Mini 500 - Cult Mafia - Game Over!

[Guardian]

Mod Post:

Still 0 votes.

[Trojan Horse]

First up, I don't see why you need to counter a case on yourself with a case on MoS. Turnabout is not unfair (Why on earth did you cal it "fair play", like that is a justification?), but that doesn't explain why you just reciprocated.

He didn't make a case against me. He just pointed to an earlier case made against me; a case that I had already responded to. If he had asked me to respond to certain things, I would have. But he didn't. What was there for me to respond to? Figured I should just do the same thing back to him.

Also, that PBPA was not a case, at all.

I know, but it was the best I could do at that moment.

[Mastermind of Sin]

TH, I never asked you to respond to it. I just pointed people back to the earlier discussion about you so they could make their own conclusions since you'd responded to it in a later post. Your response to my link seemed like a bad attempt to diminish the effect of my post.

[vollkan]

First up, I don't see why you need to counter a case on yourself with a case on MoS. Turnabout is not unfair (Why on earth did you cal it "fair play", like that is a justification?), but that doesn't explain why you just reciprocated.

He didn't make a case against me. He just pointed to an earlier case made against me; a case that I had already responded to. If he had asked me to respond to certain things, I would have. But he didn't. What was there for me to respond to? Figured I should just do the same thing back to him.

Hmm. I have a question. It may seem odd, but it has a point: What did you think the purpose of referring to the PBPA of you was?

[Trojan Horse]

To remind the group of how scummy I looked at that point?

[vollkan]

Okay. Now, my interpretation of MoS's actions in referring to the PBPA on you was that it was just meant to be a springboard for further discussion, hence why I said it "can't be considered on its own". There was much more that needed to be discussed if that PBPA was to be considered. MoS's response to my comment about the lengthy debate which arose from the PBPA demonstrated this to me.

Now, I would argue that, objectively, it is more feasible to view the reference to the PBPA on you as a springboard. Suggesting it was designed to make you look scummy seems overly-paranoid to me. Particularly since everybody knows that there was an extensive debate flowing from that PBPA, it would hardly be an effective means of enflaming any suspicion of you, would it? That's the main reason I think your interpretation of things is weak.

On the flip side, MoS called it an "extensive case" and made no reference to the ensuing discussion until I had raised the matter (which was after you had posted). In that light, your initial response may have been justified.

Either way, though, reciprocation seems an inappropriate response. Question the validity of that PBPA as a case, by all means, but simply referring to an equivalent post about MoS seems diversionary. Rather than engaging the issues raised, you add more to obfuscate.

[Mastermind of Sin]

You're both partially right. I did post that to add onto my own case about TH being scummy, but I was also using it as a springboard. I still think that TH came out looking scummy at the end of the conversation started by that PBPA, so I linked everyone to the PBPA as a starting point of rereading that discussion.

The diversionary response doesn't make me think any better of you.

[vollkan]

Okay, I'm going to look over the latest bits of the debate which flowed from the theo case on TH.

vollkan in 1363
TH's response in 1375
vollkan's counter-response in 1376 (is just below TH in 1375, obviously).

Now,
The first issue that was never resolved was the "broken scumdar" matter - that TH was using a "broken scumdar" as an excuse for not actively scumhunting. This exchange ended with a comment by me:

Well, if there's any doubt about my scumdar being broken, check out the four players who have been nightkilled so far. I suspected them all at some point, but only one turned out to be a bad guy (and he was the cult recruiter, not a scum).
....

But more to the point: I have spent some time looking at everyone's posts and trying to find scummier things than just "Oh, MoS hasn't settled on anyone yet, strange for him" and "Oh, tyhess is hopping like crazy, could be scum". Had I found stronger evidence than that, I would've brought it up.

I admit, too many times I've watched two (or three) players go back and forth in a huge argument, and I've sat there and thought it was a null tell for both. "This looks like an argument between two townies with weak evidence. Not sure why this even started. Both are looking like the typical protowner right now. Scum must be happy right now." MoS summed it up well when he said a case could be made against anyone. And that has really frustrated me.

Well, it does not really indicate brokenness. I think everybody has suspected almost everybody at some point. My issue, as you no doubt gather, is that a "broken scumdar" is a rather convenient excuse.

This matter basically got reduced to TH saying that his scumdar was

actually

broken (though he has now apparently gained enlightenment ). Anyway, the fact that it was an easy excuse was not resolved in the debate. I don't think there can be any disputing that it is a fairly dodgy explanation for behaviour in that it evades the consequences of actions and inactions by placing them upon a personal playstyle fault.

I've never seen this sort of excuse before, so I would hesitate before calling it a scumtell. However, I find it suspect on the basis that it is an evasive excuse.

