Mini 561: R-1000 Mafia (Game over!)

[DeanWinchester]

Don't worry rigel I'm here to watch your lynch. I haven't liked you from the beggining. I find your play to be not helpful and desperate.

I also don't like CD's latest post's.

[Lawrencelot]

Sorry guys, RL things got in between.

End of day Votecount:
Rigel (5): DeanWinchester, opie, armlx, ZONEACE, chaotic_diablo
Dean Winchester (2): aioqwe, Sarcastro
armlx (1): Rigel

Not voting (3): springlullaby, skitzer, andersonw

With 11 alive it's 6 to lynch. At deadline, the one with the most votes is lynched.

It was a chaos in the town. Everybody pushed Rigel in a corner, demanding to know who he was. "You're the mafia, aren't you? Mister important person." "No, I'm just a poet, you probably know me: William Shakespeare. I don't kill people, I only write about it." But it wasn't enough, some were too sure he was mafia, some didn't think Shakespeare was important, and before sunset, Rigel was lynched.

Rigel, William Shakespeare, Poet (Townie) lynched Day 1.

It is now Night 2. Send me your nightchoices.

[Lawrencelot]

The town fears the worst. Most likely there is another dead body, or maybe even more. As they count heads, they notice that Sarcastro is missing. The only good thing is that Sarcastro is the only one missing. When they arrive at his house, they see that he has been shot several times. Besides him are some unfinished works of sheet music.

Sarcastro, Ludwig van Beethoven, Composer (Townie), killed Night 2.

It is now Day 2. With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

[armlx]

Vote Chaotic Diablo

Votes himself, lurks, then unvotes in response to the claim then revotes while saying the wagon is fishy.

[ZONEACE]

Vote CD

I said we should take a look at him today and we should. His actions yesterday were more than scummy, especially the post after he picked up his prod.

Rigel's claim seems believable, though I'm still getting a nagging feeling. I'll place a vote by the deadline.

unvote

[armlx]

JUST A FORWARD NOTICE:

We are not quick lynching CD. Once he hits 3 votes, anyone else who votes him before he has an adequate chance to talk is EXTREMELY suspect.

[andersonw]

JUST A FORWARD NOTICE:

We are not quick lynching CD. Once he hits 3 votes, anyone else who votes him before he has an adequate chance to talk is EXTREMELY suspect.

But if there were 3 scum, wouldn't they try to quicklynch right now? Since it's 5 to lynch, and there are currently 2 votes on CD.
Wait a minute, was that just a slip? Or is it just incredibly stupid for all three scum to vote for CD one after the other right if he was town?

Also, you can't really say Chaotic_diablo was scummy for voting himself because that was during RVS.
I agree with your other points on CD, though. His post that ZONEACE pointed out does seem very suspicious.

FoS: chaotic_diablo

[aioqwe]

FoS: CD to indicate where my vote would be. I don't think I've posted my suspicions yet but I've had them On that note, both of our victims were "shot", I'm guessing this implies we only have one mafia group?

[armlx]

anderson: We still have another day after this till lynch or lose with a standard 9-3 set up. Even if 3 town vote CD, if 2 mafia quick lynched him after that would be incredibly dumb for them.

Self voting is only anti-town. At worst it was him trying to get out of random voting without showing connections accidentally. At the least its him voting for someone who, if he is town, is 100% confirmed pro-town.

[chaotic_diablo]

Vote CD

I said we should take a look at him today and we should. His actions yesterday were more than scummy, especially the post after he picked up his prod.

Rigel's claim seems believable, though I'm still getting a nagging feeling. I'll place a vote by the deadline.

unvote

I find it reasonable to unvote after a prod since it indicates that I'm unwilling to contribute to a lynch if I'm not paying attention. By voting by the deadline, it tells everyone that I'm stepping back a little and re-evaluating the situation.

Vote CD

after your prod thats it??? the little "I'll vote by the deadline" screams I'll play it safe and see where everyone is and do something to not stand out. TAKE A STAND. Stop trying to be a hiding scum.

Your interpretation of "I'll vote by the deadline" is incorrect. There is no reason to play it safe if scum can get a mislynch on town. It would be more troublesome to unvote then revote as scum. At the very least, I could have just stuck to my vote on Rigel and fed everyone else BS that Rigel is "obv scum". My unvote is not to see where everyone else is, but to see where my own vote is. Logically, it only looks suspicious, but lacks any sort of objective for scum to accomplish.

