Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Erg0]

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

Policy lynch!

[Erg0]

Well I can understand why

you

would think that.

[Erg0]

Unvote, Vote: Neo-Viper9

[Erg0]

Unvote: Battle Mage

Erg0, any reasoning behind your vote for me?

"Look at me everybody, I'm not reacting!"

[Erg0]

I also see merit in Yos2's position, but I like my vote where it is for now.

[Erg0]

I thought Peers was talking about himself in that quote? You want him to provide examples of himself going hyperdefensive?

[Erg0]

I'm glad we don't have a deadline right now. I'd have to vote for Sikario8 out of self-defense, and that's a horrible reason to vote for someone (well, not -horrible-, but there's better).

I really don't like this post, I'm not sure why Peers feels the need to point out that he's not doing something scummy, or raise the subject of a deadline at all. It's not as black and white as Albert makes it out to be, but I certainly think it's a scummy post in its own right.

Unvote, Vote: Peers

IGMEOY, Neo-Viper.

[Erg0]

I concur with Yosarian2.

[Erg0]

Interestingly enough, several of the people who are voting for me are defending Sikario. Your argument puts me in a position where, to appear less scummy to you, I must appear more scummy to them.

I hate that sentance there. Sounds like you're more worried about how your vote makes you look, instead of how you can use your vote to find scum.

I have seven votes on me and nobody has yet to give a reason why they're there. Of course I'm worried about how my vote makes me look. If I get this many votes for no reason, I'll be lynched if I do anything that could be taken the wrong way. I'd love to find scum, believe me, it would get the pressure off me (Or at the very least, force people to give a goddamn reason...)

You only had six votes on you when you said that. I can't speak for others, but I certainly gave a reason for my vote.

You may well be right in being worried, but voicing it in the thread just makes you look like you're making excuses for not voting, especially with the irrelevant comment about deadlines.

[Erg0]

Erm, Albert, why do you suppose i would be incredibly desperate to take my vote off Peers, when i had had my vote on him for a while? I mean, if i was 'desperate to derail a lynch on Peers', why do you suppose i started a BW on him in the first place? Rolling Eyes

Early distancing explains the early vote, followed by the fear of losing a scumbuddy. That clarifies why you used a terrible excuse to unvote him.

Thats very weak. I mean, you think i would waste effort distancing from a scumbuddy, only to hop immediately to their defence if they got near a lynch? kinda defeats the object of distancing in the first place, no?

This is a very poor defence, it's entirely possible that you made your initial vote not expecting of the wagon to grow to the size that it did. There's distancing and then there's bussing - I'd say you're a candidate for the first, but didn't want to go through with the second.

TS's unvote/revote looks like a simple reading comprehension error to me. I don't see what your vote is going to achieve there - trying to start the wagon you

really

want?

Also, how on earth, after the last couple of pages, does Sikario still have more votes than Peers?

[Erg0]

Excellent rejoinder. I like how you managed to buddy up to every single potential voter in a single post.

[Erg0]

This is a very poor defence, it's entirely possible that you made your initial vote not expecting of the wagon to grow to the size that it did. There's distancing and then there's bussing - I'd say you're a candidate for the first, but didn't want to go through with the second.

I'd say you should know my play better than this by now. Please refer to 1 game, of the numerous i have shared with you, in which, as scum, i have distanced from my scumbuddy, but then made a point of derailing their wagon when it became inevitable that they would be lynched.

Past behaviour is indicative of future performance, but if you played exactly the same way in every game as scum then you'd be a pretty crappy player. Besides, Peers' lynch is hardly inevitable, he still isn't even the leading vote getter.

TS's unvote/revote looks like a simple reading comprehension error to me. I don't see what your vote is going to achieve there - trying to start the wagon you

really

want?

I don't see what you're getting at here. Why would a wagon on TS be inherently scummy, whereas bandwagonning newbs-1 of whom is perhaps more worthy of the title 'Jester' than i am, is explicitly protown.?

I just don't think the case on TS is any good. Voting on a bad case isn't pro-town regardless of relativism.

[Erg0]

I, on the other hand, think that her point on MoS's case was somewhat valid.

Peers hasn't done much to change my mind, but I want to ask this directly.

Peers: are you just trying really hard to act casual in order to avoid your apparent "flipping out under pressure" meta? If so, you'd be much better off being useful rather than being cool.

[Erg0]

I'm trying to use the same technique A.B.R. uses and be scummy as hell, just in an asshole way and not in a scum way. It seems to work for him. Be too hated to waste a NK on, but not quite scummy enough to lynch. Altho I've yet to resort to Jester-speculation and Vig-direction.

