890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[DeathSauce]

Ok, Faraday, I owe you an apology. I apparently do need to learn to read because I was looking at DisCode's first post in ISO when I thought I was looking at yours. That's what I get for having 4 tabs open in the same game.

[DeathSauce]

Death, your opinion of Seacore and Chaco, please.

No. Maybe later.

[/quote]And answer Faraday's question for once as you're trying really hard to evade it.[/quote] No. Maybe later. I'm not evading a damned thing, I have my reasons.[/quote]

[Faraday]

Ok, Faraday, I owe you an apology. I apparently do need to learn to read because I was looking at DisCode's first post in ISO when I thought I was looking at yours. That's what I get for having 4 tabs open in the same game.

What? I'll use 'Fuck' and stuff like that, but I wasn't insulting you at all. No need to apoloigise really, I don't mind.

I find your line of questioning odd though. I still want an answer to my question, eventually.

[Magua]

A breaking strategy has been brought to my attention - mass suicide! Nothing in the current ruleset prevents this tactic, and I think winning in this fashion would be rather unsatisfying for all involved. However, as it stands, this is the best strategy for town to pursue to guarantee them a "win".

Woo! I broke the game!

@Magua... Data has posted only four times and with very little content. What do you see as his playstyle and why don't you like it?

No content/useless content. One line (and sometimes one word) posts. I can't read it as scum from town, because there's nothing there to read. This isn't a Data scumtell -- was town last game -- it's just that I find it impossible to read, and would rather remove when we have misincants than when we don't.

Anyways. After consideration, I don't think that having incants out is bad until someone gets to L-2 or so as normal. It's not like the lynch deadline is going to move closer and catch us by surprise.

I still FoS Datadanne for utter unreadableness (as above), but I'm going to

Incant: mipe

for doing pretty much the same thing. I've at least seen Datadanne act exactly like this while being town in another game.

I find Faraday to be mildly scummy under the pressure that's being applied. I don't FoS Seacore at this point -- that is, I don't find him scummy in isolation -- but I do find the Seacore / Chaco conversation to be scummy

semioldguy isn't even on my radar, which worries me, especially in the case of semioldguy.

I approve of DeathSauce apologizing for a mistake instead of trying to defend it.

[Chaco]

Magua...lmfao. As awesome as that sounds, I doubt it would work. Scum would mess it up somehow. But even then...that would reveal them...that's a brilliant strategy! Wow...legit.

[startransmission]

The cults could actually have the role, so they wouldn't be lying. If a cult dreamwalker comes forward claiming to be a town dreamwalker, they'd have the same information, there'd be nothing to catch them out.

They would have to be lying about alignment though, and once the lie was discovered it would have to mean the end of the game otherwise that lie would be have somewhat dubious value. I think we should wait for the situation to crop up before we decide to discredit possible town roles and town tells.

I wasn't trying to take on a leadership hat, I was bored at work, so I did some analysis of the difference between this game and a standard game. I stand by my analysis.

I wouldn't call it analysis, I'd call it a long discussion of semantics. As I said, it seems to me that in this setup more than most others it's imperative for scum to have a high profile presence. Lots of seemingly helpful posts is a great way to do that, and that's what my impressions are of your posts thus far. And the buddying in the midst of it doesn't help.

Also, what am I supposed to do when I'm accused of buddying?

I don't know, deny that it was done intentionally? Accept the scrutiny and simply move on recognizing that you and Chaco are now (somewhat) connected?

I find it suspicious that I'm being bandwagoned just because I've stated my ideas. The fact that I've laid out exactly what I think would set me up for a massive fall later if I started acting against my thoughts. I've been the most transparent so far, yet I'm being focussed on.

I don't like this. It seems a little early to be playing the victim card. Also, you really haven't laid out anything that would set you up for a fall later. What have you been transparent about? Not wanting a RVS? The mechanics of possible multi-lynch scenarios? That's been my main issue with you... you represent yourself as a palms up player, but there has been very little actual analysis from you.

You're just jealous you aren't a member of the brolliance. <.<

Is that what the fruity glasses are on peoples avatars?

Anyways, no. If he buddies me, so be it. All it looks like he's doing is what you're falling for. Which would be, if he flips--

Actually, answer this first. If Seacore were Incanted and flipped scum, right this instant. Who would you incant next?