My nagging feeling came from Rigel's claim. While it was believable, something didn't seem right with it. Or rather the attacks against that claim. For instance, here's opie's.

I get the feeling that this is more of a safe claim. To me, a vanilla claim does not prove to me one way or another. The only claims that make me stop and think are power claims. I think we need to avoid the trap that good guys historically will be town and bad guys historically will be scum. Especially when there are figures that could go either way. Christopher Columbus for example could be cast in either a good guy or bad guy role, depending on which side of the ocean you lived.

He states that he feels the the claim is a "safe-claim", yet goes into detail that we shouldn't fall into the good guy bad guy trap. While it sounds alright, the main problem is that a "safe-claim" has the purpose of telling us that the roles are just that, "black and white". Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good. Otherwise there is no point in having a "safe-claim". The two differing attacks on Rigel's claim are strange. It makes me think about what really drove the Rigel wagon.

Self voting is only anti-town. At worst it was him trying to get out of random voting without showing connections accidentally. At the least its him voting for someone who, if he is town, is 100% confirmed pro-town.

I don't have to tell you how unreasonable/stupid that logic is. Random voting isn't an obligation and it isn't scummy if I don't feel like joining in.

[armlx]

I don't have to tell you how unreasonable/stupid that logic is. Random voting isn't an obligation and it isn't scummy if I don't feel like joining in.

Yes it is, and yes it is. Random voting serves to establish connections and cause accidental slips, leading to relevant discussion that doesn't give away pro-town role info. In a standard closed set up (aka things that aren't CotI/Masons and Mafia) random voting does not harm the town at all. Therefore, as it can only benefit the town, refusing to do it is refusing to help the town, which is scummy.

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't have to tell you how unreasonable/stupid that logic is. Random voting isn't an obligation and it isn't scummy if I don't feel like joining in.

Yes it is, and yes it is. Random voting serves to establish connections and cause accidental slips, leading to relevant discussion that doesn't give away pro-town role info. In a standard closed set up (aka things that aren't CotI/Masons and Mafia) random voting does not harm the town at all. Therefore, as it can only benefit the town, refusing to do it is refusing to help the town, which is scummy.

Self-voting can prevent the wrong connections to be establish and prevent a pro-town player from accidentally misleading town. In a standard closed set-up, self-voting does not harm town at all. Therefore, as it can only benefit the town, refusing to do it is refusing to help the town, which is scummy.

[ZONEACE]

self voting is siply a way of ebing stubborn and non paticipatory but still look like you're doing something. if you truly wanted to prevent the problems you mentioned and not participate in random voting (as you said before) then you should just NOT random vote. Vote no one, instead of pull the self voting BS. You're actions have been more than a little scummy CD.

[aioqwe]

Self voting might be worthwhile at endgame in 2-1-1 town-A mafia-B mafia or something equivalent. Otherwise, it's generally anti-town.

[opie]

[quote="

In Post 184

chaotic_diablo]While it sounds alright, the main problem is that a "safe-claim" has the purpose of telling us that the roles are just that, "black and white". Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good. Otherwise there is no point in having a "safe-claim".[/quote]I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. For me a safe claim is provided to prevent mass claims. Scum can be sure that no one else will have the role or the character in their safe claim. That's what makes it safe. They can claim if forced and not be legitimately countered. I'm not sure why safe claim's have to be black and white.

[chaotic_diablo]

self voting is siply a way of ebing stubborn and non paticipatory but still look like you're doing something. if you truly wanted to prevent the problems you mentioned and not participate in random voting (as you said before) then you should just NOT random vote. Vote no one, instead of pull the self voting BS. You're actions have been more than a little scummy CD.

I was not pointing out that I had the initial intention of preventing those problems, I was pointing out the hazardous logic armlx was using by applying it to my own words. If by some chance his logic works to support my own argument, then it shows us that there is a problem with his argument. Since it works, there is definitely a problem and needs to be corrected. I also need to point out that, if it doesn't harm town, then they can only benefit from it, type of logic is a false statement. It draws on several assumptions.
1. Random voting cannot harm town- false statement
2. Things that cannot hurt can only help us- false statement
3. Refusing to help us means you're harming us- false statement

I self-vote simply to be unique and have a little fun before the real game starts. I wouldn't lynch someone simply because they self-voted, so I'd expect you would have more to say rather than pick on this one issue. I'd prefer to see how my actions constitute something that are "more than a little scummy". I highly doubt my self-vote is as "scummy" as you say it is.

vote chaoticdiablo

That underscore creeps me out too.