I notice that you're also ignoring my advice to try and be more useful. Vote stays.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: get good before you try to get clever.

[Erg0]

Hey, I remember you! Weren't you scum?

[Erg0]

I... don't really get it. MoS's stance on TS is surprising to me as I haven't seen it from him before, even in a game (ongoing) that we were all in recently. I'm on the verge of disregarding this whole thing as general weirdness, but there's something about this situation that makes me feel like there's more to it.

Filing this under "W for Wacky" at present.

[Erg0]

uh...that's my case. only this game. i don't know her in any other games.

So your case is that she appears to be trying to not get angry, but got angry when someone insulted her.

... Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

This post swings my vote.

You are -so- trying to butter me up into taking my vote off you, aren't you?

Gotta try harder than that.

Somehow I don't think that your vote really scares him

that

much in the current environment.

There are some people that seem to playing a different game than the rest of us, MoS in particular is just behaving strangely (compared to prior experiences with him). TS looks the same as she always does to me, town or scum. I still think something's up there but I'm leaving it alone for today. Peers is our man, though I'm still not liking Neo-Viper. The fact that Peers thinks Neo-Viper's play is perfectly reasonable worries me even more.

[Erg0]

Normally I'd be all for a wagon on these grounds, but I've tried applying this scumtell to Jordan before and it didn't work (i.e. he was town). My meta on him goes against this behaviour being a scumtell, so I'm going to give this wagon a miss.

Peers: looks like your strategy worked.

[Erg0]

Peers: looks like your strategy worked.

Strategy? What strat... erm, I mean... of course it did, it was brilliantly conceived, planned, and executed by myself, so naturally it worked... uh... pssst, what exactly did I do, again?

That would be the one where you stopped reacting to things and waited it out until people got bored with your wagon.

[Erg0]

I don't favour a Jordan lynch. He needs to get the hell in here and say something for himself.

[Erg0]

Jordan makes an excellent point; I can't in good faith keep my vote on him.

Unvote

I would like to hear MoS's response to that last post. We may very well be in a situation where the top three bandwagons are all town.

I love how you slipped yourself into that last group.

MoS: how do you feel Jordan's play in this game compares to his usual playstyle? Have you played with him much before?

[Erg0]

MoS: how do you feel Jordan's play in this game compares to his usual playstyle? Have you played with him much before?

In the past, I've found Jordan to be less aggressive and more reasonable as town, in my opinion.

The only thing he's really being aggressive about is your attempt at a policy lynch. Rather than do the hypothetical question thing again, I'll just say that I don't think it's valid to judge him based on that. I could kind of see how you think he latched onto an easy argument, but it's hardly the worst offence of the day in my opinion.

[Erg0]

I'm not attacking the policy lynch, that's a separate discussion. All I'm doing is disputing your reason for voting Jordan based on his reaction to it.

[Erg0]

Man, a couple of days of bad access and I miss all the good stuff.

I don't like the Quag lynch - I understand the objections to his choice, but I don't think it's a lynching matter. Those who are complaining that not reading your role PM as scum disadvantages the town, and trying to use that as part of an argument for a lynch, are missing the point entirely. I actually still think Peers is pretty scummy but it looks like our collective consciousness has moved on from that since it's basically me, hasdgfas and two lurkers on that wagon. I don't really like MoS, TS or Quag for a lynch though, so I'm off to look for an alternative suspect.

[Erg0]

Isn't it a little late for us to be screwing around with joke votes?

I'm going to try this one more time: read Peers' posts in isolation and try telling me that he's not scum. If not for the distraction of Quagmire we'd have one scum down by now.

[Erg0]

While we're asking questions, why do you think he's scum?

[Erg0]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

[Erg0]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Neah. There is no burden of proof. In mafia, you're assumed guilty until proven flammable.

I suppose what I mean is that you shouldn't expect others to prove you wrong unless you've made an attempt to prove yourself right. If someone disagrees with you, it's not enough to simply ask "why not?"

[Erg0]

I'd still prefer a Peers lynch - he's descended even further into generalities since the pressure came off him.

[Erg0]

I don't find TS particularly scummy, and I think she's only been brought under the spotlight by MoS and Quagmire's policy crap. She also has a similar opinion of Peers to mine. Hence, I am unlikely to lynch her even (especially) in her absence.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic Day 1 "we're bored, let's lynch a lurker" wagon. Get TS replaced if you must, don't lynch her just to make the decision easier.

[Erg0]

Yeah, that must be what I meant.