Money says me because he's been buddying me. It's a common scum tactic, and you fell right into it.

I'm a little confused by this. It's not your fault that Seacore buddied up with you, but it was a little more mutual than you're making it sound. That said, if Seacore flipped scum right this instant, I would have no case against you. Mild buddying early in the game isn't enough for me to pursue a case with. I would probably FOS you, as you two do have a connection, but there would be no auto incant from me.

[Chaco]

Haha, no. That was a requirement, rule #19, in TTGL mafia. The Rule of Cool.

And now to the buddying...

You say it was more mutual. Indeed, as was meant. I wanted him to buddy more so I could get more of an insight into his alignment. But, as you said, you would suspect me. It was in game ties. Scum do a great deal of distancing and buddying in games. A mafiaso with a great knwledge of how to balance these two is almost unrivaled. When, I play as scum I set ties on Day 1. So that if I am lynched it creates a ring of pure blind accusation. Guilty by association. Sound familiar? Well, it is quite the hefty tactic. Seeing through this tactic is only the beginning. But then, you have different levels of it. How many people do you draw those ties too? Do you distance your partner or distance another townie more so to distract them from that too? It's the balance of these actions. It takes a great deal of thought, and an even greater deal to interpret them. I was trying to interpret them, as you saw he invoked Snow_Bunny as well. Further interpretation right now is out the window. I understand the concern to my part of the buddying as well. Their is a veil of suspicion right now even after explaining my motives. It is a great deal of WIFOM now.

I'm almost ready to incant Seacore. I don't wanna spearhead it just yet, but In due time. Yes.

[Seacore]

Okay, so it looks like I'm going to be the first lynch. Which is a shame.
Let's see if I can answer each point of my "scumminess" rather than each accusation, because there are some double ups. If I miss them, please point them out and I'll try to answer those as well.

1)

I'm Buddying Chaco

- I've explained this, I do it in many games when I think I've found an important point and some people agree with me and some people disagree with me. I do it as scum and and town. I think Buddying in general is a null tell, because as Chaco's pointed out, scum are aware that town is aware that it's a tactic.
1a) A sub point to this is how I reacted with Snowbunny accused me of buddying. I laughed because I was genuinely going to type something along the lines of "oh noes, I'm buddying, I must be scum." But I also answered why it appeared that I was buddying, and that's because Chaco was the first person to agree with my RVS statements. So to say that I didn't respond is false. I also then accepted the scrutiny, and to say I didn't, is false.

2)

I'm playing the Victim Card

- I didn't actually mean to, I was just trying to point out that, if I'm scum, I've done a good job of pointing out exactly my beliefs and plans for the game, which is not a scum move. It's one thing to disagree with my tactics, which is why I was bringing it up to begin with, it's another thing to want me to burn for it. Please not that most of my analysis was done when there were just 4 other posts. And since then I've been answering questions/accusations about it.

3)

My Vig - Mafia comment

- This has been taken massively out of context by DisCode. I was saying that as far as each cult is concerned, the other cult is basically a Vig who doesn't care if they miss. I'm not saying we sit around and hope that the Cult leave us alone, they won't. But given that they cant' be sure that the Other Cult, isn't focusing on them, they need to focus on the other cult, while they hope, in the meantime, that the other cult misses on their night kills and that town miss on their incants. Cult are MUCH MORE dangerous to Cult than town are, they want them dead as much as town do, but they have more information and more kills with which to do it. We're in the crossfire of that, hoping to pick patters, kill the cults and survive. There is NOTHING scummy about this thought, and I don't like that it's been focussed on by DisCode as something scummy.
I'm not trusting the cult teams to protect us, that's dumb, thus my comment of a Vig who

doesnt' care if they miss

.

