433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over

[gorckat]

vote: inHim

Das and Pie have made good points questioning some of his actions and re-reading reaffirms my feeling that he's the best choice.

[Off the Mark]

And now for a blast from the past, my analysis of kilm's post:

Ok, so from what I can see, I am catching up from about page 9ish, it seems that most of of the posts from page 9-11 were mostly about CES and the retraction of the claim. I still stand by my opinion that CES should truly claim, because if he is outed, then it is his predecessors doing. But, since this discussion is not getting anywhere, I am willing to just let it go, but the scums are probably going to have a good time trying some WIFOM on us, if in fact CES is not killed.

I can understand where she is coming from here, but I still think we are better off to leave the CES claim retracted. Now that MBL has claimed town-but-not-doc things have gotten a little trickier. Tomorrow he needs to claim if he lives. Agree with kilm on the scum WIFOM possibilities. I don't want to discuss this too much as it may affect scum decisions.

The person I am most suspicious of right now is Pete D, followed closely by the CES. Here is why...

Pretty much as per my previous post. I think you stayed out of discussion for the most part and haven't commited to anything; your posts in regard to the

CES situation seem to be trying to put pressure on whilst keeping yourself distanced

.

If this is the case against me, you basically just called CES scum, because I am distancing from him... and you think I am scum... that doesnt make much sense at all...
Pete has consistently pushed for me even when I answered his questions, he has also not really outlined a clear case against me, (which granted no one really has to my knowledge, other than the fact that I agreed with the fonz that I thought CES should claim..

unovte:

(if voting) and

vote: pete d

I understand her suspicion of Pete D here, but I think it is possible that Pete was simply working under the

theory

that CES was scum and I think kilm overreacted a little bit here. Pete D is the top half of my suspicion list for sure, but not enough for an

FOS

.

CES- DOdgy was scummy, and then the claim was retracted, and now he is just flying under the radar for the most part, most of his posts have been pretty useless and have added nothing. Also, the LAL applies here for me, because retracting a claim, pretty much means the first player lied, therefore making that person a liar.

I disagree with her here about what it means to retract a claim. Retraction means "pretend it never happened" not "I am not the doc". So we don't know yet at this point if Dodgy lied. Now that MBL is claiming not-doc, we DO know that either Dodgy or MBL has lied.

However, despite my disagreement, I understand he position and find it to be a pro-town one, given that she has interpreted the retraction as a not-doc claim.

And to defend myself...

EBWOP: That should be NK'd, not lynched.

the switch was not necessarily a switch, scum are bound to play WIFOM with us or they are going to kill CES... either way, I wasnt following the Fonz, I was stating my opinions.

The player who is consistently showing up on my scumdar is kilmenator. She has not posted a lot of content and when she does, her suspicions tend to run counter to my own, so that is where I am most comfortable placing my vote.

vote: kilmenator

Like I said, I ahve been busy, so my content has been down, plus I am involved in way to many games at this point, but voting me because my suspicions are not what you think, doesnt make me scum, maybe I just look at things from a different perspecitve. And who is it that I have been suspicious of that you have not thought was suspicious?

Some of this was way back in the early part of the thread, which I'm not going to dig through now, but a big part of it was the "CES must claim" argument, which I thought was pretty scummy. Now that I see how you are interpreting his retraction, I understand your position and I no longer think you are scummy because of it.

I am also suspicious of gorkat who vote hops to much and for hopping on my bandwagon without really outlining a case, or having a case outlined. The only reason I point him out and not everyone else, is because he has consistently vote hopped IMO.

Agreed 100%. But I don't think gorckat and Fonz are both scum. My suspicion list right now looks something like this:

inHim
MBL
gorckat (if gorck is scum, I think Fonz and Dasq are probably ok)
Pete D
Fonz
Dasquian (if Fonz is scum, I think it very likely Dasq is too)
IH (not sure what to think of him, I need to see more)
Nanook (been getting pro-town vibes from him lately, so he is almost off the list)

I would echo IH and ask for a case to be outlined against me, it is hard to defend yourself when you dont know what to defend against.

Good point. Before this post, her lack of analysis (which seemed OOC to me) was the main factor in her looking scummy to me. Once she started analyzing in a pro-town manner, my reason for suspecting her was gone. Still watching her, of course, but I haven't seen anything anti-town since her analysis.

[pete d]

I understand her suspicion of Pete D here, but I think it is possible that Pete was simply working under the theory that CES was scum and I think kilm overreacted a little bit here.