[Erg0]

I don't find TS particularly scummy, and I think she's only been brought under the spotlight by MoS and Quagmire's policy crap. She also has a similar opinion of Peers to mine. Hence, I am unlikely to lynch her even (especially) in her absence.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic Day 1 "we're bored, let's lynch a lurker" wagon. Get TS replaced if you must, don't lynch her just to make the decision easier.

I've outlined good reasons on why I think she's scum that have nothing to do with a policy.

I meant that nobody was really paying any attention to her until MoS (in particular) voted her on policy. Regardless of your position now, I think that many of the voters on her are just taking the soft option.

[Erg0]

Yikes, I'm 10 pages behind!

I've got some reading to do...

[Erg0]

Buh?

I guess not...

[Erg0]

Catching up: There's a lot of material since my last post, but most of it seems to rotate around a few points.

On Quagmire: The one time I've seen Quag as scum he played completely differently to this. The fact that he's made a few posts that have some actual content is encouraging. The whole business with his claims of not reading his PM fails to make it past my stupidity filter, and I don't think it really reveals anything either way. For me, lynching him would essentially be a policy lynch right now and, though I can see the benefit of eliminating the distraction by getting him out of the way, I feel that there are legitimately scummy players I'd rather bump off instead.

I also like IH's analysis, my gut is still leaning towards Peers and hasdfgas (though he's improving) but I think I need to have another look at Panzer. More later.

[Erg0]

This was relatively recent - the game is still ongoing, in fact. What you're advising me to do is exactly what I'm saying I've done, but the PM issue is such a major pillar of the argument againt him that I felt it was worth mentioning it specifically. Filtering out the usual Quag BS (things that are, for him, a null tell), what remains is not enough to justify a lynch on the grounds of scumminess. Whether or not he's a

good

lynch is a separate discussion, but I won't support it at this stage.

[Erg0]

Welp, the original derailed wagon in this game was Peers, which should have gone to a claim and didn't because everyone jumped on Quag instead. I still think Peers is a good lynch, though I was momentarily concerned with hasdfgas' support of the wagon. He's shaped up in recent times though, so I'm good with a Peers lynch again.

[Erg0]

Peers claimed vanilla.

He did? I too had forgotten that entirely. Doesn't really change my opinion much, though.

I see your point regarding Quagmire, but with deadline approaching there's a fine line between "wagon for a claim" and "wagon for a deadline lynch". If there's sufficient support for a Quag claim then you shouldn't have any trouble getting the numbers.

[Erg0]

Eh?

[Erg0]

I don't really feel like I have any information on quagmire that gives me a handle on his alignment at this moment. That fact ITSELF is probably a small scum tell[...]

Thank you for pointing out your own scumtells.

Will it be more, or less, of a scumtell if Quagmire turns up scum?

I'm pretty sure he meant it was a scumtell for Quagmire...

[Erg0]

Actually, it's Canberra - hence the reason that my location is phrased as a question.

[Erg0]

I don't want to lynch a lurker, I want to lynch Peers.

[Erg0]

Then I suggest that you vote for him.

[Erg0]

You're not going to lynch anyone if you're not voting.

[Erg0]

Would it help if I just told you what to do?

VOTE FOR PEERS!

[Erg0]

N_vo_ot_{e K}su_obli_rmi_lnal _aen_sou_hgh?

[Erg0]

Oops, that subliminal message belongs to another game.

[Erg0]

I'd support a Peers or Sikario lynch, based on my theory about why Quagmire brought up his role PM at that time. Of the two I prefer to lynch Peers, because on a reread he seems pretty scummy throughout the game.

Hooray! A sensible person!

[Erg0]

You don't think we could have four scum? Your average twelve player mini has three...

[Erg0]

Apparently my sarcasm detector is broken.

[Erg0]

Those who are complaining that not reading your role PM as scum disadvantages the town, and trying to use that as part of an argument for a lynch, are missing the point entirely.

By the way erg0, what point were they missing?

That was a while ago, but I'm pretty sure the point was that if you genuinely believe that Quag didn't read his PM then you can't use the fact that it benefits scum more than town as a basis for an argument since he wouldn't have known he was scum because he didn't read his PM.

I think that any argument based on Quag's actions and/or people's reactions to them is pretty shaky, hence the reason that I don't agree with your assessment of hasdgfas. Votes based on day 1 drama almost always end with a townie lynch in my experience.

To repeat myself: read Peers' posts in isolation (as hasdgfas has done) and I think you'll agree with my vote.

[Erg0]

This game is in danger of becoming a bilateral argument about Quagmire. TS, I think you need to accept that you're not going to change anyone's mind with further discussion on this point.