3) Uses this impaired ability to scumhunt as an excuse for his "nicey-nicey" scumdar.

Alright, I'll stop making excuses. But it's the truth.

Same thing as above. TH thinks it is the truth and not an excuse (again, interesting that when push comes to shove today, he is so full of ideas)

4) Theo makes a good point that TH actually makes himself sound scummiest, and calls this being apologetic. TH says that he just wanted to be "comprehensive".

I want to carry my own weight in this game. Don't just want to follow the crowd. I was having trouble finding scumtells. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so apologetic about that.

But as for my being "comprehensive", I think I've been consistent in that regard. When theo was doing breakdowns of various players during day 2, I wanted us to pitch in and do one for him. When you were doing breakdowns today, vollkan, I did one for you. Is it silly for me to add in what I expect to be the main argument against me, when I do my scumdar for everyone else? (Ok, maybe it's silly, but I did it anyway.)

To which I replied:

Well, I don't doubt you being comprehensive. The thing is that I see "self-scumminess" admissions as a form of apologetics and damage control. Sort of like that if you confess your sins you will be absolved and not get hunted down for them. It isn't necessarily a scumtell, but it has an unhelpful neutralising effect which is anti-town in the long run.

Again. Not resolved. TH puts apologetics, which I do find scummy, to playstyle again. The fact that he again uses this tactic of reducing things to playstyle is notable.

5) The whole giving in to MoS's pressure and voting tyhess thing he puts down to frustration at being wishy-washy and having nothing to go on. This is effectively an emotional excuse and TH doesn't seem to be a particularly emotional player. Possible inconsistency.

Yes, that was an inconsistency. I'm not usually an emotional player, but that was a rare moment of emotion for me.

I made no response to this at the time, because it's sort of an undebatable response from TH. Again though, we see it being put down to playstyle fault - a lapse into emotiveness.

6) Argues that we should consider lynching lurkers because we don't want the scum to be able to hide. The problem with this is, obviously, that town are just as likely to be lurking as scum are. Hence, lynching them is hardly helpful.

Call it a meta, if you want. I don't want the game to degenerate into a lurk-a-thon, which would only help the scum. I want people to talk. (If a scum managed to lurk the whole game, and survived the whole game, and won, I'd be REALLY mad. Fortunately, doesn't look like that'll happen; the only remaining player who could be called a serious lurker is Tar, and I really doubt he's scum.)

I didn't address this point either.

The interesting thing here is that TH never engages me on the point I raised ("What about the fact that town can also lurk") by relying on the nightmare scenarios of the game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory. It's a sort of slipper-slope thing. Rather than explaining why potentially lynching a townie at that point was justified, he focuses on the worst possible consequences.

[pwayne66]

Tar has jumped up on my scumdar, he is posting in other threads (not much, but he is reading and posting as late as yesterday.

I will examine the TH case this weekend.

[Trojan Horse]

Apologies for the lack of posts. I was running around all day today, and I'll be doing the same tomorrow. I just have time to respond to vollkan's final paragraph right now. If there's anything else you want me to give top priority to, please say so. (I'll have time for another quick post tomorrow, but probably not time enough for a lengthy one.)

The interesting thing here is that TH never engages me on the point I raised ("What about the fact that town can also lurk") by relying on the nightmare scenarios of the game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory. It's a sort of slipper-slope thing. Rather than explaining why potentially lynching a townie at that point was justified, he focuses on the worst possible consequences.

I know full well the town can also lurk. And that's what I'd like to prevent. My hope when I push for a lurker lynch is that the lurker will stop lurking, and then we won't have to lynch them. It's a threat. Now, if they won't respond to the threat, why not lynch them? In that case, they're either scum (and lynching them is good) or they're an unhelpful town (and lynching them is not so good, but at least the more helpful townies stay around). And perhaps after that lurker is lynched, the rest of the town will think twice about doing the same.

You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because I felt that he was town (although my confidence in that has been shaken now). In the case of Flameaxe, I considered him of above average scumminess. Also, he did some lurking at a key moment: at the end of day 1, when we were all scrambling to find a lynch. So I felt a lurker-lynch of Flameaxe was justified.

So I'm not in favor of lynching all lurkers. But some should be lynched, and at least the threat of doing so can do some good.

Was there a specific push for a lurker lynch I made, which bothered you? Was it my push against Flameaxe, or was it something else I've forgotten?

[Mastermind of Sin]

You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because he is my scumbuddy

I felt that he was town

Fixed.

[Trojan Horse]

It's getting tough for me to envision a scenario where I no longer believe that MoS is scum. I'm tempted to just vote for MoS and be done with it.

I'll resist that temptation, though, until pwayne has had a chance to weigh in.

