second page.

:Goodposting obv:
AndrewS is leet right? I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum. I doubt he would seriously expect to convince us all to go no lynch, especially when we don't even have an even number.

This does not mean that he did. It was a serious suggestion, or I believed so by the wording, as previously stated.

I'm not a newbie. I was just getting frustrated with the fact that it had been 2 full days and we were no closer to finding anything out than normal. Yes, I understand that random votes are a normal part of the game, but I also understand that it occurs until someone slips up and says something stupid. In an invitational, I assumed that nobody would be so stupid to do such. Apparently I was wrong.

I repeat. It was unprompted, and had only been two days in onto the second page.

I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum.

Interesting. The last time I made that suggestion about someone who had experience and was suggesting No Lynch, I was wrong. My vote's been justified.

= )

vote: AndrewS I don't really care about a no-lynch vote; it's too blatant for me to care particularly. That it seems you weren't expecting FoSes for it concerns me a bit more. Er, I'm confused about that post I just quoted.

(On a fluffy note, let's see what I can spark.

Damn I'm face-to-face!)

Wasn't Ether pushing for my lynch because I also went after AndrewS?

Alright, alright...Guess I'll explain. I voted no lynch and said that in order to get peoples' reactions. Many times, by doing or saying something unexpected, you can learn a lot from simple reactions...And while I haven't gotten anything concrete from it, I do believe that I have sort of a feel for who to watch for. Not enough for a vote, mind you, just sort of a feeling for it.

I hate this reason. As I've stated before (and will again) I always suspect anyone who does something "just to get reactions". This is a ticket out of any thing they've done, and I personally believe it is scummy.

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

The benefits for Andrew.
1.Town takes him up on it. no lynch.
2.Town doesn't take him up on it. Some find him scummy, others call them scummy, he's credited for "starting discussion"

Even worse is if he is scum, he'd have had a chance to converse with his buddies. If they came to what at least SOME of the town would do (vote Andrew), is it not implausible that they could have already come up with a way to throw suspicion on someone else?

Vote: CES for being way too talkative.

Like MGM's first post.

scum.

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

The best he had at this point was a weak metagaming point.

scumscum

Which CES counters effectively.

I play differently in real life games. I didn't rack up my post count by only being active when I'm scum.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

I'm going to break down this post, little by little.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented?

AndrewS Has effectively "Cleared" himself., as he tries to do here. Since no scum have ever done it, and he did it, he must not be scum!

Can you see the logical fallacy here?

As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

Even though voting for a nolynch is usually considered scummy, he does it to see who's lynch happy. Therefore, anyone who voted him for what most would consider a scummy move is scum because they're lynch happy.

= |

I believe CES is the most town at this point, especially with his arguments.

The exchange between him and Andrew in posts 93-96 are filled with CES goodness.

FOS: CES You don't care about my intention? That seems rather interesting to me. If I were to use this as a godfather, that would be an incredibly silly move. As for the reactions that I've gotten, it has sparked discussion and led me to suspect Adele. I was hoping for more, but I can only work on what I am given after making the move.

Some fun Wifomy logic! "If I were to do this as a godfather, that would be silly, so I must not be one! But Adele is still scum"

unvote; vote: IH. Watching Adele and Mgm; I'm not really focused on IH in particular.

I don't know if I'd believe Andrew if I came in to see his reaction before anyone else posted. I do know that I really dislike the responses to him. I thought the original vote was a null tell. Where's the WIFOM? Just what are you people arguing?

Voidie, you've acknowledged this without really touching it: posts 53 and 57. Thoughts?

She thought it was originally a null tell, but earlier she voted him for it? Please correct me if I'm wrong but

FoS:Ether

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

Patrick I never understood why you thought Andrew was more town because of the way the wagon built up.

Posts 109-111 suddenly nails CES with three votes after he says "But he mentioned no lynch, and it'll be fun!"

I especially don't like SV's post 111.

I think the ppl who just shouted Wifom are suspect. Like Ether, there are several ppl I could vote.

Did you not understand the Wifom Logical fallacy that was pointed out? Why did you think they were suspect for voting based on a nolynch/WIFOM fallacy tell?