Whoever it was that asked me for a case on Peers: Read my first few posts after I voted him, and then continue that in your head for the remainder of the day. I just did that myself and I had a good point about BM in there too - methinks I shall have another look at him.

[Erg0]

All this negativity is starting to bum me out.

[Erg0]

Work that post count, Albie!

[Erg0]

Which category are you in?

[Erg0]

I'll take note of that.

Is the thrust of this argument that MoS and Panzer are scumbuddies?

[Erg0]

Panzer, why did you wait until Quag wouldn't be lynched for you to go straight back to Peers?

Now I want to vote for Panzer

FoS:Panzer

So what's stopping you? MoS's wagon isn't exactly gaining steam right now.

I'm pleased that I'm

finally

getting my preferred Day 1 wagon for a change. I have a horrible feeling about what's going to happen at -1, though.

[Erg0]

So you keep saying. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

[Erg0]

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't particularly agree with your assessment of those on the Kscope wagon so I don't see him as a good lynch candidate. If anything, I see those on the Peers wagon as being scummier - in re-reading for a contingency lynch in case Peers goes south, I think that Panzer would be a pretty good lynch too. With the number of people that have expressed suspicion of him, I'm surprised that he doesn't have any votes right now.

[Erg0]

Ugh.

[Erg0]

Agreed. I already made this mistake once (ongoing game), I'm not doing it again.

[Erg0]

Agreed. I already made this mistake once (ongoing game), I'm not doing it again.

What do you mean? BTW your vote tags didn't work.

I mean that I jumped onto Kscope wagon in almost identical circumstances in another large game, and he was town. He just seems to be an easy target for the town that runs out of ideas.

[Erg0]

Hence the phrase "run out of ideas". With all of the previous wagons failing, the town has implicitly consented to an easy lynch that most can feel comfortable with. I wonder how many of the people on the Kscope wagon would actually list him as their top suspect?

[Erg0]

Some would call it consistency. I've had Peers as my top suspect throughout the day, but if you read my posts you'll see he's far from the only player I've talked about. I've felt throughout the day that his posting was scummy enough that the wagon would eventually come back around to him if I persisted in pushing him, and that was exactly what happened. I just can't believe that we're still flailing around wildly at this point in the day, apparently swinging to whatever wagon catches everyone's attention.

I'm particularly interest in Albert's vote switch, which marked a significant swing in the momentum when it looked likely that Peers was finally going to get his comeuppance. Albert's been extremely wagonny, even for him, so far.

[Erg0]

Albert's been extremely wagonny, even for him, so far.

Thank god. We're what, now? On page 52? Day 1... we're not wagonny enough. Thank god for players like ABR that keep this game alive. I'm not about to berate wagonny players. Not here, not now, not today, not in this game.

That's crap, frankly. It's not productive to just hop onto every leading wagon - this is exactly

why

we're having trouble getting a lynch. Nobody's ever going to feel pressured if the wagon just drops off as soon as someone else accumulates a few votes.

[Erg0]

I love you all again now. Just try to stay focussed for another 24 hours, please.

[Erg0]

Obviously, I disagree. Minus the controversy, Peers has a much scummier pattern over the course of the day than Quagmire.

[Erg0]

Obviously, I disagree. Minus the controversy, Peers has a much scummier pattern over the course of the day than Quagmire.

Do you really think you can "minus the controversy", though? I agree with your statement, but I don't think you can just ignore something so major.

Doubtless it was an anti-town action, but ultimately it gives little to no indication of alignment, which is all I'm interested in.

[Erg0]

If he's lynched scum then we're going to ignore him anyway (at least we should), so he can cast aspersions on whoever he feels like. I've seen the "I'm just an innocent townie, here are my suspects" post from nearly-lynched scum plenty of times before, probably because some people take it as a pro-town action, and some people get tied into knots WIFOMing it the next day.

[Erg0]

I'm pleased that I'm

finally

getting my preferred Day 1 wagon for a change. I have a horrible feeling about what's going to happen at -1, though.

Remember this post from last week? This is exactly what I expected Peers to do, and it doesn't change my mind in the least.

[Erg0]

I dunno, maybe I'm just annoyed with him because I knew he was going to do this.

You're right, though - about this if nothing else. Unfortunately I hate the Kscope and Quag wagons so my vote is probably now going to be entirely useless.

Unvote, Vote: PanzerJager

Can anyone tell me how far away the deadline is? Timezones and all that.

[Erg0]

A couple of hours would make it midnight over there, wouldn't it? I doubt that the deadline is that early.

