Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Nox]

Changling Bob: [75] was in fact, overboard. Why? Because the only reason why Stoofer says Someone seems scummy is because Someone was voicing a gut feeling. However, he specifies to be doing the exact same thing as he was accusing Someone for, in [89].

How could somebody be accusing somebody else of beeing scummy for voicing a gut feeling, and then do the same? It just does'nt make sense to me.

Vote: Mr.Stoofer

In my opinion, Mr.Stoofer seems to be slipping around. This is my vote for now.

[Mr Stoofer]

There is a difference between:

(a) making a broad statement that 4 people are "decently innocent" without any supporting explanation (i.e. what I thought Someone was doing),

(b) expressing a gut feeling based on

2

stated reasons (i.e. what I did in post 75).

There was plainly no inconsistency in my post 75.

Vote: Nox

.

[Nox]

Hey, Stoofer?

Someone's statement was not a broad one, it was a gut feeling. He

clearly

indicated that in post 71.

*note the word decently

(...just gut feelings)

So far I'm happy with my vote. Your reaction to it gave me the impression that you didn't really think through your post, yet you still supported it. CrapLogic.

[Mr Stoofer]

Hey Nox?

I have never suggested that there is anything wrong with stating gut feelings.

As is obvious from post [75], and as I made absolutely clear in post [101], what I didn't like was the lack of any explanation. You seem to be ignoring this point.

[Someone]

I don't know about you, but to me a gut feeling is something you get when you think somebody's suspicious, but you don't really know why. I don't really think you can have a gut feeling with a reason...but that's just me.

If you are searching for a reason for why I find some people suspicious, I don't have one. Thus, a gut feeling.

I can't prevent myself from having gut feelings...can I? And if I have them, why not post them? I don't see how posting gut feelings = scum.

Anyways, I'm tempted to ignore the little Mr. Stoofer/Nox squabble, and

vote:sinister overlord

. Lurkers must pay.

[Nox]

Exactly as Someone said.

Gut feeling = No necessary reason.

When you have reasons to suspect somebody, its not a gut feeling anymore, is it?

Anyways. let's not discuss the definition of gut feeling any longer.
Your reasons for voting me ?

[Fishbulb]

Well, the other person I was getting bad vibes was from Mr Stoofer. Mostly because of this post:

I think we should concentrate for now on catching scum, rather than excessively elaborate plans such as that in the above post.

Usually it is scum who wants to stifle strategic discussion. It's not like it hurts to discuss as long we don't focus solely on that. Not really enough to go on, though.

Not sure about the whole Nox vs. Mr Stoofer business.

[Nox]

That's sort of true, though it might of been just another slip.

It kinda seems as if he's eager to start a bandwagon on somebody, regardless of whether his accusations are supported or not.

THIS IS JUST AN IMPRESSION THAT I HAVE.
(For those for whom we have to specify )

[mathcam]

Official Vote Count:

SinisterOverlord (2, mole, Someone)
Stoofer (1, Nox)
Nox (1, Stoofer)

I'll prod SO.

Deadline in 6 days.

Cam

[SinisterOverlord]

Huuuh. Not lurking, people. Just... being cautious. Considered. Not saying the first thing that comes into my head. You know?

In any case, I'm gonna

Vote: Someone

. It's not OMGUS or anything, but rather my strongest suspicion right now. I'll give you reasoning in my next post (and there will be a lot less time between posts this time).

[Nox]

Yay! Reasoning!
*Waits*

[SinisterOverlord]

Okay. First, post 8. Excessively complicated plan, that confused me a great deal, multiple readings not helping much. Now I got it, but the problem is thus.

The reason we'd doing this is to prevent mafia getting revived and having their way with killing who they want. There's a big assumption there - that the mafia get revived. That should only be able to happen if they get nightkilled - thus, there's the assumption there's a SK, which is quite possible but by no means certain - and then a doc goes back to protect them.

IMO, Docs should only go back to protect townies from nightkills. Yeah, we might not get some power roles, but better to not risk reviving antitown players.

So the only case in which this plan would have a point is if a doctor stuffs up, basically. I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

Post 28:

For all practical purposes, Mr Stoofer's vote was exactly the same as a random vote. What does the word "random" do for a post? Don't we assume that a lone vote in the first non-mod post of the game is random? And if Mr Stoofer was a cop with information, could he not be hiding it behind a random vote, just as easily as a non-random vote? Mr Stoofer obviously wanted it to be assumed a random vote, as he did not specify it wasn't. All this witchhunting about random/non-random votes only serve to madden me.