In my experience, scum tend to suggest "no lynch" more than town do, perhaps because it eliminates an early voting record (sometimes it's hard to go after a non-scum in a game where you're scum), or for who knows what reason. Regardless of justification, it tends to be somethings scum do more frequently (yes, town does it too, but not as often, I believe).

:GoodPosting:

Think what you will....It's your decision. As for Thesp's question, no, I couldn't tell as easily who was willing to jump quickly. Random voting patterns are impossible to discern information from. This was simply my attempt to bring out information on day 1 rather than lynching randomly. If I'm lynched for it, then so be it.

I really don't like all of these things from Andrew Jumping out at me. His Nolynch suggestion, his bad defense full of logical fallacy, the appeals to emotion...... = (

Hmm, I could've sworn I unvoted you. I think I'm messing up my games.

Unvote: CES
Vote: Glork

There's only one situation in which no lynch on day 1 is a viable choice. Now isn't one of them and Glork is experienced enough to know it.

Not paying attention count-1

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

I seriously think there's some kind of fallacy in here. It's just like.... you don't see any case on Andrew, because of the way his wagon built up and he couldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch, so it's just as good as if he didn't....

Andrew knows the ppl he is playing with, and he is semi experienced. I doubt he thought he could push a no lynch agenda through. As for the wagon, I made it clear that I thought there was oppotunistic scum on it. It felt more like going for an easy lynch than bussing a scumbuddy.

CES says he only had 400 something posts. Going with a long Hiatus from who knows how long, and I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never played with him before the last month or so...

Also, if you'll notice, Patrick apparently doesn't think that any town were on the Andrew wagon. His two options are Opportunistic scum and Bussing. What about Town hopping on?

Thesp's post 151 is good.

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make? While it may not be that convincing if I am not a given, I am simply trying to explain my thought processes.

So you say. This cannot be proven to us though.

Post 160 is also good by Thesp.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

Not paying attention count-2.

I am able to post once or twice per game per real life day.

So far this game has been running for 3 days (not including today).
I have only not posted in the last two days because I have been trying to take in everything that has been said.

I will FOS: AndrewS though.
I would say more, I had actually planned to, but then I read Thesp's latest comment and just like MGM thought "Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself". So yeah, as odd as it sounds, and as hard as it feals to say.... I currently agree with Thesp.....

If you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and wash my mouth out with some soap...

I don't see a post per day or so. = |

If anyone has any questions that I can answer, I would be more than willing to. Otherwise, I have posted my story, everything that I know to post. When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

More appeals to emotion.

Certainly. CES, Adele and Thesp.

I'm going to sum up Andrew's reasoning.

CES for being CES-y and joking around for saying "lets lynch"
Adele for his fallable argument of anyone voting him for doing a scummy thing is probably scum because they're lynch happy.
Thesp for all that omgus-ee goodness.

The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what? (I don't mind Thesp's statistics argument, incidentally, and it even rings a bell, but I don't feel it's good enough for a lynch.)

So... you don't think that Andrew was scummy because town wouldn't go for a nolynch?

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this is an invitational. We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or sleep with). Off the top of my head, I don't remember even newbie games on 'Scum where an unoptimal no-lynch agenda actually got through. It in no way made Andrew more town; just, I didn't find it scummy. (Now, his own behavior after the vote...well, if his wagon didn't go ridiculous, I'd probably still be on it.)

I know we know what we're doing.... but you cannot convince me that it was not serious. Since it's an invitational, it makes me even more convinced. There's no newbies to suggest it. How would experienced players take it coming from

another experienced player

? Andrew didn't know that.

Many of the people who placed votes on him did so for bullshit reasons. IH, can you explain how a vote for no-lynch equates to an actual no-lynch? Seems pretty harmless to me. Where specifically was the WIFOM you were talking about?

...."Can you explain how a vote for a nolynch equates to an actual nolynch? Seems Harmless"
"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

not paying attention count-3

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

Though he was on both of them I believe.....

I'm not really feeling the CES wagon.
Unvote, Vote: IH
He just seems to be cruising along too easily on this AndrewS thing, and I don't like his reasons. I don't see much curiosity from him. Also, the sucking up to Thesp... I've seen that before.