I've finally battled through the CPU errors and found the post where Shanba set the deadline, and he doesn't mention a time. I'd really prefer on principle not to vote for someone that I don't believe to be scum, so I'll give it a couple of hours and only vote if I need to. Frankly, I'm tempted to just leave it - Peers is either scum or he's jerked the town around pretty severely by leaving his claim so late.

[Erg0]

I'm going to kill ego tomorrow...

Meh. I might be worried if there was any chance that this wasn't a lame attempt at getting a reaction.

[Erg0]

I will if I need to. I won't if I don't.

[Erg0]

Sarnath'd. Looks like I don't need to.

[Erg0]

If it were a choice between the two, I'd probably lynch Kscope due to his lurkiness. I don't think that's a good enough reason for a lynch in its own right, but I figure I've got a better chance of getting a proper read on Quag later on.

Time to be pragmatic, I suppose.

Unvote, Vote: Kaleidoscope

I can't believe I'm doing this

again

.

[Erg0]

Jeez you people have short memories.

Vote: Peers

Didn't buy it yesterday, buy it even less today.

[Erg0]

Why is that?

[Erg0]

Or

, and bear with me here, he's scum and thus the scum did not kill him.

You seem to be making some big assumptions about the source of the kills...

[Erg0]

Oh lordy - why am I getting the same vibe from you now that I got from Peers yesterday?

[Erg0]

Thinking about this some more:

1. A nightkill immune doctor seems highly unlikely.

2. I can't see why a doctor would protect Peers, given that they would be even less likely to believe his claim than the average townie. With a dead jailkeeper, I doubt that we have more than one doctor type role left alive, and I'm sure that the doctor would be thinking the same thing.

Despite what you say, it seems unlikely that either of these scenarios is correct from a logical point of view.

[Erg0]

Nuclear Energy something something WereWolves Want To Kill You.

[Erg0]

Got it.

Nuclear Experiment Gone Wrong Leads To Werewolves Who Want To Kill You.

[Erg0]

Cookies for all!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled game already in progress.

[Erg0]

Also, what was the case on KScope apart from lurking? I can't seem to find an especially good one, but we still lynched him, and look at that, we got a powerrole. This is really why we need to make sure we have plenty of reasons for lynching someone before we actually do, instead of rushing ahead

with no claim[/b] like Panzer and hasd did.

What is the case on

me

apart from lurking?

This has got to be the best request for a case ever - you said not a single word other than your two votes on day 1.

[Erg0]

Your comparison is invalid. There's a big difference between lynching someone for lurking and putting the first vote on them for lurking.

[Erg0]

I don't really see the point of asking Peers for his target in the first place - it's not like he's going to blow his claim by naming someone that died, and if he's really the Doc then he is correct in not telling us.

[Erg0]

What will the town gain if he does?

[Erg0]

Wrong question, you mean what will it lose if he

does

. Look at it like this:

If he's scum, the claim is totally meaningless, because he can pick a living player more or less randomly and there's no way to prove or disprove his claim (barring a tracker or similar power role, I suppose, but even then we can't prove what his actual ability is unless his target got dead).

If he's town, his reasoning will consist of "I think this guy was town and/or a power role". It gives scum a hint of who the doctor will be protecting if he's still alive tonight. It gives the scum hints on who might have a power role. Even if it turns out that he actually did block a kill it doesn't give us a confirmed townie because we have three killing groups (in that scenario), all of which could be scum.

In summary, the claim proves nothing and possibly gives the scum an advantage. That's a pretty good reason not to get one, I think.

[Erg0]

Given that I think the only reason I'm alive is that the mafia (and SK if there is one) thinks my claim is bunk. I have no reason to want to confirm myself to them.

So your theory is that the scum left you alive because they think you're not really a doctor? I don't like the fact that you're even thinking like this...

[Erg0]

Hmmm... this requires a rethink.

[Erg0]

Sorry for the lousy timing, I've been organising a house move for the last week but I should be able to catch up with the game tomorrow.

[Erg0]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this TS wagon. I definitely see the problem that many people have with her, but I think it may be due to frustration as much as anything. If things don't change, I'll consider joining the wagon.

TS: What is your intended approach to vollkan now that he's taken the spot of the player you were so opposed to? Do you feel he's tainted by his predecessor's actions?

More later as I finish re-reading.

[Erg0]

Sorry, I'll try to post less in future. At least you got my name right.

Other salient points:

Despite Albert's spotty history, I believe his mason claim. I'm actually impressed that he had the good sense to show himself as the last mason so that we won't have to deal with faked mason claims later on.

I had Panzer down as the second option for my vote, but I'll wait and see how his replacement does. Despite what TS said, from re-reading his posts I don't particularly get the impression that he was keeping up with the game all that well. I try not to meta replacement requests if possible, but his reason does appear somewhat truthful.