What gets me about this is that Mr Stoofer random voted Someone. We didn't know if it was a random vote or not. Now Someone's fervently arguing that it was 'obviously' random. Now if we assume for a moment here that Someone's scum, there's a possibility that Mr Stoofer's got info on him but is trying to be subtle about it, as we didn't know at this stage that it was definitely random. Wouldn't the best thing for him to do be to try and dismiss it as nothing? If he did so but then Mr Stoofer came out with his results, at least he'd have forced a cop claim for his scummates to pick off.

Now this turned out not to be the case. But his reaction was a little too... strong.

Post 55:

However, now that Mr. Stoofer mentions it, it may be better to use FOS's instead of votes until we choose a lynch target.

For reference purposes -

I think we should follow the voting strategy suggested by Someone in post 8; using FOS's as proxies for our votes, and then piling on the votes close to deadline.

So because he thinks we should use FOS's, it may be better. Why? You say it would be better, but there's no reasoning. Piling on votes quickly only advantages the mafia - something that happens quickly is usually to their advantage, not the town's. It's also a common scum tactic for when there's a deadline to get who they want lynched.

Since a majority doesn't mean a lynch, I've got no problems with using votes liberally. It allows everyone to see easily exactly where I stand, as votes are tallied by the mod but FOS's aren't, and means things don't have to move very quickly.

And I re-iterate, we assume that it is a random vote, since if he was a cop he would have came out...and he obviously didn't have much reasoning, as it was the first post of the game.

Again, not neccesarily. You assume if you wish. I prefer not to make such assumptions. He could've been trying to be subtle about it, as I said earlier... direct suspicion as the result of an investigation without coming out, which usually is fairly certain death. And, you don't need reasoning if you've got an investigation result.

However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

No, no,

no

. It is

never

to the town's advantage to have protown players dead, unless we're playing Suicide Mafia or something to that extent. Yeah, it's better than normal if they get NIGHTKILLED -

not lynched

- cause they're confirmed town and we can revive them with a protect. But lynching, the only way to get em back is for them to have less of a majority - chances are that'll be pretty hard to make happen, if not downright impossible.

Now granted, he retracts this later, says it wasn't thought through. However, it still stinks. I don't think a protown player would have arrived at that, even thinking it through very little. I think it was a not-thought-through attempt to get townies lynched, since I don't think it could've been arrived at from any other direction.

Post 69:

The problem is, sometimes it would be advantageous for the town to lie (ie in our scenario). It is not true that pro-town characters are always advantaged by telling the truth.

This is true. However, scum need to lie all the time. Town need to lie occasionally. As was said about Lynch All Liars, it's power lies in it's simplicity. Yes, if you find a lie sometimes it will be town. However, you've got to play the percentages sometimes. Town can cope with a single loss better than the scum, for the most part, and there's a much better chance that a liar will be scum than just any randomly selected player.

I'm actually with Someone about the finding some people more scummy than others thing. While I don't exactly have a scientific method for it, I have a general idea of who I think to be innocentish and who I think to be guiltyish.

Post 92:

I'm looking for posts by sinister overlord, and not just of the "I'm here, but I'm not going to help" variety. At least some analysis, please.

When have I said anything like that? My posts have been few, granted, but they've to date been either discussing the possible randomness or not of Mr Stoofer's vote, or my previous post where I voted you and promised this post.

Anyway. That's what I think, at least. I hope I didn't bore any of you with the length of that.

[mole]

I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment: figuring out the mechanics of the game is essential if we are going to win, since our ability to "figure out scum" isn't going to help us much when we can't confirm our suspicions. What are we going to do after we lynch someone and we aren't told whether they were scum or not.

[SinisterOverlord]

I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment: figuring out the mechanics of the game is essential if we are going to win, since our ability to "figure out scum" isn't going to help us much when we can't confirm our suspicions. What are we going to do after we lynch someone and we aren't told whether they were scum or not.

What, you think that if we come up with a clever plan mathcam's going to go "Congratulations!" and tell us everyone's alignment? Yeah, we can come up with this, that and the other plan, but that plan's useless if we don't revive any non-townies. It's not going to help us tell who's scum and who isn't, it's not going to save the lives of the town players and it's not going to make bleeding cups of coffee. All it does is keep us talking about it, tying up the time left until the deadline so we have less time for discussing who's scum.