[Mastermind of Sin]

It's getting tough for me to envision a scenario where Trojan Horse would not see my post as a reasonable interpretation and where he isn't scum or an idiot.

[vollkan]

Apologies for the lack of posts. I was running around all day today, and I'll be doing the same tomorrow. I just have time to respond to vollkan's final paragraph right now. If there's anything else you want me to give top priority to, please say so. (I'll have time for another quick post tomorrow, but probably not time enough for a lengthy one.)

The interesting thing here is that TH never engages me on the point I raised ("What about the fact that town can also lurk") by relying on the nightmare scenarios of the game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory. It's a sort of slipper-slope thing. Rather than explaining why potentially lynching a townie at that point was justified, he focuses on the worst possible consequences.

I know full well the town can also lurk. And that's what I'd like to prevent. My hope when I push for a lurker lynch is that the lurker will stop lurking, and then we won't have to lynch them. It's a threat. Now, if they won't respond to the threat, why not lynch them? In that case, they're either scum (and lynching them is good) or they're an unhelpful town (and lynching them is not so good, but at least the more helpful townies stay around). And perhaps after that lurker is lynched, the rest of the town will think twice about doing the same.

You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because I felt that he was town (although my confidence in that has been shaken now). In the case of Flameaxe, I considered him of above average scumminess. Also, he did some lurking at a key moment: at the end of day 1, when we were all scrambling to find a lynch. So I felt a lurker-lynch of Flameaxe was justified.

So I'm not in favor of lynching all lurkers. But some should be lynched, and at least the threat of doing so can do some good.

Was there a specific push for a lurker lynch I made, which bothered you? Was it my push against Flameaxe, or was it something else I've forgotten?

I just noticed something in the progression of this lurker issue, which changes things.

I'll try and snip the relevant bits:
Theo's initial post

* Comments that he won't be worried about AC's dissapearance if Kakeng performs.
...
* Calls Tar out for his lurking.
* Willing to vote for him if he doesn't appear.
* Next few posts seem pretty low-key, not much going on, definately no scumhunting.
* Oh look another scum looking post, how many is that - reasons follows someone CKD, wants to lynch a lurker.

You just had to give me another thing to think about, CKD. Tar definitely hasn't been a very helpful replacement yet. (Hmm. Perhaps Kakeng deserves a look for the same reason.) Do we want to do a lurker-lynch? I'm tempted.

* Few more contentless posts.
* Actually wants to force pressure on the lurker circa posts 62 - 66.

TH's response

And lo and behold changes his opinion slightly on ac, complete turnaround from post 30

Oh, and theo... lemme go see what acfan said before he got replaced. I'll go see what you're talking about.

Interesting that I post the case against AC, he raises his suspicion a notch

Okay. I'll raise acfan/Kakeng's scummy level a notch. But just a notch.

* Comments that he won't be worried about AC's dissapearance if Kakeng performs.

And is it a bad thing to change my opinion based on someone else's argument? As for the last comment there: it's always tough dealing with lurkers, since you don't know if RL just got in the way, or if the person is scum and is trying to stay below the radar (or is trying to avoid confrontation). If Kakeng actually contributed, I'd have to assume RL got in acfan's way, and that would be that. But Kakeng was as bad as acfan, so I had to think...

...

* Calls Tar out for his lurking.
* Willing to vote for him if he doesn't appear.

Okay, that's the last thing I'm going to quote concerning lurkers. Why is it so wrong to consider lynching a lurker? The last thing we want is to give the scum a chance to win the game by just saying nothing. We need to get the scum talking (by getting everyone talking), so we can try to catch scum.

From my initiral re-evaluation

.....
6) Argues that we should consider lynching lurkers because we don't want the scum to be able to hide. The problem with this is, obviously, that town are just as likely to be lurking as scum are. Hence, lynching them is hardly helpful.

Basically, the point that needs to be made is that the justifications for the lurker lynch were made

after

the fact. That may seem a rather pointless matter, but I wanted it to be clear that TH was not (judging by what I just read) actually using these arguments (the nightmare "total lurking" scenario as an example) at the time of pushing no lynch. His justification at the time, to use one of the bits quoted by Theo was:

You just had to give me another thing to think about, CKD. Tar definitely hasn't been a very helpful replacement yet. (Hmm. Perhaps Kakeng deserves a look for the same reason.) Do we want to do a lurker-lynch? I'm tempted.

What this changes is that we are not actually debating the arguments he made at the time, but his subsequent defences.

[Trojan Horse]

Incidentally, as far as lurker-lynches go, I'm starting to get tempted again. Tar has made 7 posts in other mafia games since his last post in this one. He says he has limited access (and I believe it), but apparently he has found time during that limited access to do some posting in other games. Why not here?

