'The Lost Boys' Mafia (Cry Little Sister, it's OVER!)

[cicero]

Looks like it's dissuading a lynch to some extent just fine for me. A power we might want to "save for later." Don't underestimate Peers. He's a clever one.

Sometimes you need to play the odds. This has zero to do with the flavor. The role is one of those odd ones that scum love to claim. He was already on many people's suspect list.

I have no problem with people not voting Peers if they think he is town. We're not in the townie lynching business. We do enough of that accidentally. :p If you think he's town, don't vote him. But don't not vote him now so we can lynch him later. That whole idea is sort of predicated on some piece of Shrodinger's cat logic where Peers is scummy enough to lynch yet townie enough to keep alive at the same time. Look, if you think he's probably town don't vote him. If you think he's probably scum lynch him.

If we wait and he's town the Lost Boys will take away any advantage he might provide either by recruiting him and thereby making him "suffer"(which can only mean two things a) Post restriction, or b)Loss of his power), or they will nightkill him. We don't know how many nighkills they can use at once because we dont know how many of them there are. So mathematics of assuming we should keep him alive because they MIGHT nightkill him INSTEAD of one of our Vig's or Ecto or what have you don't work. because we don't have enough information to say that. We also don't know that a recruited Peers would choose to stay town.

I think Peers, on the balance of all probabilities - taking into account his play, his predecessor's play, the fact that his claim is odd from a role perspective and has no relation whatsoever to the flavor and is unlikely to be counterclaimed - is a good vote. If I turn out to be wrong and we get a free do over that's a bonus. But it certainly isn't a realistic strategic consideration for me.

[Ectomancer]

Is it really that unbelievable? In a generic, unthemed game, a "Mayor" role which acts as described doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. Granted, it feels more out of place in this very much themed game, but it's still a poor choice for a scum claim due to the fact it doesn't dissuade a lynch.

I can see why people don't believe it. I can't see why people would refuse to believe it could be true.

#1 - If you re-read, he thought he

was

dissuading a lynch with that claim. He just didn't think it through properly and that is why it was a poor claim. I'm sure he wishes he could take it back.
#2 - As I said before, even the Security Guard had a name. Other roles that exist also had a name to go with their part in the movie. He couldn't come up with one for a good reason. It doesn't exist.
#3 - He is the scummiest player we have, yet you are searching for a reason to let him off the hook. Who is your scummiest player that needs lynching, and how is that case better than lynching the guy who has the most dubious claim we have yet seen? Cicero is a shining star compared to Peers and I've seen no case against MOS at all except that people don't trust him.

There is no valid argument for "saving" him until later in a game with a Cult. You can argue math all you want, but the logic says you lynch the guy think is scum. Should he turn up town, you move on.
I don't think he is town. I'll give him a 90% scum and 10% chance of being town and if the 10% wins and he is town, it doesn't hurt us except for a lost townie, which is a wash because Cult cant recruit again with no nighttime.

I'll listen to any other lynch suggestions tomorrow, but I've seen no valid arguments to spare Peers, and even fewer that suggest he is town.

[cicero]

Every time Ectomancer says Cicero, I drink.

(Currently have blood poisoning. Please call ambulance.)

[Peers]

#1 - If you re-read, he thought he

was

dissuading a lynch with that claim. He just didn't think it through properly and that is why it was a poor claim. I'm sure he wishes he could take it back.
#2 - As I said before, even the Security Guard had a name. Other roles that exist also had a name to go with their part in the movie. He couldn't come up with one for a good reason. It doesn't exist.
#3 - He is the scummiest player we have, yet you are searching for a reason to let him off the hook. Who is your scummiest player that needs lynching, and how is that case better than lynching the guy who has the most dubious claim we have yet seen? Cicero is a shining star compared to Peers and I've seen no case against MOS at all except that people don't trust him.

#1 - Why? I was already being lynched. I haven't suffered at all for telling the truth.

#2 - I can see your reasoning, and if I hadn't received the role myself, I'd be agreeing with you. But facts are facts, truth is truth, and regrettably I can't prove I'm right until I'm dead. And yet, you're in the exact same position... you can't prove that you have some kind of 'super-sekrit cult investigator powers' until you're dead and your role is revealed. Yet people are believing you just fine. Gee, I wonder why you feel so threatened by me...

#3 - I'm not the scummiest (that'd be you or MoS), I'm just the one with the largest bandwagon.