MGM wrote:
I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

This caught my interest. Are you saying that Andrew bandwagoners have made themselves into easy targets for oppotunistic scum? Are you going to look at IH's play with a straight face and tell me that he isn't oppotunistic scum? >_>

I was sucking up to Thesp... for agreeing with his reasoning? Bullshit. There's not much curiosity to be had when I see something scummy my friend. Sorry that I'm "opportunistic scum" for voting for/going after someone who is scummy to me.

I'm not going to say anything about IH's play before checking his posts.

As for the quote. I don't say the bandwagoners made themeselves into eassy targets. That would imply the wrong causal relationship. I'm saying they're not opportunistic for bandwagoning, but that the people attacking them for their bandwagoning are the opportunistic scum.

What did you think of my play by the way? You kind of ignored Patrick's question.

I think you are missing the whole point of the argument, as this is entirely mis-stated. The question is not, "Could this affect the lynch for the day?", it's "Why is he voting No Lynch?" His motivations are not necessarily equivalent with the expected outcome.

Truth. Truth.

TRUTH

Thesp: You have a problem in your logic: You assume that my intentions follow my vote, and that I intended for the town to go no lynch. I did not. I did want to see reactions. As such, we have more information now than we would have normally for a day 1 lynch. It won't be entirely random. That was my goal, really. But, no, I never truly intended the town to go no lynch.

mmmm. You assume we know that you're not lying scum worming their way out.

Glork doing the same when he knew it was a stupid move is scummier.

Not paying attention count-4

Thesp, I could say the same about you. If I was scum, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to convince town to go no lynch, what would I profit from suggesting it? If you accept the fact that I did not expect the town to go no lynch, you must logically assume that I had another reason for voting it. What do you suppose that reason was? Saying it is because I am mafia makes no sense, because if I do not expect the town to go no lynch, and it does not, it merely makes me a target. Saying it was to attract attention to myself then clear myself is absolutely ludicrous. There is no defensible way that you can say that you thought that I didn't believe the town would go no lynch yet am still mafia.

Err, actually there is, and the argument's been out on the table. Which means we still do not

know

of your true intention until you are confirmed innocent, which won't happen until we're down to one scum and a cop claims, or you're dead.

igmeoy:Thesp... Even though you're strongly supporting an Andrew lynch, I don't like how you're kind of... turning it into something else.

I still maintain that with this being invitational only, Andrew didn't know how a nolynch suggestion would go. I mostly believe this because of the scummy defense which... doesn't look to good for him.

This was stupid on my part. I most definitely Misread Thesp's posts at the time.

Mod whenever you get back can you prod MBL for us please?
I agree with what Thesp said about Nightfalls last post. I could see a link between the two of them because Nightfall attacks him on several points then only FoSes him, then votes Ether. Misrepresents her too. Looking at Ether's last post I didn't get the vibe of "AndrewS can do no wrong".

err..... how couldn't you?

Not really, IH. Scum will staunchly defend townies at time to make themselves look good. In fact, if Ether turns up scum, at this point, I'd be more inclined to believe that AndrewS is pro-town.

Eh, I'm still not convinced on this.
I'm kind of neutral on MBL's post 206.

I am reading the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not fallible. Just like anyone else I'm prone to forgetting and overlooking stuff. If you can't agree to that, I could say you're not reading the thread too. I had to repeat a question in post 191 because you failed the answer it earlier. Either you didn't read it, or you purposely choose not to answer a question directed at you. Neither is a particular townish reaction.

We disagree about each other's actions. That doesn't mean that the posts of either of us is less intelligent than the other. We're in an invitational, so we can assume we're both good enough players. What you said is a logical fallacy according to the MafiaWiki http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... the_Person

Not paying attention count-5
Eh, I'm pretty neutral on Patrick's post 210, but he doesn't seem to be seeing a lot of things that seem to jump out.
Even though I don't agree with post 224 from Zind, I think it's townish.
I like Nightfalls post 248.
Post 253, Ether still "doesn't see" the wifom logic.
The dice wagon starts on 260. It goes Glork, MBL, Adele, Zindy in consecutive posts.
10 posts later CES hops on.