I still have that bad feeling about BM. He's been mega-hoppy, and has gone so far as to completely switch camps on at least two wagons so far.

Vote: Battle Mage

[Erg0]

I had BM at the back of my mind most of the way through day 1, so he was next on my list once Peers and Panzer were eliminated from consideration for the present time. I haven't really looked at you in any depth up to this point, but I'll be sure to now.

I'll give some examples for BM when I get a few minutes to write them up.

[Erg0]

Ok, BM's vote-hopping:

At the start of the game he's all over the place, though he did state up front that he would be vote-hopping on purpose to try and elicit reactions. I'm not sure that this can be expected to achieve anything if you've given a warning in advance, but at least he somewhat explained this behaviour. Ignoring his first 20-odd posts, the first reversal is here:

@BM - I admire the way you, and players like you, look at the broader spectrum, i.e., checking other games in which I've participated; however, you failed to see why I replaced out of those games (as you stated).

I replaced out of some games because I didn't like the players or I figured some of their logic to be too hard to comprehend. Some of them I replaced out of purely because I was playing another game already and the latter game consisted of too lengthy posts. The reason I'm staying in this game is because I can understand some of you, such as hasd, and I feel I can make an earnest attempt at keeping up.

I also like your "I Don't Need An Avatar To Be Famous" playing style, so, yeah, it's all about living and learning and I'm trying to do both.

I did answer your question...right...?

ok i guess. I can sort of see where you are coming from. You are obviously paying good attention to me at least - i made that avatar comment in Newbie 484.
I would still appreciate a list of all games you are playing in now, and all games you replaced out of within the last week. Just for my notes.

oh and

Unvote, Vote: ABR

Bandwagonning and setting up future-lynches?

DIE SCUM DIE.

[...]in order to protect someone you know is -100%- town?

Oh good grief. Doesn't anybody know how to play this game anymore?

unvote

Peers was referring to himself. Why did you unvote him ?

lol good spot.

FoS: TS

Why are you FoSing TS, do you think that was an excuse to take her vote off of Peers ?

She seems jumpy, and seems not to be reading the game. Very quick to hop away from the wagon when she thought that she might have outted the cop, but as soon as she is corrected, she hops back on.

In fact,

Unvote, Vote: TS

.

Albert, with me.

In the space of 20 posts, BM goes from accusing ABR of setting up chain lynches (a fairly strong scumtell in my experience) to agreeing with him about TS and even asking ABR to follow him onto the wagon. He then says in his next post that he hasn't dropped his case on ABR, despite following him like this, which sounds like bet-hedging to me.

The second example is Day 2's TS/IH argument, which resulted in BM voting IH and then switching to TS a few posts later because of "bussing". Looks like a weak reason to join a wagon with some momentum to me, I'm not really getting a bussing vibe from IH/TS at all.

Basically this adds up to a whople lot of bet-hedging to me. BM is pushing whoever looks easiest to lynch at the time and hopping between opposing cases at will.

[Erg0]

Xyl, any particular reasoning behind that list? I understand that it must be tough to replace into a game of this length, but that really looks like questioning for the sake of questioning to me.

Having said that, it's probably time I had a more detailed look at zu_Faul - his infrequent posting has kept him off my radar to an extent until now.

He had relatively few posts on day 1, but in re-reading what he did give us I generally agree with his points. He was pretty consistent throughout the day, and took a similar position on Quag to me. I wasn't a big fan of the Kscope wagon, but zu_Faul at least gave a decent reason for jumping on (other than lurkiness), and did so relatively early in the day before Kscope became the popular/easy lynch. The one thing that gives me pause is his dropping his early suspicion of Sikario8 (now Setael) entirely later in the day - he never really seemed to be happy with him, he just stopped talking about him at some point. There was an FoS on Setael later, I wonder if zu_Faul failed to realise she'd replaced Sikario8?

Interesting to go back to this post and see the beginning of the TS/zu_Faul thing. TS later mentions zu_Faul's "inconsistency", which I think is wholly inaccurate. There may be more background to zu_Faul's TS-vote than there initially appears.

Overall, I don't mind zu_Faul's play - what there is of it, at least. The biggest point against him is his lurkiness, but he's at least posting solid opinions and reasoning when he does post. He's nowhere near the top of my suspect list right now.

[Erg0]

I would be really happy if we never mentioned Quagmire in this game again. This discussion is making my brain scream.

[Erg0]

Quite a bit was said about Quagmire regarding the policy vote issue, that

preceded

the reading the role PM drama.

Your statement that "nobody said anything about him" is therefore misleading.