[Dasquian]

#1 - I know. I brought this possibility up originally as "things that would have to be true for Peers' claim to be a scum claim". I also don't think it's a scum-tell as if the role is

genuine

he might also have not thought it through, and thought he could dissuade his lynch.
#2 - What is that name? People keep saying this but

Mariyta's

role doesn't have a name, nor does the, as implied by posts on the subject, security guard in the film do much of anything. This doesn't play to the strength of "no mayor in the film" as an argument against Peers.
#3 - Did you miss my big run-down of everyone? I find Crub, AniX, Arafax and Pooky scummier. It's post 2279, if you missed it, the same post in which I added my weight to the Peers bandwagon originally.

I don't actually disagree with either you, or cicero. Particularly cicero, whose post 2375 I thought was very :goodposting:, or whatever the convention is for applauding it. The salient point seems to be that, ultimately, I think he's going to be one of those "oh damn, it looked so good on paper" lynches, whereas you guys seem to be happier about the likelihood of him lying.

It's not like I even

want

to defend him, because like cicero says, he

is

a good vote and, even if he's innocent, the consequences are as good as they get. But, if he's innocent, not lynching him is still better, so no vote from me.

[Dasquian]

Gah. My numbered points are in reply to Ecto, not Peers.

[cicero]

Oh yeah. The idea that there's no case at all against MoS is dumb.

[Yosarian2]

If it is mathematically advantageous for us to lynch him later (eg to delay a critical late-game recruitment), then this is something we'd be nicely signposting to the scum. Either the logic is incorrect and it's not worth leaving him alive to lynch later (in which case it's not an argument not to do it today), or it

is

correct and the benefits of getting two lynches in one day is gone.

Well, no; it's mathmatically advantageous to lynch him late-game if we think there's a fair chance he's scum but a fair chance he's telling the truth, because then if he is telling the truth we get an extra free lynch then, when it's more useful to us then it is now.

But the key thing here is that his flavor dosn't make a lot of sense. Everything else in the game, even the vanillia townie claim in the mod post, is at least vaugly related to the movie. And if he IS scum, then we want to lynch him now; any kind of anti-town role we can kill today will really help us understand what's going on here, and on the off chance he's scum with some kind of recruiting role, we want him dead NOW. (I know, I was earlier speculating that the recruiting role could belong to the whole scum group, but eh...)

The one thing that makes me nervous about this wagon is the way my other main suspect, Cicero, is pushing so damn hard for this lynch, to the point of attacking anyone who disagrees with it or even tries to discuss the stratagy involved with that kind of "mayor" role. [/sup]

[Setael]

If we wait and he's town the Lost Boys will take away any advantage he might provide either by recruiting him and thereby making him "suffer"(which can only mean two things a) Post restriction, or b)Loss of his power), or they will nightkill him. We don't know how many nighkills they can use at once because we dont know how many of them there are. So mathematics of assuming we should keep him alive because they MIGHT nightkill him INSTEAD of one of our Vig's or Ecto or what have you don't work. because we don't have enough information to say that. We also don't know that a recruited Peers would choose to stay town.

I disagree with almost everything in this paragraph, which by the way made me raise an eyebrow when Dasquian called it good posting.

#1 Why would he be recruited when we are planning to eventually lynch him in order to avoid a night?
#2 Where did you get the idea that suffering "can only mean" post restriction or loss of power?
#3 Why would he get NK'd when we're planning on lynching him eventually? That would be a waste of a NK. And has already been said, if he was NKd, that is saving an innocent so how is that bad?
#4 Why do you even say "We don't know that a recruited Peers would stay town"? If we're planning to lynch him in order to avoid a night later when it makes more sense (when our power roles are gone and there are more recruits able to kill) why would we care if he's recruited? Either way, he's not going to make it to endgame.

I see a lot more reason to lynch him in a few days rather than today. If he is NK'd and we lose that free night, it's saving an innocent from being NK'd and therefore serving the same purpose.

#3 - He is the scummiest player we have, yet you are searching for a reason to let him off the hook. Who is your scummiest player that needs lynching, and how is that case better than lynching the guy who has the most dubious claim we have yet seen? Cicero is a shining star compared to Peers and I've seen no case against MOS at all except that people don't trust him.

Why are you ignoring my case on pooky? What do you think about his long winded rants about how we should lynch all inactives, combined with the fact he's only given one liners since then, the last of which was mid November?

I think Pooky's our cult leader. I therefore think he's a much better lynch for today than peers, especially since there are several advantages to waiting to lynch peers later.

[cicero]

@Yosarian

It's ok. You'e one of my main suspects too[/sup too!]but you're largely one that I go back and forth on. Honestly. I don't think you totally MUST be scum. It spins my mind in turmoil tbh.