4)

My dislike of a large incant pool

- My opinion, is that we approach the 3 quarter mark on each day, thus, for day 1 needing about 5 or 4 votes to incant, a large pool of incants scattered around the place is dangerous. It's too easy for people to get accidentally lynched at this point, I think FOSing is much safer. My thoughts here are all about "accountability" I can think of too many examples where people can explain away there vote on the lynchee as "I changed my mind from my first vote, and then I struggled to put my vote somewhere"
This concern stays true in later days. Yes there will be no RVS (I hope) but it's still a tactic that people often use to see slightly suspicious activity and throw a vote down knowing they can take it back. We could start Day 2, with 9 people (or less if a multilynch happens) and could start Day 3 with 6, this becomes a real concern with such low numbers, and I was just getting my thoughts out there. I think incants are too dangerous to thrown them around as a tactic.
Serial Clergyman things that I'm doing this to remove votes and thus remove pressure. I think the same thing can be achieved with FOSing, and , as I've said above, as the deadlines trickle by, having 12 votes lying around starts to become a serious issue, because after someone has responded well (i.e. as town) to the pressure, the vote needs to go somewhere.

5)

Controlling future lynches

- I wasn't trying to control them, I was pointing out how I would be operating. Somebody who changes their vote after there's general consensus in a multi lynch can and should be accused of "saving" who ever wasn't lynched, no matter their reasons. Anybody who does so at last moment is looking very guilty indeed. DisCode has taken my quotes out of context here by not putting them against the fact that I was discussing Multilynch strategies. Again I'll point out that declaring my strategies is a step towards transparency so I can easily be accused later if I change my tactics without reason.

6)

I'm discussing strategy rather than analysing others' plays

- I again bring up that I started discussing strategy before most people had posted. There had been a random vote, a comment against random voting, a comment against that, and another (what I thought at the time was a random) vote. Not too much to discuss. Since then I have been trying to explain my concerns, but I've also been making a few comments here and there on others. So that's a slight straw man by SC there. He's claiming that I'm not doing anything that is hurtful to scum, I disagree, I think my strategies hurt scum quite a lot, but thats the overall argument, not just one for this point. I've also been generating lots of discussion, if I'm lynched, and when I come up as town, I'll have generated pages of people disagreeing with certain points of my ideas. Hopefully that will help.

7)

My dislike of using town tells

- I think there are only really two town tells. There is good and effective scum hunting (shown through strong analysis, catching people in lies and leading a scum lynch) and there is 'lack of scumminess' (shown through helpful contribution, consistent comments and actions, posting regularly and not 'floating by')
My argument is that the first one, which is usually the clearer of the two, is not as helpful because is it the EXACT behaviour that one cult will be using to catch the other cult. I don't understand why this is contentious. I was just trying to avoid a day 4 "oh my god, I can't believe you're scum, you were so pro-town the whole time", so I just tried to get it out there.
7a)

My concern about taking roles at face value

Again, this is a sub point of my town tell comment, I was just trying to make everybody aware that a the usual cop claim followed by a scum lynch does not a real townie make. Again just trying to make everybody aware of it. This was especially after SC raised the tactic of finding a cop, having them find somebody clean and then having a mass-multilynch of everybody else.

8)

My question the GM as to whether there were 4 cult on each team

- Sigh, yes, I see that this would have been fairly broken. I don't think it's as untenable as 45/45/10 but it would be very difficult for the town. But when I was writing that post, I actually thought the example PMs suggested three cult to a team (which most of us agree is a real possibility), at last moment I went up, checked and saw that the PMs mentioned that there were 3 Other members of each cult, and scrolled down to change in. The problem is, I changed the wrong word. Notice in that post I say "four are three"? Thats because I was trying to change "there are three" to "there are four" and mistook, in my "at work and probably shouldn't be playing this game" mindset, 'there' and 'three'. I was trying to get the post off before needed to go back to my job and I didn't really think it through. I then cleaned it up in a quick second post.
Also I think the accusation from SC that I asked the question in the post rather than a PM is stupid one. He's probably make the same argument for my guilt if I PM'd "oh, you didn't want to post that in the thread because you knew it would look guilty?" I thought of a question and asked it as I was typing, get over it.

I think thats all of them.

Basically four people keep showing up to really argue against my points. DisCode, Starttransmission, Fara and SerialClergyman. Other people have agreed with them, but they're the main three of have answered my posts in length.

Of these four, DisCode has consistently taken things out of context. Not actually reading what I've said about how the Cult's should be more scared of each other than us and thus it is similar to the fear of a Vig, (which seems to be arguing with me for little point), Accusing me of generally trying to control lynches when the quotes were directly taken from a conversation about how multilynches would need to work. and finally, in post 91, Discode accuses Chaco of saying that I'm scum but not voting for him, which what Chaco actually says is "IF" I flipped scum, then he would be the likely next target. Gee, Discode is making quite a habit of the out of context remarks.