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: dealine extension

.

I agree with SO's post above and I don't think we've made much progress towards finding scum.

[Changling bob]

Well, the other person I was getting bad vibes was from Mr Stoofer. Mostly because of this post:

I think we should concentrate for now on catching scum, rather than excessively elaborate plans such as that in the above post.

Usually it is scum who wants to stifle strategic discussion. It's not like it hurts to discuss as long we don't focus solely on that. Not really enough to go on, though.

Not sure about the whole Nox vs. Mr Stoofer business.

I think that the 'excessively elaborate plans' were the plans to kill with exactly the right number of votes, get the doc to travel back in time to resurrect someone who would have had to have voted the correct way while dead *breathes* so that the person who was lynched would be ressurected if they were plain townie and therefore allowing us to have as many town as possible alive, and hence win the game.

I think it was fairly reasonable to say 'That's a rubbish plan. And now for something completely different *organ music*'

As with Nox vs Mr Stoofer, I

think

that they agree but are coming from opposite directions, and haven't realised this yet. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

Lots of stuff

I can see where you're coming from regarding Someone. He does appear to make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions, which pings my scumdar a little.
Also, in the other TTmini, it was generally agreed that only plain townies should be reivived. I don't know whether you thought this independently, but I agree that this is probably the best plan to ensure we don't revive scum by mistake.

Also, so that everyone knows, I will be away from the 28th to the 1st. I've already cleared this with mathcam, who says it should be alright. Please don't lynch me while I'm away

Also, also, I second a deadline extension.

[Fishbulb]

What, you think that if we come up with a clever plan mathcam's going to go "Congratulations!" and tell us everyone's alignment?

I don't think anyone thought anything like that. What was the point of this statement? It certainly doesn't help your argument.

Yeah, we can come up with this, that and the other plan, but that plan's useless if we don't revive any non-townies.

I don't think anyone was suggesting we don't. And what's so bad about discussing

both

of these plans.

It's not going to help us tell who's scum and who isn't, it's not going to save the lives of the town players and it's not going to make bleeding cups of coffee. All it does is keep us talking about it, tying up the time left until the deadline so we have less time for discussing who's scum.

It's not like we can't discuss multiple subjects at the same time. What's with the overdramatization?

[Someone]

Ok firstly

unvote:SinisterOverlord

. He has posted, and that's why I voted him. Although I don't really agree with the reasoning, he did post.

Now let's get down to it

Okay. First, post 8. Excessively complicated plan, that confused me a great deal, multiple readings not helping much. Now I got it, but the problem is thus.

The reason we'd doing this is to prevent mafia getting revived and having their way with killing who they want. There's a big assumption there - that the mafia get revived. That should only be able to happen if they get nightkilled - thus, there's the assumption there's a SK, which is quite possible but by no means certain - and then a doc goes back to protect them.

Try to read some of the posts we've made, SO. There HAS to be an SK or some alternative killing force. There is no assumption there.

Also, what keeps mafia from being revived? I think it's

you

who's making the assumption...better safe then sorry, no? The only person who would want

not

to follow my plan is scum...

IMO, Docs should only go back to protect townies from nightkills. Yeah, we might not get some power roles, but better to not risk reviving antitown players.

So the only case in which this plan would have a point is if a doctor stuffs up, basically. I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

Yes, I agree, docs should not go back and protect power roles...However, this is not the opinion of the whole town. Unless you suggest that everyone in the town is SURELY as good as attentive as me or you, there's the possibility of a screw up. Again, the plan is a backup measure, just incase something happens.

And fine, let's say I'm talking about mechanics and stuff, and not talking about scum...Oh, hey, I know, I

won't post at all

! Maybe that will make me less scummy!!!

Going to nox's house...more in a few mins.

[Someone]

I forgot to mention it: How was my plan "excessively complicated"? If you can think of a more simple plan with the same benefits, by all means go ahead and say it. Otherwise, I thought it was easy enough to understand.

Six votes on the most suspisious, and three on the second most suspicious. Is it not easy enough? Anyways, moving along?