I wasnt pushing hard for this Peers lynch until his mayor claim. I found it unbelievable. Before that I was on the MOS Wagon. I don't attack people for not voting him. Dasquian not voting him because he thinks he's town is fine. He likes the claim I don't. I can't not notice patterns of protection but they mostly will show through if we do lynch Peers and he comes up as the CR.

So as always, I'm flagging bad logic or poor strategy that looks like it could have an ulterior motive.

Which is why I noted you before. It isn't true that I have tunnel vision that You are scum. My accusation of you is predicated on various instances of you playing dumber than you are and it continued with your defence.

I noted, before you said as much, that Your "logical" post seemed predicated on this being a "normal" game. But we've had quite a few discussions about time being of the essence and how we dont have the luxury of waiting. After all the discussions we've had I found the idea that you could forget about the recruiting elements of this game to be quite unbelievable. But I still don't know your play that well. But in this game, when Yosarian plays dumb, Cicero flags the play. Your "let's wait" idea - you were the first to say it - just pinged me right in the noggin' so I said something.

I've liked your later responses much more. I'm not dogging you. If you want to not vote Peers because you think I'm scummier you'll get no trouble from me for that. It's a perfectly reasonable (if ultimately incorrect) opinion to doubt me. I can't find any "obv scum" people in this game so I dont blame you if you can't either.

My point as set out above is, again, that waiting is bad strategy given all the factors. I think we are mostly all coming to agree on that.

[Yosarian2]

. But in this game, when Yosarian plays dumb, Cicero flags the play. Your "let's wait" idea - you were the first to say it - just pinged me right in the noggin' so I said something.

Note I never actually said "let's wait". All I was doing was pointing out the logical flaws in the argument made by MOS and co, the "even if he's town we should want to lynch him today because of his ability" argument. That was a badly flawed argument, for a couple of reasons, and I was just pointing out one of the reasons why it's a flawed argument.

Any time someone says "it's a good move to lynch him even if he's town", it sets off alarm bells in my head, because sometimes comments like that can be scum trying to prematurly justify what they know is going to be a bad lynch, so when someone says that and then backs it up with bad logic, I'm going to point it out.

[Yosarian2]

Note I never actually said "let's wait".

Edit: Oh, wait, I guess I did basically say that, lol. But you know what I mean; that was in response to MOS's "lynching him now is good even if he's town" argument.

[cicero]

@Setael

#1 We arent ALL planning to lynch him "eventually". Hell the town's been "planning" to lynch some people in this game since day one. This planning is not consensus and is nothing to count on. How's this for a reason. If he's telling the truth, he gets recruited. If he kills he may join the cult. Usually that means losing his power. Meta Mr. Flay as a mod in mafia discussion and you'll come away almost assured that he loses his power. If he doesnt switch sides he'll also suffer which I believe adversely affects powers (see below) which means we'll end up lynching him thinking we get a twofer and oops it's NIGHT!!


#2 Well... what else could its practical applications be? Mister Flay isnt coming to your house to kick you in the crotch. Seriously, if I missed a possibility let me know. This is a forum game. We post and send night actions to the mod. I suppose I could speculate and add that the person could lose their vote maybe? But I certainly dont think that that will be the case.

#3 He'd be NK'd to stop us using his power. But you're right. Recruitment makes more sense. Especially since no one has been NKed yet.

#4 If we're planning to lynch him, we must think he's scum. I dont see the risks of keeping him alive worth the very unlikely benefit. Why would you plan on using a power when you don't even know if it's true. If he's townie you should just lynch someone else - which is the equivalent of his power. If he's scum he might be the guy with the power to recruit. Therefore it is crucial that he be dispatched.

Honestly, I can't help but feel that there is a fable in this. Something about greed and how it leads to the downfall of a town.

And my supplemental. I have no problem with lynching lurking Pooky. It makes sense even with his arguments. But I think Peers is scum so I'm gonna keep voting him. If I'm wrong and we don't go to night I may very well join your crusade. Pooky is like Yosarian for me. I go back and forth, back and forth.

[cicero]

Any time someone says "it's a good move to lynch him even if he's town", it sets off alarm bells in my head, because sometimes comments like that can be scum trying to prematurly justify what they know is going to be a bad lynch, so when someone says that and then backs it up with bad logic, I'm going to point it out.

No argument from me on this.

[Ectomancer]

#2 - What is that name? People keep saying this but

Mariyta's

role doesn't have a name, nor does the, as implied by posts on the subject, security guard in the film do much of anything. This doesn't play to the strength of "no mayor in the film" as an argument against Peers.