Discode is looking very scummy.

Also, Serialclergyman accuses me of asking questions that should have clear answers, in an effort to appear more town. Well in post 24 he asks how multilynches could possibly happen. So that's a bit pot calling the kettle black when he should have just read the rules.
He looks a bit scummy to me too.

Fara, I just don't like his play style, he doesn't give as much information as he does, claiming it's to "fake out" people. I think town should be transparent at all times, thus anybody who isn't transparent is scum. Fara seems to be posting a lot, but not really engaging in much, just defending his initial vote and disagreeing with me, less analysis than the other three.

Starttransmision seems to be the least scummy of my four main attackers. Except for misconstruing how I dealt with the buddying accusation.

I'm happy for my incant to stay with DisCode.

[Faraday]

Okay, so it looks like I'm going to be the first lynch. Which is a shame.

It sure is. But seriously what's the point of saying this?

3)

My Vig - Mafia comment

- This has been taken massively out of context by DisCode. I was saying that as far as each cult is concerned, the other cult is basically a Vig who doesn't care if they miss.

You said:"

Each scum team is effectively a vigilantee who doesn't care if they miss.

" You don't mention the as far as the other cult is concerned, and it's also not really implied here either.

Serial Clergyman things that I'm doing this to remove votes and thus remove pressure. I think the same thing can be achieved with FOSing, and , as I've said above, as the deadlines trickle by, having 12 votes lying around starts to become a serious issue, because after someone has responded well (i.e. as town) to the pressure, the vote needs to go somewhere.

Yeah. I don't think the same thing can be achieved by FOS'ing, if I think someone is scum I'll Incant them for the most part. If they respond well I should always have a second suspect to incant, I don't like not voting anyway, especially lately, so imo it's not a problem with my vote going somewhere.

5)

Controlling future lynches

- <snip>

Yeh, there's no need to discuss this now though. Imo there should be no 'set play' everything is situational.

Since then I have been trying to explain my concerns, but I've also been making a few comments here and there on others. So that's a slight straw man by SC there. He's claiming that I'm not doing anything that is hurtful to scum, I disagree, I think my strategies hurt scum quite a lot, but thats the overall argument, not just one for this point. I've also been generating lots of discussion, if I'm lynched,

and when I come up as town,

I'll have generated pages of people disagreeing with certain points of my ideas. Hopefully that will help.

Bolded is again re-emphasising your townieness, I dislike statements like this, in general.

7)

My dislike of using town tells

- <snip>

Seems partially a playstyle difference in someways, but it feels the way you went about this is wrong/scummy, it's like you're trying to shut down the use of people's town-tells, and town-tells are something I think are as effective, and more-so sometimes, as scum-tells.

8)

My question the GM as to whether there were 4 cult on each team

- <snip>

Meh, not really scummy to me, too much. Just seems a silly thing to ask.

Basically four people keep showing up to really argue against my points. DisCode, Starttransmission, Fara and SerialClergyman. Other people have agreed with them, but they're the main three of have answered my posts in length.

Why are you focusing your analysis on the people who have interacted negatively with you? Seems like you're ignoring everyone else.

Discode is looking very scummy.

Disagreed here.

Fara, I just don't like his play style, he doesn't give as much information as he does, claiming it's to "fake out" people. I think town should be transparent at all times, thus anybody who isn't transparent is scum. Fara seems to be posting a lot, but not really engaging in much, just defending his initial vote and disagreeing with me, less analysis than the other three.

I don't know what you mean by 'fake out'.
You seem to play in a very black and white way, I personally don't think it's right, or even good play to automatically say stuff like you've been saying. 'Unexplained votes = scummy' and 'anyone who isn't transparent is scum' are just generally false imo.

[Faraday]

Still very happy w/ my vote on Snow_Bunny btw.

[Seacore]

It sure is. But seriously what's the point of saying this?

I'm not allowed an introductory sentence with which to frame the rest of my post? Wut?

[Seacore]

You said:" Each scum team is effectively a vigilantee who doesn't care if they miss. " You don't mention the as far as the other cult is concerned, and it's also not really implied here either.