Post 28:

For all practical purposes, Mr Stoofer's vote was exactly the same as a random vote. What does the word "random" do for a post? Don't we assume that a lone vote in the first non-mod post of the game is random? And if Mr Stoofer was a cop with information, could he not be hiding it behind a random vote, just as easily as a non-random vote? Mr Stoofer obviously wanted it to be assumed a random vote, as he did not specify it wasn't. All this witchhunting about random/non-random votes only serve to madden me.

What gets me about this is that Mr Stoofer random voted Someone. We didn't know if it was a random vote or not. Now Someone's fervently arguing that it was 'obviously' random. Now if we assume for a moment here that Someone's scum, there's a possibility that Mr Stoofer's got info on him but is trying to be subtle about it, as we didn't know at this stage that it was definitely random. Wouldn't the best thing for him to do be to try and dismiss it as nothing? If he did so but then Mr Stoofer came out with his results, at least he'd have forced a cop claim for his scummates to pick off.

Argh. Completely not true. If Mr. Stoofer had info on me, me dismissing it doesn't make it go away, does it? Mr stoofer would still come out...and I would still get lynched...

And besides, assume that Mr. Stoofer got info on me. What would be the point of voting me with no explaination? Everyone would go OMG NO RANDOM. LYNCH, LYNCH (Like they did). And Mr Stoofer would be forced to reveal. So what's the point of not doing so in the first place?

Post 55:

However, now that Mr. Stoofer mentions it, it may be better to use FOS's instead of votes until we choose a lynch target.

For reference purposes -

I think we should follow the voting strategy suggested by Someone in post 8; using FOS's as proxies for our votes, and then piling on the votes close to deadline.

So because he thinks we should use FOS's, it may be better. Why? You say it would be better, but there's no reasoning. Piling on votes quickly only advantages the mafia - something that happens quickly is usually to their advantage, not the town's. It's also a common scum tactic for when there's a deadline to get who they want lynched.

What??? This is completely out of context. Firstly, note that it was Mr. Stoofer's idea, and not mine to do so. I was just assuming that was the better plan was to FOS. As you may have noted, there were no objections to the FOS plan, which means that most of the town agreed with it at the time...why am I the only one to be singled out?

Since a majority doesn't mean a lynch, I've got no problems with using votes liberally. It allows everyone to see easily exactly where I stand, as votes are tallied by the mod but FOS's aren't, and means things don't have to move very quickly.

The logic of witholding your vote is this: if we're going to follow the plan cleanly, we're going to have to have everyone unvote whoever they're voting for at the end of the day. Now, for me, that's no problem since I log in almost every day. However, as you can see at mafiascum, everyone is not as active as us. If we had been using votes, I'd be willing to bet that there are some people that would have not been able to get back to unvote. It gives scum an excuse to leave their vote hanging on an innocent. The less people voting aimlessly, the better, IMO.

And I re-iterate, we assume that it is a random vote, since if he was a cop he would have came out...and he obviously didn't have much reasoning, as it was the first post of the game.

Again, not neccesarily. You assume if you wish. I prefer not to make such assumptions. He could've been trying to be subtle about it, as I said earlier... direct suspicion as the result of an investigation without coming out, which usually is fairly certain death. And, you don't need reasoning if you've got an investigation result.

Read above. You actually prove my point here...It's certain death if he comes out with a investigation result. Then why bother to deny it???

However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

No, no,

no

. It is

never

to the town's advantage to have protown players dead, unless we're playing Suicide Mafia or something to that extent. Yeah, it's better than normal if they get NIGHTKILLED -

not lynched

- cause they're confirmed town and we can revive them with a protect. But lynching, the only way to get em back is for them to have less of a majority - chances are that'll be pretty hard to make happen, if not downright impossible.

Read the game please. I know this was stupid.

Now granted, he retracts this later, says it wasn't thought through. However, it still stinks. I don't think a protown player would have arrived at that, even thinking it through very little. I think it was a not-thought-through attempt to get townies lynched, since I don't think it could've been arrived at from any other direction.

If you really want to know, I concluded this by assuming that townees could be revived by a doc when they are lynched, which would be advatageous to the town, as now the doc would have had a target to revive tonight. (The townee lynched) This being not true, I retracted my statement.

Post 69:

The problem is, sometimes it would be advantageous for the town to lie (ie in our scenario). It is not true that pro-town characters are always advantaged by telling the truth.