Vernon Beasley, and despite not doing much other than dying in the film, his winning characteristic in this particular point of the discussion is that

he was actually in the film

.

I wont harp on it any more though. The relevant points are all out there. I wont be moving my vote though.

Regardless of the cliche'd scumtell you are invoking here Yos, this is not a typical "lynch him even if he's town" situation. We have 3 specific mechanics at play here that remove it from the typical.
1: We are in a deadline situation.
2: We have evidence that we are up against a Cult that recruits at night.
3: The player in question claims that, if lynched, the night phase gets skipped and we go right back into day.

The benefits of lynching him if scum are obvious.
The benefits to lynching him as town are 3 things. 1: Deadline is over. 2:No other player has been recruited. 3: Everything that Peers has said, and should be saying now, can be taken as golden honest truth and we have 96 pages of interactions to re-examine.

Anyhow, let me know when someone gets lynched.

[Setael]

Ok so Cicero made some good points. I was assuming it'd be easy to lynch peers later when it would be more helpful and he'd still have the ability to skip night. After Cicero's last post I realized that if Peers really is the cult recruiter, it actually won't be easy at all to get him lynched later if there are recruits running around refusing to vote for him. Also, if his suffering means losing his power, that would also be a big loss for the town. I definitely think Peers is a better lynch than Cicero or MoS.

unvote; vote Peers

[Mastermind of Sin]

If it is mathematically advantageous for us to lynch him later (eg to delay a critical late-game recruitment), then this is something we'd be nicely signposting to the scum. Either the logic is incorrect and it's not worth leaving him alive to lynch later (in which case it's not an argument not to do it today), or it

is

correct and the benefits of getting two lynches in one day is gone.

So the question is what's better for us: two lynches in one day, or two lynches over two days (but a scum night-action in between is taken up killing Peers)? Unless the scum can do more than NK in any given night, which is pure speculation anyway, it's the latter, because pro-town roles get an extra night of investigation, etc.

Put that way, I'm talking myself out of it. It's basically coming down to lynching a probable-townie (but a lynch that could well be scum and is the best possible mislynch if not), or restarting the search for another candidate (Pooky looks like a current favourite, again).

Unvote

again. Sorry, I'm just not happy with this one yet.

I have yet to see you explain how Peers is

at all

a "probable-townie". He's probable-scum, and unlikely town, but in the event that he *is* town, we don't lose as much by lynching him. He's still most likely scum, though.

Is it really that unbelievable? In a generic, unthemed game, a "Mayor" role which acts as described doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. Granted, it feels more out of place in this very much themed game, but it's still a poor choice for a scum claim due to the fact it doesn't dissuade a lynch.

I can see why people don't believe it. I can't see why people would refuse to believe it could be true.

Have you actually read the claim? It's fairly obvious the Peers thought his ability

would

dissuade a lynch, because people would want to go to night. He clearly didn't think it through, but it's not about whether or not it's a poor choice for a scum claim. It's whether or not

Peers

thought it was a poor choice, and his claim indicates that he thought it was a good choice for dissuading a lynch.

#1 - I know. I brought this possibility up originally as "things that would have to be true for Peers' claim to be a scum claim". I also don't think it's a scum-tell as if the role is

genuine

he might also have not thought it through, and thought he could dissuade his lynch.

This might be a valid point

except

for the fact that his role doesn't actually fit in the theme AT ALL, therefore his indication that it would dissuade a lynch is supporting evidence for him being scum, not town.

#2 - What is that name? People keep saying this but

Mariyta's

role doesn't have a name, nor does the, as implied by posts on the subject, security guard in the film do much of anything. This doesn't play to the strength of "no mayor in the film" as an argument against Peers.

Mariyta's role doesn't have a name, but it IS a character in the film, and it IS listed in the credits. There is NO mayor in the film, anywhere. There IS a security guard, so there is a huge difference between the two claims.

I don't actually disagree with either you, or cicero. Particularly cicero, whose post 2375 I thought was very :goodposting:, or whatever the convention is for applauding it. The salient point seems to be that, ultimately, I think he's going to be one of those "oh damn, it looked so good on paper" lynches, whereas you guys seem to be happier about the likelihood of him lying.

It's not like I even

want

to defend him, because like cicero says, he

is

a good vote and, even if he's innocent, the consequences are as good as they get. But, if he's innocent, not lynching him is still better, so no vote from me.

Look, if someone is innocent, not lynching them is ALWAYS better. However, if we followed that logic, we would never lynch. The key here is that it's MORE likely that he's lying, so we need to act on that rather than the chance that he is innocent.