No, I was suspicious of kilm's behaviour, and I explained this.

[Thestatusquo]

nanook: 1 (mbl)

inhim: 5 (Daquian, IH, gorckat, kilm, off the mark)

MBL: 3 (Pie, superstring, nanook)
Off the mark: 2 (inhim, fonz)

[inHimshallibe]

inHim - I still don't like the fact he hasn't claimed. I like the fact he appears to be getting away with it even less. If he's town, and he gets away with not having to claim, more power to him. If he's scum, and he gets away with not having to claim, shame on us.

All I'm asking is for people to take a definitive stance on an issue (which happens to be lynching me). Those that cowered from this are the ones to note.

What worries me about inHim is that it is a bandwagon that has gone to -1 under a deadline, and it feels like we've simply been distracted away from it. Really, inHim should be the talking point and we should either lynch him for not claiming, lynch him for a crap claim, or accept a claim and move on. In addition, I don't see a good alternative lynch at this point - OtM said some odd things recently but for the most part stood out as making good logical contributions. Kilmenator or superstring I could be persuaded to, but the point stands - why are we backing off of inHim?

First of all, logical contributions != pro-Town. I'm much more of the mind that logical contributions that are kept consistent = pro-Town, and even then it's easy for scum to skate by on thin consistencies.

[Dasquian]

True, but they're logical contributions that I agreed with Yes, that's a form of reverse-OMGUS, which I'm well aware of, but it still means I don't see him as particularly scummy right now when he's mostly saying sensible stuff I agree with.

At what point will you consider claiming? If we don't lynch you, we will still need time to properly pressure someone else, so dragging it out longer than necessary would be anti-town.

[inHimshallibe]

If we don't lynch you, we will still need time to properly pressure someone else, so dragging it out longer than necessary would be anti-town.

True enough.

I really don't want to claim at all Today. I haven't thought about claiming in later Days. If this happens again Tomorrow, I'll probably claim so the Town can just get this issue out of their way; I'm sticking with my mission for Today, at least.

[Pie_is_good]

Please tell me what you'll learn if I claim vanilla. Then tell me what you'll learn if I claim doc. Then tell me what you'll learn if I claim cop. In detail, preferably, as there's "much, much" to be learned.

MBL, do you really expect me to tell you exactly how scummy I would find each potential claim? That would defeat the purpose. But I can tell you that enough discussion has centered around your claim and unclaim that an analysis of what roles you could have would not be difficult.

Here's my quote, please outline very specifically where you see it as oversure and where you see my conclusions significantly deviating from an application of common sense.

Dodgy wouldn't have claimed as scum.

It's extremely unlikely that he was this mad at a scumpartner for harrassing him, correct?

So if he was scum with town harrassing him he'd want to screw over town with his claim.

But by claiming doc he would have put himself and his scumteam in an awkward position and wouldn't hurt the town at all via his action. Fonz, if you're town you should have recognized this.

So yeah, Dodgy was town pissed off at someone whose alignment he did not know, and he claimed something to shut them the hell up because he was pissed at them.

Bolded phrases are the ones I took issue with. On your first post in from replacing, you're not qualified to make definitive statements like those.

It appears to me you're tilting at windmills, and possibly as a dilatory tactic.

I got tired of the "yes-he-is, no-he's-not" standstill with regards to InHim. Rather than defend inHim, I went after who I feel to be the best target. What's wrong with that?

MBL vs Pie - pie's tenacity is admirable but a waste of time. The numbers aren't there, he's not going to get lynched or forced to claim, move on, we have a deadline.

Any debate with MBL is, obviously, for the benefit of the observers - I'm not going to convince MBL that he's scum. If observers (read: you) are just going to ignore it all, frankly, you're the one wasting our time.

[Pie_is_good]

vote: inHim

Das and Pie have made good points questioning some of his actions and re-reading reaffirms my feeling that he's the best choice.

For my own analysis, do you mind specifying specifically which points you agreed with? I always get a bit suspicious when people say "Oh, yeah, I agree with those points that guy made a few pages ago. Vote: Somebody."

All I'm asking is for people to take a definitive stance on an issue (which happens to be lynching me). Those that cowered from this are the ones to note.

Fair enough.

Definitive Stance: inHim is the wrong lynch today, because MBL is a better target. This could change contingent upon people claiming.

As for suspicion listage, I'm finding Gorckat, MBL, and OTM at the top of my list. Fonz and Nanook seem fairly protown to me.