This is true. However, scum need to lie all the time. Town need to lie occasionally. As was said about Lynch All Liars, it's power lies in it's simplicity. Yes, if you find a lie sometimes it will be town. However, you've got to play the percentages sometimes. Town can cope with a single loss better than the scum, for the most part, and there's a much better chance that a liar will be scum than just any randomly selected player.

Yes, but when it's clear why the town is lying (ie trying to hide an investigation result in a pseudo-random vote) then there's no indication of scumminess. Sure, you can "play the odds" and hopefully come out on top. However, I prefer to evaluate all options before resorting to luck.

I'm actually with Someone about the finding some people more scummy than others thing. While I don't exactly have a scientific method for it, I have a general idea of who I think to be innocentish and who I think to be guiltyish.

Post 92:

I'm looking for posts by sinister overlord, and not just of the "I'm here, but I'm not going to help" variety. At least some analysis, please.

When have I said anything like that? My posts have been few, granted, but they've to date been either discussing the possible randomness or not of Mr Stoofer's vote, or my previous post where I voted you and promised this post.

Anyway. That's what I think, at least. I hope I didn't bore any of you with the length of that.

You haven't. It's just, thats the general attitude of a lot of lurkers here at scum. I'm sorry for categorising you as so. Clearly I was wrong.

I'm looking foward to your response. I don't think you're scum, just town that didn't really think through the posts you made.

[Someone]

Vote:deadling extension

(FYI- I've always thought SO's avatar was a raven...but I looked at it closely today and realised it's a cat. Anyone else have this impression? Or is it just me...)

Anyways...I missed a post

What, you think that if we come up with a clever plan mathcam's going to go "Congratulations!" and tell us everyone's alignment? Yeah, we can come up with this, that and the other plan, but that plan's useless if we don't revive any non-townies. It's not going to help us tell who's scum and who isn't, it's not going to save the lives of the town players and it's not going to make bleeding cups of coffee. All it does is keep us talking about it, tying up the time left until the deadline so we have less time for discussing who's scum.

The plan is not useless if we don't revive non-townees. It also prevents other weird goings on like scum leading two or three alternative bandwagons who aren't really scummy, and then killing the main one.

The plan could help us win the game. I don't see how you can't see that.

It's true that we could be posting about finding scum, but it's hypocritical for you to critisize me about not trying to find scum when you spend the first 4 or five days not posting anything of content at all. If you thought we should have been discussing about scum, you should have done so, instead of waiting until half the deadline passes by and saying: hey, shouldn't we have been discussing who's scum?

[mathcam]

Slight Rule Change:

When considering whether or not I will grant a deadline extension, I'll only consider requests via PM.

Cam

[N_lich]

Some Analysis:

SinisterOverlord: lurks, then upon being voted comes out firing (possible overreaction). I also agree with moles post 112 and fishbulb in 116.

Someone: Set alarm bells off with "lynching townies is good" post. However, this was retracted swiftly and I think it was more stupid than scummy (not to say that it wasn't scummy however). I also found post 69 suspiscous at first (premature recognition of people as townies is often a tell), but I think this is due to the strnge use of "decently innocent". If he had said " gapsode, mole, bob and speedy have'nt done anything scummy so far in my view", which is what he appears to have meant, then this is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Quagmire; 4 posts, 2 of which concern questions that were already answered. Please contribut more.

[Mr Stoofer]

SinisterOverlord: lurks, then upon being voted comes out firing (possible overreaction).

While I actually agreed with a lot of what SinisterOverlord said, I too found it interesting that SO had so much to say. He obviously had lots of thoughts in the game so why didn't he share them earlier?

[Changling bob]

SinisterOverlord: lurks, then upon being voted comes out firing (possible overreaction).

While I actually agreed with a lot of what SinisterOverlord said, I too found it interesting that SO had so much to say. He obviously had lots of thoughts in the game so why didn't he share them earlier?

Especially with our prodding of fishbulb to produce his information.

[Fishbulb]

Right.

Like that was actually similar to what I did. Nice work, gumshoe.



Anyway, I think we need to evaluate the situation here. I'm starting to think Quagmire might be our best bet. He sill hasn't posted, yet. And going back to what I said previously about him, yeah he said that he was confused about the non-townie thing, but I'm not sure I buy it. No none else was confused. Maybe it was intentional hoping to confuse others? Might be a bit of a stretch, but I think it might be our best bet for today. Maybe if he'd actually post something...

Vote: Quagmire