That underscore surely is implying that I had the intent of confusing and misleading town into defeat. It's a top notch scum action.

Random voting is also just a way to be non-participatory but still look like you're doing something. There are many instances in which players have random voted, then lurked and zip off the radar simply because they have random voted and proved that they are "here" with their one vote/post.

Not random voting and selfvoting accomplish the same goals to prevent the same problem I stated. Why should I choose one over the other? Especially if one option has the potential to benefit or harm town? You have not given me a valid account as to why self-voting is scummy. The main jist of this argument is that: it's not random voting, therefore it's scummy.

While it sounds alright, the main problem is that a "safe-claim" has the purpose of telling us that the roles are just that, "black and white". Hitler is bad, Ghandi is good. Otherwise there is no point in having a "safe-claim".

I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. For me a safe claim is provided to prevent mass claims. Scum can be sure that no one else will have the role or the character in their safe claim. That's what makes it safe. They can claim if forced and not be legitimately countered. I'm not sure why safe claim's have to be black and white.

I'm not saying safe-claims are black and white. I'm referring to the original roles given by the moderator. Since those roles are black and white with an obvious bad guy good guy differentiation, safe-claims are used to prevent a mass claim from breaking the game. Otherwise there is no purpose of having a safe-claim. A safe-claim is used to prevent mass claims because mass claiming would give away the alignment of those claims. Here's a wiki entry for mafia that I found.

For example, a Mass Roleclaim in some Theme Games (

specifically, ones where almost all of the obviously good named characters are in the game

) will force the evil players to either claim names that are much more obscure, or claim a major role name and hope they manage to get the other player lynched.

Going back to your post, you brought up that you felt that Rigel's claim was a safe-claim, then brought up the idea that we shouldn't be fooled by the obvious goodbad guy trap. It just seems to me that you only had the intention of attacking Rigel and discrediting his claim, even though your attacks didn't flow well together.

[DeanWinchester]

I have read enough.

vote Chaotic Diablo

His back tracking and long winded arguments have me convinced he is scum.

[skitzer]

vote: Dean Winchester

Now, I'm not denying that CD is scum, but DW miniscue reasoning there seems to be just based off what others have said. You could add something to that if you truly thought he was scum.

[armlx]

vote: Dean Winchester

Now, I'm not denying that CD is scum, but DW miniscue reasoning there seems to be just based off what others have said. You could add something to that if you truly thought he was scum.

A quick meta of Dean shows this is what he does and he is constantly attacked for it.

[skitzer]

Unvote

, then...

That isn't very good game play though, IMO.

[ZONEACE]

its worth noting, but based on the meta its probably not worth voting, yet. But it did catch my attention also and i won't be forgetting it.

[armlx]

That isn't very good game play though, IMO.

No one disagrees. However, I have learned bad players change on their own faster from discussion like this than lynches. Or they don't change at all.

[chaotic_diablo]

I have read enough.

vote Chaotic Diablo

His back tracking and long winded arguments have me convinced he is scum.

They're long-winded only because you refuse to read it. Other than that, I'd appreciate it if you give more detail.

I've been piecing together the attacks against me and formed an argument that may have some relevance to the case, but the responses I get to my defense are that I'm "obv scum" and I've done something "more than a little scummy". Whether I make an argument or not, I highly doubt any of you will listen and provide some sort of constructive counterargument or feedback.

[armlx]

You can't try to counter the logic you have been acting scummy by saying the tried and true logic is wrong. You can give non-scummy reasons for your actions and let us decide what we want to do with you.

[chaotic_diablo]

You can't try to counter the logic you have been acting scummy by saying the tried and true logic is wrong. You can give non-scummy reasons for your actions and let us decide what we want to do with you.

Your deal seems to be that you can't get over the fact that you don't like my self-vote. Self-voting was never applied in the tried and true logic and you're simply arguing that since it isn't random voting, it's scummy. There hasn't been an established rule on the benefits or harmful effects of self voting since it occurs uncommonly. Coupled with the fact that I know you are familiar with my playstyle and metagaming self-vote, I'm convinced that you're only trying to lynch me because you hate self-voting and not because I'm scum. That in itself doesn't benefit town.