[MrBuddyLee]

Bolded phrases are the ones I took issue with. On your first post in from replacing, you're not qualified to make definitive statements like those.

I can add 3 probablys to that and it reads less definitive. Can you pretend I did that in the first place and we'll move on? This is silly, really. i mean, it's not that tough to read 8-10 short posts from an old-timer and get a feel for why they flipped out, especially if you know their alignment.

[gorckat]

As it stands I think inHim is our best lynch today, and I think his gambit smacks of desperation of someone who has no good answers to his bandwagon.

What worries me about inHim is that it is a bandwagon that has gone to -1 under a deadline, and it feels like we've simply been distracted away from it.

That being said, I'm finding InHim's resistance to claiming a bit scummy ("It helps the town" is unneccesarily vague, and he attacked Gorckat rather than Gorckat's legitimate point).

These were the points that made me feel justified re-voting him. I do feel like we've been distracted off of his wagon.

[Thestatusquo]

nanook: 1 (mbl)

inhim: 5 (Daquian, IH, gorckat, kilm, off the mark)

MBL: 3 (Pie, superstring, nanook)
Off the mark: 3 (inhim, fonz pete d)

[Dasquian]

Any debate with MBL is, obviously, for the benefit of the observers - I'm not going to convince MBL that he's scum. If observers (read: you) are just going to ignore it all, frankly, you're the one wasting our time.

But, we've

had

that debate. We've had it several times over many, many pages, and it's become clear that there is insufficient support to get a claim out of him today. You are wasting my time and everyone else's by attempting to convince me to join a bandwagon I've already written off today.

I really don't want to claim at all Today. I haven't thought about claiming in later Days. If this happens again Tomorrow, I'll probably claim so the Town can just get this issue out of their way; I'm sticking with my mission for Today, at least.

No one wants to claim until they're ready, that's a given. Unfortunately you still have 5/7 votes, we still have a deadline, and we're still short of a reason

not

to lynch you. Yeah, it sucks for you, and maybe retrospectively I'll rue the decision to press you, but you've got to understand it's not good enough for me to back off.

[Off the Mark]

Looks like no one's going to change their mind before the deadline.

[Off the Mark]

inHim, we are stuck until you claim. Waiting to claim until closer to the deadline is anti-town. We need time to evaluate an alternate target if your claim holds up - or is worth testing.

[inHimshallibe]

inHim, we are stuck until you claim. Waiting to claim until closer to the deadline is anti-town.

Not if I've said I'm not going to claim Today. I'm not

waiting

to claim, I'm flat out not claiming.

We need time to evaluate an alternate target if your claim holds up - or is worth testing.

Why not do that now? Lazy scum, that'd be why. Now you're just stretching whatever you can to seem helpful. You took Dasquian's argument, which I responded to, but messed up a little. Haven't you been evaluating everyone?

Dasquian, I completely understand the reason you wouldn't want to unvote me. I've answered the questions posed to me in my defense (please call to my attention any that I haven't). I don't

want

to be lynched, obviously, but the deadline doesn't threaten me.

[Off the Mark]

Why not do that now? Lazy scum, that'd be why. Now you're just stretching whatever you can to seem helpful. You took Dasquian's argument, which I responded to, but messed up a little. Haven't you been evaluating everyone?

Of course I have, but for the town as a whole to reach a consensus, it takes time. That was a strawman if I've ever seen one. I'm more convinced than ever that you're scum. Enjoy your noose.

[Dasquian]

OK, I see a few possibilities here:

1) You're a unremarkable pro-town role who is for some reason refusing to cooperate. This would just be poor play.
2) You can't claim for a pro-town reason.
3) You won't claim for a pro-town reason (it's even worse than getting lynched for not claiming).
4) You can't claim for a non-pro-town reason (you're a survivor, or some weird killer role).
5) You're scum hoping to confuse us and avoid a lynch by doing something that rarely makes sense.

Now, I don't know your playstyle very well but I am fairly happy discounting (1). (4) and (5) obviously mean we should hold the course and lynch you. So the question I have is whether you are in possession of an unusual role that means that you're pro-town and this is actually good pro-town play. You're playing it as though you are, but it just always come back to being more likely that this is your agenda as (5).

inHim, is there

any

way in which you can help us out here without claiming? If not, sorry, but I have to press for the lynch.

[The Fonz]

OK, I see a few possibilities here:

1) You're a unremarkable pro-town role who is for some reason refusing to cooperate. This would just be poor play.