I think it's at least slightly implied by the context of the post. I'm discussing the motivation of the cult teams and how they differ from normal mafia.
Since there are two teams, their priorities are:
-to avoid being lynched
-to look for patterns to find scum
-to use their night ability to kill that scum

That looks like typical vig behavior to me, the only difference is that they don't care if they kill town while they do that. Which is pretty much what I said. But its fine if that wasn't understood straight away, I've explained it several times since and won't both explaining it again.

[mipe]

same question to pretty much everyone who isn't incanting/hasn't made their position clear.

DataDanne, Seacore and Faraday. Pretty much in that order.

Reasons for the last two?

Basically, Seacore seemed like buddying, and thought it is 'useless' to look towntells instead of scumtells.

Faraday.. I don't really know, I just get these scumvibes from him. But, I haven't played with him before, so I have no idea if this is normal play for him.

Mod: Do both cults have same amount of cultists? Also, is there any message for when the last cultist from cult X dies?

[Percy]

Incantation Count

Seacore - 3 (SerialClergyman, DisCode, startransmission)

Snow_Bunny - 1 (Faraday)
DisCode - 1 (Seacore)
Faraday - 1 (DeathSauce)
mipe - 1 (Magua)

Not Incanting - 5 (Chaco, Datadanne, mipe, semioldguy, Snow_Bunny)

The Ritual will take only 11 Incantations to complete at 6:00pm Sunday the 30th of November (site time).

Mod: Do both cults have same amount of cultists? Also, is there any message for when the last cultist from cult X dies?

No comment, and no.

With 12 alive, 12 Incantations are required to complete the Ritual.

[DisCode]

Well, normally, when someone buddies me I generally respond with,"Do not invoke me." But I was interested in his alignment, so wanted him to further it.

So the difference in this game with 'normally' is caused due?
Cause this is strange. You see buddying as a scumtell, but normally you'd stop it, but in this game you wanted to see what would happen.

Also, @98: No, not really. Your soft push makes no sense since the push would be to get them to vote, however I wanted the contrasting. I felt like incanting a bunch without need to is pointless.

And I used today as an example, but the purpose was for later days. Since you, obviously, cannot unincant.

I think you misunderstood by what I meant with 'soft push'. You called the action scummy, without calling it scummy as you stated that 'it

can be seen

as scummy.'
As for you stating that today was used as example, not buying that. Because in post 47, you stated this:

@People who have already incanted. I do not think that was a good move in the slightest, and a No Lynch may not occur since you have done so. That can be considered scummy since, if you read the rules, you'd know the relation of the two.

As for your general thoughts about buddying, I was asking which reasons you can see for town and which reasons you can see for scum doing so. Please state them.
And I'm still waiting on your opinion of the buddy posts from Seacore.


Death, why don't you want to state your opinions of Chaco and Seacore?
Also, what about my first post in ISO?

Magua, you state that you won't FoS Seacore, eventhough you do find the Seacore/Chaco conversation to be scummy. So why only mention that you won't FoS Seacore, but not Chaco, while being suspicious of the Seacore/Chaco convo?

Seacore's big post which contains a lot of repitition that was already commented on:
1. Doesn't give any reason for what I accused him off.
3. Shows that Seacore is overreacting as I already stated that it's not scummy to me.
5. Shows exactly what I'm accusing you off. It all depends on context.

As for your part about me, check Chaco posts after I questioned him about the buddying stuff. Either I can't read or he does think you're scummy for it.

I also like Faraday's comment about this post:

Why are you focusing your analysis on the people who have interacted negatively with you? Seems like you're ignoring everyone else.

[Magua]

Magua, you state that you won't FoS Seacore, eventhough you do find the Seacore/Chaco conversation to be scummy. So why only mention that you won't FoS Seacore, but not Chaco, while being suspicious of the Seacore/Chaco convo?

I don't find Seacore suspicious for what he has posted, unlike a lot of other people. I don't find the 'vig' comment suspicious, I don't find the setup analysis suspicious, etc. I actually treat setup speculation as a slight towntell.

So, as I said, read in iso, I don't find Seacore suspicious. I only get suspicious reading him and Chaco together. It's not that I won't FoS, it's that I don't agree with the majority of the arguments used to incant him at the moment.