FOS:MBL, Adele

I would FoS Zindy, but he gave valid reasons that satisfied me.

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what Mgm at least attacked as WIFOM, and he was the first. I in no way believe that an attempt to get people arguing prevents the instigator from being scum--but a serious push for a no-lynch is as unlikely as Andrew said it was, and this is what was attacked.

Speaking of which, Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy. Hey, Thesp--what was your alternate theory?

....So... one person's reason invalidates the whole argument?
Posts 291 and 292 make me laugh = ).
Don't like MBLs 314

SV: Placing the last vote would be bad for me regardless: If the lynched was scum, it would look like bussing. If the lynched was town, it would be me trying to get rid of townies. I just want to make sure that we do lynch someone before the deadline.

Which is awesome when several people do that. In fact, it makes it hard for someone to get to the point of hammertization when people hold back their votes. I'm adding this to the "list of crap spewed forth from the mouth of AndrewS this game" tally.

LAWL

Glork, in post 344, you say you think that SV's paraphrases are a bit propogandic and falsely incriminating. What do you think of it now with a vig claim out?

Perhaps even literally.

My ideal vigging scenario (I know you're all on tenterhooks ) would be if SV took town input, picked out about 3 solid targets (and told us who, possibly) and random.org'd between them. Randomisation is a valid methodology in Game Theory precisely because of WIFOM issues (although the textbooks don't call it that), and I'm always uncomfortable playing stone-paper-scissors if I don't even know who the opponent is.

I'll try to pick a better target for my vote today - if not, I'll try to present a valid reason for failing. I may well be unable to post over the weekend, so please excuse that, but I'll certainly be back Monday. I'm not lurking.

When I look at this post all I can think is.... "protecting scum buddy by randomising with townies"

Um, Adele, I don't see how picking 3 targets rather than 1 would in any way be a boon to the town. It's not like she's a cop, her target is hardly influence the scum's nightkill. Picking 3 targets would only make the pool of possible investigations smaller.

QFT

I still find this worrying. On a dice roll you go along and ask someone to claim. It seems strange that you'd be 'putting together' a case only after she's virtually confirmed. I would have thought you need a case before you vote.

Not with a deadline. If you want to, you can do a meta on me, as this is one thing I almost ALWAYS do at a deadline announcement is to vote for the highest wagon.

unvote, vote:AndrewS

for all those logical fallacies that was never settled and such.

FoS:Ether

Igmeoy:Mgm

[IH]

Mod:

I had to correct the quotes if you couldn't see, would you please delete post 404? 405 is corrected.

[Ether]

zzz.

Or Ether is going for an IH lynch for no reason again? = )

I resent this.

Seems pointless to stay on IH at this point.

unvote; vote: Nightfall

I really don't see any point whatsoever to his new posting style, and I probably still wouldn't if I was at the height of my mental health. A few paragraphs of personal opinion, please; I trust the filter for the rest. (I'm really not in the mood to read IH's post, either, but I suppose I'll have to. Voidie, thanks in advance.)

MBL: yeah. "Haven't the slightest idea" summed the first post up more accurately. Over two days (consecutive posts as a measure alone is silly; I'm a filthy shameless lurker), I thought about this and changed my mind. (*shrug*) What does "Hmm" imply?

She thought it was originally a null tell, but earlier she voted him for it? Please correct me if I'm wrong but

FoS:Ether

I voted him for backing down and getting all submissive when he took flak for it. I then unvoted because my fellow wagoners started getting

real

scummy.

"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

Someone who votes for a confirmed innocent is obviously just fucking around; the confirmed innocent lynch would never actually get through. What's wrong?

So... you don't think that Andrew was scummy because town wouldn't go for a nolynch?

For that in particular, I do not. And the response to his vote was definitely a point in his favor.

(Aside from that, I don't really like Andrew's behavior and I'd hammer him at deadline if it came to it. There are a lot of wagoners, and I'm finding it hard to pick out the difference between scummy and stupid: IH's attack did help me with Mgm. I like the conspiracy theories on Andrew; if he makes it past today, I'll be more eager to lynch him if some of his theoretical partners come up scum.)

[Nightfall]

"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

Someone who votes for a confirmed innocent is obviously just fucking around; the confirmed innocent lynch would never actually get through. What's wrong?