Absolutely untrue. A townie roleclaim won't save him anyway, and if somehow someone else does something very scummy between now and the deadline and he ends up not getting lynched, we're better off with him alive unclaimed, than alive as a claimed townie.

2) You can't claim for a pro-town reason.
3) You won't claim for a pro-town reason (it's even worse than getting lynched for not claiming).

The player BabyJesus has a policy of lynching claimed Doctors, since they're highly likely to be scum and if they're not, they won't survive the night anyway. Why is this relevant? Well, it works in reverse too- if you think there's any chance of surviving without a claim, you shouldn't claim.

So it makes sense for him to not claim as townie, and also as doc. So by not claiming, he leaves the scum in the dark as to whether he's powerrole. The antitown reasons you've suggested amount, basically, to 'too townie.'

[Dasquian]

and if somehow someone else does something very scummy between now and the deadline and he ends up not getting lynched

Do you think this will happen - honestly? I'm not going to say it couldn't, but realistically, I think that seems somewhat unlikely at this point.

Can someone explain deadline rules to me please, or point me towards where they are?

So it makes sense for him to not claim as townie, and also as doc. So by not claiming, he leaves the scum in the dark as to whether he's powerrole.

Only if he doesn't get lynched - which is your core assumption, that he might yet get out of it. Everyone knows who he is if he does get lynched, unless he's something beyond a plain townie or doc anyway.

The antitown reasons you've suggested amount, basically, to 'too townie.'

You're going to have to explain this for me. I thought he was scummy so I voted him. Other people agreed with him and he got to lynch -1. Then he's refusing to claim, and dragging it out limiting our options as the deadline draws closer. How is this "too townie"?

I'm entertaining the possibility that I'm wrong (shocking, eh?) and he's pro-town with a good reason for being tight-lipped, but I don't see how I can act on it as it seems much less likely than the obvious conclusion: he's scum (or otherwise anti-town) and he's bluffing.

Here's another question: who

should

claim at lynch -1? Your logic suggests that everyone should hold on to that chance of surviving without a claim and fight to the bitter end. If you ask me, that sounds like a great way to get shit Day 1's where Every. Single. Person. refuses to play ball because, hey, they might get away without getting lynched, and then the town has to make blind lynches if they want a lynch at all.

[Dasquian]

Oh, and to clarify as I think The Fonz misunderstood, by "unremarkable pro-town role", I don't mean vanilla townie. I mean any of the core roles that don't confer any particular reason to withhold a claim. Townie, cop, doc, vig, blocker, etc.

An example for (2) would be a role with a posting restriction preventing claiming.
An example for (3) would be a role where getting lynched unlocks a power-role ability, or something equally contrived.

[The Fonz]

Yes, I thought it meant VT. That is the obvious implication of being 'pro-town' and 'unremarkable.' This is a normal game, so I expect any role to be 'unremarkable' in the sense you are suggesting.

So it makes sense for him to not claim as townie, and also as doc. So by not claiming, he leaves the scum in the dark as to whether he's powerrole.

Only if he doesn't get lynched - which is your core assumption, that he might yet get out of it. Everyone knows who he is if he does get lynched, unless he's something beyond a plain townie or doc anyway.

Well, quite. Again, if he is VT, the sole consequence of his claiming would be to get himself lynched, and if by some miracle a townie claim doesn't get him lynched, the town will be in a worse position than if he hadn't claimed. A vanilla townie should NEVER EVER EVER claim day one.

If he's our doc, I'd agree that he's taking a big risk here, one that I probably wouldn't take myself. But it's a logically consistent position that the payoff of not getting lynched as a claimed doc is barely better than getting lynched, so it's better to gamble on surviving without claiming (for which the payoff is hugely superior to either alternative).

The antitown reasons you've suggested amount, basically, to 'too townie.'

You're going to have to explain this for me. I thought he was scummy so I voted him. Other people agreed with him and he got to lynch -1. Then he's refusing to claim, and dragging it out limiting our options as the deadline draws closer. How is this "too townie"?

I'm not suggesting your

entire case

against him is 'too townie.' I'm saying this specific bit is too townie:

5) You're scum hoping to confuse us and avoid a lynch by doing something that rarely makes sense.

In response to this:

I'm entertaining the possibility that I'm wrong (shocking, eh?) and he's pro-town with a good reason for being tight-lipped, but I don't see how I can act on it as it seems much less likely than the obvious conclusion: he's scum (or otherwise anti-town) and he's bluffing.