So far, vollkan and MoS are the two players that have come the hardest against me (not surprisingly, considering that I've argued against them). This makes me wonder if I actually got things right, or if the scum are actually pwayne and Tar, and they're just sitting back and waiting to claim their win. I don't like this.

(I know, I just said it would be hard to envision a scenario where I no longer think that MoS is scum. Well, my thoughts are shifting a bit.)

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm not going to post any content or cast a vote until Tar and pwayne start giving us some content. Consider this a strike, especially against Tar. pwayne's not in trouble, Tar is. It's just that I'm waiting on them both, and pwayne happens to be waiting on Tar.

[vollkan]

The lack of activity here disturbs me.

Guardian - please prod pwayne

As for Tar, I am beginning to think that he is beyond prodding. I know he said a while back that he needs to do more work for this game, but his level of inactivity here is really killing this game. An idea that just occurred to me is that we could try asking tyhess to replace Tar. I suggest tyhess only because he hasn't been gone that long (and getting anybody new to replace into a 62 page game is pretty much impossible)

[Guardian]

pwayne66 prodded.
tyhess asked about replacing Tar.

[Tarhalindur]

Frankly, I should have done this a long time ago. Sorry to inflict a 60-page reread on my replacement.

Request Replacement

[Guardian]

tyhess replaces tar!

[vollkan]

Many thanks to tyhess. Welcome back.

[pwayne66]

Thanks Tyhess. Prod received etc, etc, etc.

I don't buy into TH's MoS theory. It's my feeling that had we lynched yesterday, we would have lynched oman. (I may be wrong but that seems to have been the direction we were going). MoSscum would have been content with this lynch and even more so by having a chance to NK yet another protown player. The only reason I can see MoSscum pushing no lynch is if there was a chance to lynch him or his partner.

On top of this, if MoS knew that Oman was Vig (as TH suggest) he would be doubly happy with this lynch. This doesn't mean that MoS is not scum, only that I am not compelled to believe so based solely on the arguments that you have made.

[Trojan Horse]

But we wouldn't have lynched Oman. Eventually, he would've claimed vig. And unless some scum counterclaimed (which would've been incredibly stupid), we would've believed Oman, and lynched someone else.

[vollkan]

Thanks Tyhess. Prod received etc, etc, etc.

I don't buy into TH's MoS theory. It's my feeling that had we lynched yesterday, we would have lynched oman. (I may be wrong but that seems to have been the direction we were going). MoSscum would have been content with this lynch and even more so by having a chance to NK yet another protown player. The only reason I can see MoSscum pushing no lynch is if there was a chance to lynch him or his partner.

On top of this, if MoS knew that Oman was Vig (as TH suggest) he would be doubly happy with this lynch. This doesn't mean that MoS is not scum, only that I am not compelled to believe so based solely on the arguments that you have made.

I agree that had we lynched yesterday, Oman would have been the most likely candidate, based on the opinions people had expressed.

As far as things go in respect of MoS, I just struck what I think is a very persuasive argument for MoS not being mafia:

First up, consider a counter-claim situation. Speaking for myself, I know that I would likely have believed MoS over Oman. I would have needed to do some serious thinking if anyone else had countered.

Now, the next point depends on whether or not we think that the scum knew the role of Oman. TH has indicated already that he thinks this was probably the case and, whilst his power role suggestion seems weak, I think this is a reasonable suggestion.

If so, then it really begs the question as to why MosScum would advocate No Lynch at all. If he pushed Oman's lynch, which would have been easy given the suspicion Oman had attracted, scumMoS could have counter-claimed Oman when Oman claimed. Lynching the vig in the 4:2 situation yesterday would have meant our loss. (@TH - It's pretty clear that scum counterclaiming well yesterday would not have been "incredibly stupid")

If not, then it would still seem odd for ScumMoS to call for No Lynch/No Vig when it looked like things would moving to an Oman lynch. The only risk to scumMoS would be the vig killing. Thus, this scenario is dependent on risk assessment speculation.

[pwayne66]

No lynch, to me, just seems like a risky thing to advocate and especially if you are scum. I haven't played much, (a few games now) but I have never encountered a situation where pushing "no lynch" didn't result in the pusher looking either scummy or foolish; so the risk/cost of the no lynch seem to outweigh the benefits for scum.

Its possible that MoS, knowing oman's role, feared him claiming and pushed "no lynch" instead, but it seems to be a stretch. Even discarding Volkan's argument that MoS would counterclaim, Oman dies with a NK. It is still more likely that a townie gets lynched than scum (considering the 6 players, with one claimed makes 3-2 split). I would expect scum to take those odds over pushing something as dangerous as "No Lynch". Maybe I am wrong about the dangers of pushing "no lynch". If so, some more experienced players may be able to enlighten me.