I see a lot more reason to lynch him in a few days rather than today. If he is NK'd and we lose that free night, it's saving an innocent from being NK'd and therefore serving the same purpose.

I see a lot less reason to lynch him in a few days rather than today. Sure, the numbers are slightly better, but no one has taken the cult into account. If people start joining the cult, that means they have more people working for them and against the town. If we lynch Peers today and he happens to be innocent, there are more protown voices deciding the next lynch as well. If we wait until later and the cult has grown, they will be able to better influence the next day lynch after Peers is dead. I don't think the scum will kill Peers, because the larger the cult gets, the less effective that extra day is going to be against them, since they can manipulate it better. I'd rather have that extra lynch now when the cult is small than when it is larger.

. But in this game, when Yosarian plays dumb, Cicero flags the play. Your "let's wait" idea - you were the first to say it - just pinged me right in the noggin' so I said something.

Note I never actually said "let's wait". All I was doing was pointing out the logical flaws in the argument made by MOS and co, the "even if he's town we should want to lynch him today because of his ability" argument. That was a badly flawed argument, for a couple of reasons, and I was just pointing out one of the reasons why it's a flawed argument.

Any time someone says "it's a good move to lynch him even if he's town", it sets off alarm bells in my head, because sometimes comments like that can be scum trying to prematurly justify what they know is going to be a bad lynch, so when someone says that and then backs it up with bad logic, I'm going to point it out.

It's not a "good move" to lynch him if he's town. However, it is not as

bad

as lynching someone ELSE who is town. The main argument against Peers is still that he is likely to be scum. However it IS a valid point to say that the town still gains

something

if he's innocent, even though we still lose a protown player. Peers is the most likely scum right now, so lynching him is the best choice. Lynching anyone else is lynching someone who is less scummy than Peers, so we run a higher risk (not statistically, but according to our scumdars) of that person being town, which not only kills a protown player but gives the cult another chance to recruit.

[Peers]

Y'know, when you think about it... why would a cult of vampires bother to abide by a curfew anyway? *shrug*

Either hurry up and lynch me, or pick someone else; I hate deadline-kills, it's like watching someone get elected President when they have less popular votes than the other guy...

[Mr. Flay]

Twenty-third Vote Count of Day Three:

Peers - 7 (Crub, Mastermind of Sin, cicero, Ectomancer, Arafax, Yosarian2, Setael)

Mastermind of Sin - 2 (Battle Mage, Peers)
PookyTheMagicalBear - 1 (HackerHuck)

Not Voting - 7 (PookyTheMagicalBear, AniX, -TinVision-, Sir.Laggalot, Sudo_Nym, Mariyta, Dasquian)

With seventeen present, it will take nine votes to lynch normally.

A retractable deadline is in place for December 4th, however. At deadline, 50% of

cast

votes will be sufficient to lynch; with ten cast right now, that would mean five is enough.

If nothing changes, Peers will be deadline lynched.

---

Mr. Flay: Can we get a prod on Pooky? Last post was Nov. 16.

Mod: Mass Prods would be nice

I'm keeping up with prods, I just don't announce them in-thread unless specifically requested on an individual player.

[Mariyta]

#2 - What is that name? People keep saying this but

Mariyta's

role doesn't have a name, nor does the, as implied by posts on the subject, security guard in the film do much of anything. This doesn't play to the strength of "no mayor in the film" as an argument against Peers.

I do have a name. Vernon Beasley.

[Dasquian]

*slaps forehead*

For some reason, I was working on the assumption that you had claimed a nameless security guard. You hadn't. Sorry.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Y'know, when you think about it... why would a cult of vampires bother to abide by a curfew anyway? *shrug*

Either hurry up and lynch me, or pick someone else; I hate deadline-kills, it's like watching someone get elected President when they have less popular votes than the other guy...

Because if only the vampires went out during curfew, it'd be obvious to see who they were by looking outside. Duh.

[Peers]

Y'know, when you think about it... why would a cult of vampires bother to abide by a curfew anyway? *shrug*

Because if only the vampires went out during curfew, it'd be obvious to see who they were by looking outside. Duh.

And you know this because you're a vampire, right?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Umm, I

think

this because it's common sense...

[Yosarian2]

It's not a "good move" to lynch him if he's town. However, it is not as

bad

as lynching someone ELSE who is town.

...

However it IS a valid point to say that the town still gains

something

if he's innocent, even though we still lose a protown player.

That's really not a good argument, for the reasons I've already pointed out, in that if he's telling the truth the town dosn't gain anything special from lynching him *today*. This argument is irrelevent, though, since I don't really believe his claim at all at the moment; I think we should really just lynch him and move on.