Actually, I 'll amend that statement slightly, as this is a somewhat valid point. I just find that debate over his role PM shenanigans is not particularly productive.

[Erg0]

If we're going down this track, Panzer is my preference. The main reason I wasn't already voting him was that it looked like he was being replaced, but if that's not happening then I have no problem lynching him.

[Erg0]

If we're going down this track, Panzer is my preference. The main reason I wasn't already voting him was that it looked like he was being replaced, but if that's not happening then I have no problem lynching him.

That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone.

Um, that was my reason for

not

voting him. Am I missing the point here?

[Erg0]

From memory, vollkan's method is that every player starts at 50% (neutral), and moves up or down depending on towniness or scumminess. 60% is slightly scummy, I think.

[Erg0]

SirTornado has voted only twice. Both posts consisted solely of votes. That's why I ask.

That would be a pretty harsh restriction. Someone told me that he usually gets more active later in the game, but I'm yet to see evidence of that.

[Erg0]

That's kind of my point.

[Erg0]

It's interesting that you see it that way, given that the delayed kill actually proved the basis for my vote was valid: If he was really the doctor I would have expected him to be killed overnight - and he was. There's only so long that you can leave someone alive and wait for them to be nightkilled, especially in a closed setup where you never know how close you are to losing. As much as people always say "well, the scum might have left him alive to create a WIFOM lynch", I rarely see it actually happen - especially with multiple killing groups as we have here.

[Erg0]

I can think of at least one other pro-town role that starts with one of those letters. I don't think this is a good discussion to be having.

[Erg0]

It's interesting that you see it that way, given that the delayed kill actually proved the basis for my vote was valid: If he was really the doctor I would have expected him to be killed overnight - and he was. There's only so long that you can leave someone alive and wait for them to be nightkilled, especially in a closed setup where you never know how close you are to losing. As much as people always say "well, the scum might have left him alive to create a WIFOM lynch", I rarely see it actually happen - especially with multiple killing groups as we have here.

It's obvious from the flavor that the werewolf kill was Yosarian2. That means that the scum group

did

leave him alive to create a WIFOM lynch.

Do you think that werewolves are the only scum in this game? Three night kills is a strong indication of at least two scum kills, possibly even three if the third wasn't a vig. I doubt very much that a pro-town player would have killed the claimed doctor on Night 1, so it stands to reason that the kill came from scum of some sort.

[Erg0]

I'm betting that the scum noticed it already, so my bringing it up can't hurt.

Except that it encourages role speculation from the general populace, which is seldom helpful to the town.

[Erg0]

Only in the sense that I know better than to speculate about power roles.

[Erg0]

Technically, the rolename is "villager".

[Erg0]

This whole thing makes very little sense. I can't think of any information role that would give hasdfgas the knowledge that Peers was targeted for a kill and survived. A wathcer could see that he was targeted, but not the type of action that he was targeted for. A cop could see that he was innocent, but not whether he was targeted for a kill.

I don't think that a claim from hasdfgas would hurt at this point - if it's a good claim, it may prevent us from wasting a lynch. Either way, I think he's going to be dead by sun-up.

Unvote, Vote: hasdfgas

[Erg0]

That makes sense to me.

Unvote, Vote: Battle Mage

On the plus side, the inherent WIFOM with a CPR doc makes it less than 100% certain that the scum will kill you tonight.

[Erg0]

vollkan, how do you feel about my somewhat different conclusions on zu_Faul from earlier in day 2?

[Erg0]

There's not

always

an SK in games this size, but it's reasonably common. If not an SK, it's quite possible that there are two separate scumgroups.

I'm not sure I follow the bit about the vig, but I find it unlikely that hasdgfas would be claiming someone else's kill as a defence, and there's no real way that he could have known about the Peers NK if it wasn't him (or a buddy) that killed him.

[Erg0]

I think watchers can work either way, depending on the mod's interpretation of the role.

[Erg0]

It's listed on the wiki page under "Variations".

[Erg0]

I think I see what you're saying now - I tednd to agree, but it's probably too early to be trying to guess the setup. The number of kills tonight will give us some more information to draw upon for these sorts of theories.

[Erg0]

Dude, if you are town and we don't lynch you, for the love of god don't use your ability again. The risk/reward odds mean that you are just going to kill a ton of townies.

Not true at all, Spambot. CPR doc can be a very useful role. When used correctly, it's either a protect or a vig kill. Since the claimed doc is now dead, I will probably be acting as though I'm a vig, for all intents and purposes. I hope that you don't think that a vig should never kill for fear of hitting townies?