That's not the obvious conclusion. Scum generally aren't enormously reticent about claiming power-role to save their own hides. Which brings us back to your point five. It's possible, but wouldn't be the first thing I thought of, that he's scum trying to confuse us. Frankly, I think the most likely explanation is one you've ignored: inHim has a policy/habit not to claim day one, regardless of alignment, and it's no tell at all. He's already told you if you're convinced by his prior actions that he's scum, then you should be voting him.

Here's another question: who

should

claim at lynch -1? Your logic suggests that everyone should hold on to that chance of surviving without a claim and fight to the bitter end. If you ask me, that sounds like a great way to get shit Day 1's where Every. Single. Person. refuses to play ball because, hey, they might get away without getting lynched, and then the town has to make blind lynches if they want a lynch at all.

Well, no, the town doesn't have to make blind lynches. You lynch the scummiest person, same as you always would.

To answer the actual question though, I don't myself support the 'never claim as doc day one' position, so I'd say any power role. What I'm saying is I understand the position, it has some merit, and it's not necessarily scummy. If you bought 'never claim as doc' the answer would be 'Any powerrole that isn't doc.'

[Pie_is_good]

inHim is, generally, fairly anti-claim. The fact that he's giving dumb reasons for not claiming, although it frustrates me as much as the next guy, is not particularly a tell of role or alignment for him.

If you're lynching him based on his posting, that's legit in concept (although I'd disagree). But don't lynch him based on his refusal to claim.

[Dasquian]

OK, I hadn't realised inHim's refusal to claim Day 1 was a meta tactic. I agree that means his refusal to claim alone is not a tell.

That said, it's also not helpful to the town so why should we tolerate it? Anti-town play is anti-town play. I wouldn't expect anyone to put up with me if I had a meta play of sticking a fat, immoveable OMGUS vote on the first person to look my way, and if we're going meta, I don't think the game would be fun if everyone employed inHim's tactic, because...

Well, no, the town doesn't have to make blind lynches. You lynch the scummiest person, same as you always would.

So what if the scummiest person is the cop, but is refusing to claim even though it's clear they're going down? Surely if they can claim and redirect the mob, they should - they have a responsiblity to as a town power-role; as ANY town role!

This meta just doesn't work - getting a claim out of someone is a great way to evaluate whether you want to continue to risk lynching someone, and gives the town more to go on in retrospect because scum are forced to react to all the true claims and be held accountable for whether they chicken out or seem over-eager when someone claims super-cop-doc, etc, or how keen they are to buy their since-deceased scum-buddy's poor fake claim.

[The Fonz]

OK, I hadn't realised inHim's refusal to claim Day 1 was a meta tactic. I agree that means his refusal to claim alone is not a tell.

That said, it's also not helpful to the town so why should we tolerate it? Anti-town play is anti-town play. I wouldn't expect anyone to put up with me if I had a meta play of sticking a fat, immoveable OMGUS vote on the first person to look my way, and if we're going meta, I don't think the game would be fun if everyone employed inHim's tactic, because...

It's not necessarily a meta, though. It's not fair to call a policy employed over several games a meta

Well, no, the town doesn't have to make blind lynches. You lynch the scummiest person, same as you always would.

So what if the scummiest person is the cop, but is refusing to claim even though it's clear they're going down? Surely if they can claim and redirect the mob, they should - they have a responsiblity to as a town power-role; as ANY town role!

As any town role? Even as VT? When I've explained how claiming as VT is never in the town's interest? Look, I'd agree with you on the specific case of cop.

This meta just doesn't work - getting a claim out of someone is a great way to evaluate whether you want to continue to risk lynching someone, and gives the town more to go on in retrospect because scum are forced to react to all the true claims and be held accountable for whether they chicken out or seem over-eager when someone claims super-cop-doc, etc, or how keen they are to buy their since-deceased scum-buddy's poor fake claim.

It isn't necessarily a meta. It's more a case of 'I believe the correct pro-town play here is not to claim.' It's no more a meta than 'I believe we shouldn't lynch claimed powerroles in the absence of a counterclaim.' There's no reason to think inHim's aim isn't to produce the best possible result for town in

this

game.

Also your 'getting a claim out of someone is a great way to blah blah blah...' is just untrue, and no reason at all to claim.

It seems to me you want inHim to claim so you can feel good about lynching him. Sorry, but you're just going to have to make your mind up on the merits here, if you're town.