???
So, in theory if I said :
"Hey everyone, lets out all of our power roles so that scum could pick them off easily"
... That would not be seen as scummy for the reason that it would never happen?

[Nightfall]

unvote; vote: Nightfall

I really don't see any point whatsoever to his new posting style, and I probably still wouldn't if I was at the height of my mental health.

I was going to list peoples actions before I got to my points. If you dont care for it though, I'll just go streight to my point the next time...

[Zindaras]

IH is getting vigged, Zindy, so why don't you hop on over to the AndrewSwagon.

This is not a good argument to vote Andrew. He's not dead yet, so he can be voted for. Voidybuns can always pick a different target.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You want IH dead? Well, he's going to be. Voting for him at this stage is dumb and because of the deadline I'd even call an anti-town action.

[Patrick]

A mysterious suggestion. I'm sure the game will get under way just as every other game does.

Patrick answered with this. Not quite sure what he meant by it...

This is not a hard post to understand. He said that he thought the game wasn't really getting anywhere. I said that the game will get under way just as any other would. And that a no lynch suggestion is mysterious.

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

The benefits for Andrew.
1.Town takes him up on it. no lynch.
2.Town doesn't take him up on it. Some find him scummy, others call them scummy, he's credited for "starting discussion"

Even worse is if he is scum, he'd have had a chance to converse with his buddies. If they came to what at least SOME of the town would do (vote Andrew), is it not implausible that they could have already come up with a way to throw suspicion on someone else?

1. is not true. As has been explained multiple times, the town would never go for a no lynch. Never. Zero chance.
How is number 2 a benefit for Andrew? Some ppl find his suggestion silly, some jump and vote for him. Is that what you call a good start for him if he's scum? I don't think anyone actually said that as a result of his suggestion he looks more pro town. He managed to attract a whole load of bad attention to himself.

Patrick I never understood why you thought Andrew was more town because of the way the wagon built up.

You've never looked at a wagon and decided it was scum propelled? I'm less sure about it now, doesn't mean I have to like the wagon though.

Did you not understand the Wifom Logical fallacy that was pointed out? Why did you think they were suspect for voting based on a nolynch/WIFOM fallacy tell?

I also didn't like some of the defences he used. I'm uncertain how strong a tell the fallacy there is. The no lynch suggestion didn't so much for me as I said before. As for the ppl who just said wifom, it felt like an easy autopilto way to hop onto the train with little effort and little looking into his intentions.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

I seriously think there's some kind of fallacy in here. It's just like.... you don't see any case on Andrew, because of the way his wagon built up and he couldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch, so it's just as good as if he didn't....

Not that I don't see anything at all against Andrew, just that the wagon seemed to get excessive. As for suggesting no lynch, it's not just the same as if he didn't. It's provided us with the bulk of our discussion today. It's shown Andrew using some dodgy defences. It's shown us who wagons and give reasons, and who just wagons. And it's shown us who sits on the side. Before you say this, no I'm not saying he looks more pro town just for founding most of this discussion.

CES says he only had 400 something posts. Going with a long Hiatus from who knows how long, and I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never played with him before the last month or so...

Also, if you'll notice, Patrick apparently doesn't think that any town were on the Andrew wagon. His two options are Opportunistic scum and Bussing. What about Town hopping on?

True he's been away for ages. But he knows it's an invitational. Invitational = decent players who would not follow a crap strategy of no lynching on day 1.
As for your second point, I'm fairly sure there has to be some town on the wagon, at different points. Since there's only 3 scum, that's pretty obvious. And if Andrew is scum himself, there could only be 2 scum on it max.

I was sucking up to Thesp... for agreeing with his reasoning? Bullshit. There's not much curiosity to be had when I see something scummy my friend. Sorry that I'm "opportunistic scum" for voting for/going after someone who is scummy to me.

I've seen you do it as scum. It's not impossible by any stretch. Obviously it's a the manner in which you did it, not just that you agreed with his reasoning. And after being called on it, you gave him a really pointless igmeoy.