[Chaco]

So the difference in this game with 'normally' is caused due?Cause this is strange. You see buddying as a scumtell, but normally you'd stop it, but in this game you wanted to see what would happen.

Well, that's because in past games it stops there and what good comes from it? They know I want them to stop, so they do. Where as in this scenario I can use it in a more fruitful manner. Instead of instantly dismissing them, using their tactic against them. Are we on the same page at all? As in, not trying to be rude, but do you understand my position?

I think you misunderstood by what I meant with 'soft push'. You called the action scummy, without calling it scummy as you stated that 'it

can be seen

as scummy.'As for you stating that today was used as example, not buying that.

It was an example, whether or not you buy it.

Also, you're grasping and twisting my words. I stated "it can be seen as scummy", that by no means states "that is scummy." Lots of things can be seen as scummy, however when using an

example

you explain what can be. Understand?

As for your general thoughts about buddying, I was asking which reasons you can see for town and which reasons you can see for scum doing so. Please state them. And I'm still waiting on your opinion of the buddy posts from Seacore.

...I stated my thoughts. However, to suit you... Town has little to no reason for buddying, in my opinion. Everyone is suspect to them so they should by no means be casting one person aside to from a psuedo, what would you call it...alliance I guess? Psuedo-alliance?

And as you deduced, I do find his buddying somewhat scummy.

As for your part about me, check Chaco posts after I questioned him about the buddying stuff. Either I can't read or he does think you're scummy for it.

Bingo.

[mipe]

I know that the first post says 'no hidden mechanisms', but just so that I can test it:

Incant: Percy

[DeathSauce]

Incant: mipe

Mipe is scum. Weird question to the mod about size of Cults, wishy-washy pushes, and what the hell is with incanting the mod?

[DeathSauce]

Death, why don't you want to state your opinions of Chaco and Seacore?
Also, what about my first post in ISO?

Why should I answer any particular question about those specific players? Make your own case, you don't need my help.

And there is nothing about your first post, had it confused w/ Faraday, as I said earlier.

[startransmission]

Seacore, thank you for the PBP response, and I see your point on some issues. I understand what you meant by the vig comment, and it was never anything I held against you. But for the most part my response to your post has been covered very well by Faraday.

@DeathSauce... I think DisCode is asking you to weigh in on Chaco and Seacore because right now they are under the most scrutiny. Nobody is asking you to build a case, but I personally would like to hear what you think about the criticisms of both.

[Chaco]

Datadanne and Snow, if you would, can you please give your thoughts?

[DeathSauce]

OK, I will say a little about Seacore. I think Serial's criticism of Seacore's posting as being about the game structure instead of scumhunting is off-base. I personally gained insight on the game from Seacore's posts and I think they were early enough that serious scumhunting had yet to begin.

Gut read on Seacore is town-ish.

Not seeing the pressure on Chaco, we've wasted enough words on buddying, I'm not adding to them.

[Seacore]

The reason why I focussed on those four, is because I don't have much time to play over the weekend, and I used all that time trying to defend myself. During that defence I obviously spent more time on the posts of those four than on others. I will analyse other posts later today or tomorrow when I get a chance.

I'm probably going to leave my response at that, and start a little more active scum hunting which I'm aware I haven't been doing so well (although I'd be very content with a DisCode lynch).

[Percy]

One of the points of the stylised sun beneath your feet blazes into light. Conversation halts, and for a moment it is bright enough to fill the room with its intense radiance. After a few moments, it softens to a warm glow.

You are all one step closer to completing the Ritual.

Incantation Count

Seacore - 3 (SerialClergyman, DisCode, startransmission)

mipe - 2 (Magua, DeathSauce)
Snow_Bunny - 1 (Faraday)
DisCode - 1 (Seacore)

Not Incanting - 5 (Chaco, Datadanne, mipe, semioldguy, Snow_Bunny)

The Ritual will take only 10 Incantations to complete at 6:00pm Wednesday the 2nd of December (site time).

Mod note: The previous deadline was given as Sunday the 30th at 6pm; the Sunday 6pm was correct, but the 30th was not - it should have read 29th. The deadline above is correct.

I know it's been a holiday weekend in the US, so I'll wait until tomorrow to send out prods.

11 Incantations are currently required to complete the Ritual.