Ok, that makes more sense. Were you claiming earlier that you'd be using your ability as a doc? That's how I read it, but I can see being wrong there.

Aggressive vigs can be good, but if the player vigging is an idiot than it can be game-losing. Guess how I feel about you vigging people.

That seems a little harsh - a number of players have already said that they were surprised that the scum didn't kill the claimed doc last night, so the odds of hasdgfas' plan succeeding were decent, and I'd say it was worth the risk given the potential benefit - especially given that I would have continued to try and get Peers lynched if he hadn't been killed.

[Erg0]

This whole thing makes very little sense. I can't think of any information role that would give hasdfgas the knowledge that Peers was targeted for a kill and survived. A wathcer could see that he was targeted, but not the type of action that he was targeted for. A cop could see that he was innocent, but not whether he was targeted for a kill.

Erg0 fails to get the memo, and assumes that hasdgfas must be an info role just like DGB and TS did.

First conclusion: Many people

fail

at metagaming Shanba.
Second conclusion: DGB, TS, and Erg0 first assumed that hasdgfas was claiming an info role, and then tried to lynch him

before he could claim

.

FoS: DGB, TS, Erg0

Um, no. Admittedly I didn't figure it out like I probably should have, but I'm hardly alone in that. At that point it didn't even really matter what the role was - hasdgfas was marked for death either way, be it by lynch or by nightkill.

More importantly, you'll need to meet a higher standard of proof if you're going to accuse me of exactly the opposite of what I explicitly stated I was doing. The vote was made to indicate my desire for hasdgfas to claim, not to lynch him. Did you actually read the rest of that post you quoted, or are you just forcing the facts to fit your theory?

For those that missed it, here's the part that Xyl conveniently excluded from his quote:

I don't think that a claim from hasdfgas would hurt at this point - if it's a good claim, it may prevent us from wasting a lynch. Either way, I think he's going to be dead by sun-up.

Unvote, Vote: hasdfgas

FoS: Xylthixlm

for blatant revisionism.

[Erg0]

Did you see me ask you to?

[Erg0]

Forgot you were Albert for a minute. An FoS will do for now, then.

[Erg0]

Sorry, my brain kind of wandered off from this game.

I often agree with vollkan's analyses, but I've had another look at my original read on zu_Faul and I still don't think he's particularly scummy. I think that vollkan is isolating zu_Faul from the game a little too much - there are a number of other players that have followed a similar low-content trend, thus I cannot treat this as a scumtell in its own right.

BM seems to have successfully lurked his way out of the spotlight. I still haven't done the reads that I intended to do, so I'm starting those now.

[Erg0]

Damn, I suck. I'm down to three games now and I'm not signing up for anything else until I catch up properly here.

I do note with some ironic amusement that BM now has a wagon, albeit a minor one. Apparently I just needed to stop pushing him.

[Erg0]

We can give you both.

unvote, vote: schismatized

I knew I shouldn't have posted, there goes my wagon.

[Erg0]

That's to be the problem, when I

was

pushing it nobody was interested. When I backed off, people suddenly started looking at BM. Same thing happened in another game that we were in together. I'm starting to think there's some kind of reverse psychology thing going on here.

For anyone that hasn't seen it, my case on BM is right around here.

[Erg0]

I presume that the italicised section of zu_Faul's post is his logic.

We're lynching schizmatized today and vollkan tomorrow. Voluntary cooperation is mandatory.

So it's three days of easy lynches and then we'll start scumhunting on day 4?

[Erg0]

Well, for one thing the only net result is a dead body. How sure are you that he's actually scum?

[Erg0]

Well, for one thing the only net result is a dead body. How sure are you that he's actually scum?

If he is scum, there is a pretty strong case for you being scum based on this post.

Yes, that seems so obvious that it must be true!

[/sarcasm]

I agree with the sentiments about BM's lurking, I saw this from him in another (ongoing) game recently when I applied similar pressure to him (he was scum).

[Erg0]

Man, people are so sensitive.

I'd rather have Schis modkilled than lynched, it would be an awful waste of the town's resources to waste a lynch on someone who's just not going to play the game.

[Erg0]

Hell with this.

Unvote, Vote: schismatized

I can't play this game the way it is right now. Tomorrow I'm going right back on BM, and hopefully the latent wagon will actually materialise now that Captain Distraction is out of the way.

[Erg0]

I feel that if he was going to get replaced it would have happened by now. He clearly wasn't going to claim, either. I actually think there's a reasonable chance that he's scum, because there's no reason for a townie to act the way he's been acting.

[Erg0]

Vote: Battle Mage

I remembered!

[Erg0]

I have some catching up to do.