Mod whenever you get back can you prod MBL for us please?
I agree with what Thesp said about Nightfalls last post. I could see a link between the two of them because Nightfall attacks him on several points then only FoSes him, then votes Ether. Misrepresents her too. Looking at Ether's last post I didn't get the vibe of "AndrewS can do no wrong".

err..... how couldn't you?

Because in that post she critisises some of the things he did.

I feel slightly better about you after seeing you actually backing up your thinking more, though I disagree with much of it.

[Patrick]

I've read MgM's posts and some of the accusations against him. He's made some odd posts, and hasn't paid attention at times. As I noted before his attack on Glork was strange and felt like he was sticking to a rigid policy of just voting anyone suggesting no lynch. I don't know, there seems to be less going against him that I had first thought. I'm not sure I find him any worse than ppl like Adele or CDB. I'm unsure of how much weight to put into the apparent slip pointed out by MBL, where he apparently assumes the township of Glork and Andrew. I used to think these tells were reliable, but in some games I've seen pro town players make them, just by wording awkwardly.

CDB has hardly said anything all game and what he has said is not that insightful. Adele also hasn't done too much. She voted AndrewS, then jumped off the wagon with a few critisisms of him, then voted spectrumvoid with no reason given, then suggests a suboptimal vigging strategy. I'm fairly underwhelmed.

[Thesp]

Thesp, why haven't you expressed an opinion on MGM? His play's noteworthy.

Sorry, I saw one thing and defaulted my thinking of him to being town, lemme check...

Hmm. I'm fairly uncertain on him, and I don't find him nearly as exciting a candidate as a number of other people. Confused players tend to be townies, and I only have slight caveat against this. I'm also still not convinced spectrumvoid ought to commit to her target now, as AndrewS's alignment makes a big difference on everyone's alignment, and I'd be fine if she changed her mind.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I'm also still not convinced spectrumvoid ought to commit to her target now, as AndrewS's alignment makes a big difference on everyone's alignment, and I'd be fine if she changed her mind.

I wouldn't be opposed to conditional vig targets.

[IH]

Also, I'd like to comment on Glork. He hardly appeared in my PBP of all.... because there's been almost nothing from him.

Order of noncontributing

(I believe)
CDB
Frtiz
SV
Glork
Nightfall

= |

[spectrumvoid]

I have till Tuesday to decide. I'll probably vig IH at this point though. If AndrewS turns out town, I'll vig his biggest pusher.

[Zindaras]

If I'm reading the thread correctly, there are over two days left until the deadline. To call it anti-town because a vig announced that IH was her target next night is bull.

[Mgm]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

First he uses the newbie logic that the lynch will most likely hit town, then he suddenly changes and says he tried to promote discussion. Changing your reasoning for a vote is suspicious, especially when you use it against others later on. This together with Nightfall's summary of Andrew's action makes me believe he's a prime lynch candidate.

Which leads me to

FOS: Ether

. What's wrong with Nightfall's posts? They make perfect sense to me.

[IH]

Not paying attention count-6.

= ) She meant that he's not really posting too much content (Though after rereading I have seen some) Just a summary of posts. In other words, he looks like he's giving information, but is just doing the filter (Display posts from all users) does the same exact thing.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

If I'm reading the thread correctly, there are over two days left until the deadline. To call it anti-town because a vig announced that IH was her target next night is bull.

It's anti-town, because it can only lead to rushed decisions. Your vote is not in any way useful.

[Thesp]

If I'm reading the thread correctly, there are over two days left until the deadline. To call it anti-town because a vig announced that IH was her target next night is bull.

It's anti-town, because it can only lead to rushed decisions. Your vote is not in any way useful.

Agreed. You might as well vote for no one, which woud be just as unhelpful.

[Nightfall]

I was planning on doing a summery of everyones posts and explain what I found most scummy.

Sorry if I was wanting to put it all in one post so that people could see it easier IH. I was going to writes what I had thought about everyones actions after I had put everything they posted in order. I was in a way trying to show that I was following along with the posts people make.

[Zindaras]

I feel that the AndrewS lynch will not lead to the death of scum, so I will vote whatever other lynch I feel is more likely to lead to scum death I wish. I do not doubt that voidybuns has a backup target. To simply state that we cannot vote someone who is announced as vig target for next night is bull.