Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Lowell]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

[ryan]

You make a good point Lowell. Maybe a little pressure on a few of the lurkers will get them to chirp

vote:A Papaya

[Ripley]

I don't think he means that the townies should not hunt scum, although you could read his post that way. He just says that masons have more chance in finding scum than townies, which is true of course.

Hmm. Maybe, though phrases like "we're going to have to rely on the masons to figure out who the scum are" sound rather more clearcut than that to me.

This could happen too if all townies adapted this strategy: assume all townies act like they're not scummy. The masons would all vote for scum if everything goes right. Scum would vote for either mason or townie. If most townies didn't vote yet, they would see lots of votes on scum (from the masons) and lots of votes on mason or town (from the scum). The townies would only have to find out which one of two players is scum, rather than who of the 11 other players is scum.

I think you're radically oversimplifying things if you assume that (a) all townies are able to act townie (b) no scum are able to act townie and (c) the masons would be able to tell the difference with perfect accuracy, which is what this plan seems to require since it exposes the masons. If the masons take the lead and get it wrong, well, apart from scum that helps nobody. The first attempt at lynching scum that fails leaves us in real trouble in that scenario, so I can't see how it's an option you might want to use. Is the ability of 3 masons to pick 3 scum out of 8 people so very much greater than the ability of 8 protown players to pick scum from the whole field? Lowell seems very certain that it is.

I'm not saying that all townies should act like Lowell said, but it is a bit suspicious that you vote him for something like that. It does create discussion though, and you might be right.

You think it's suspicious? It seemed better than a random vote - a vote with any reasoning behind it is more likely to generate something useful. A vote doesn't require a cast iron case in these early stages. I can see other possible reasons for Lowell to post as he did, and could easily unvote him, depending on how things unfold.

I think in general terms we're in danger of paralysing ourselves if we focus too much on debating strategies specific to this setup. It might be better just to treat it like any other game, in the early stages at any rate.

[bird1111]

Sometimes, but the info that can be gained from those bandwagons, whether they go lynch or not can be useful.

hmmm, both of the people who have their vote on you haven't posted on this page yet. I haven't come across a hard definition of what lurking is, but 4 days and greater than one page should qualify.

They could be busy with exams or some other real life thing, several players in the game I'm modding are, in which case their lurking would be excusable

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yep, I will do my part to attack scum, as should every other townie to provide cover for the masons.

[Albert B. Rampage]

EBWOP

And masons should attack scum too. And I'll attack. Yeah. Attaaaack.

[bird1111]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

[Sir Tornado]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Well, if I were a Mason, I would want to behave exactly like the other townies. I would not want to attract any undue attention from the Mafia, at least not before at least one of the scum were lynched. So, since most of the players seem to be lurking right now, the masons would try to lurk. I think it is absolutely essential that the rest of the town lead, before the masons take over. Sitting back and making sure that you don't come across as scum to the masons, and then hoping masons eliminate the scum won't really help as of now like Lowell suggested won't help us right now.

[bird1111]

True, but the townies should not be lurking and so therefore neither should the masons. Lurking will only make things easier for the scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Well, if I were a Mason, I would want to behave exactly like the other townies. I would not want to attract any undue attention from the Mafia, at least not before at least one of the scum were lynched. So, since most of the players seem to be lurking right now, the masons would try to lurk. I think it is absolutely essential that the rest of the town lead, before the masons take over. Sitting back and making sure that you don't come across as scum to the masons, and then hoping masons eliminate the scum won't really help as of now like Lowell suggested won't help us right now.

QFT

[bird1111]

Though while we cannot afford to have the masons eliminate the scum alone, but their knowledge, if held secert can help us find scum if everyone scumhunts; as they most likely will try to lead us away from their partners without making it obvious.

[ryan]

Well until we get the entire thread participating, it's going to be hard to find the scum and masons.

[bird1111]

True.

[Lowell]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Same reason scum do. To avoid drawing attention and, potentially, votes. Pressuring lurkers will be the key, more than in other games. That's what makes this setup different.

[Adel]

If I were a mason OR scum, I'd probably be lurking right now. Just something to think about.

Why would a Mason lurk?

Same reason scum do. To avoid drawing attention and, potentially, votes. Pressuring lurkers will be the key, more than in other games. That's what makes this setup different.

Lurking is an anti-town action. The more information each individual player provides the more information each pro-town player has to evaluate and base a vote upon. I consider content free posts just as bad if not worse than not posting at all. If only masons and mafia lurk than the mafia will be able to identify each mason for NKs, and we saw what that leads to in the other game, so it doesn't benefit our town for masons to lurk. Hopefully an active scum player will drop enough scum tells for us to decide that he is scum and vote for him, but that probably means we have to chase the scum out of lurk first. So long as we have several lurkers, the scum can hid among them. This is my understanding of the rationale behind the "lynch the lurkers" tactic, which seems like a good idea to me.

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

Anyone else care to comment?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yeah, enough theory and let's get to analysing and filing a police report on someone.

[Lawrencelot]

In that case:

Vote: theopor_COD

Although I agree with most that we should vote the lurkers, we have to be careful not to lynch them without hearing what they have to say, they could be masons like others said, or just townies that forgot to post or something. So, let's just pressure them and be careful that scum won't get on top of a bandwagon. This day shouldn't end quickly at all.

[Adel]

P.S. while the mafia and masons are at equal numbers each an equal ability to manipulate the vote. The mafia have a slight edge since if they can identify a mason they can NK her, thereby having an easier time manipulating the vote Day 2. So for Day 1 I think the scum hunting will

depends

on non-mason townies getting it right, since the voting of masons and scum should balance each other. And the only way I can think of doing that, is if we base our vote decisions on actions, and right now the clearest anti-town action is lurking. It is bad for the town and is bad for the quality of the game, and increases our odds of a mis-lynch. Get out of the lurk!

[Adel]

I'll place a second vote to se where this goes, and I do agree with Lawrencelot's caution.

unvote: Lowell

for posting more than average, and putting some actual content into his posts

vote: theopor_COD

until he follows Lowell's lead.

[Patrick]

Votecount

theopor_COD (2) -- Lawrencelot, Adel
Adel (2) -- bird1111, Albert B. Rampage
bird1111 (2) -- A Papaya, theopor_COD
Ripley (2) -- Sir Tornado, Lowell
Lowell (1) -- Ripley
ryan (1) -- Aimee
A Papaya (1) -- ryan


Not Voting: Nobody
11 alive, 6 to lynch.

[theopor_COD]

Bird's putting effort into a game, very strange.

Reading, something shortly.

[theopor_COD]

Ok as a stream

Random votes - like 10 of em.

Sir Tornado answers question directed at Lawrencelot. Adel seems happy to take the reason, mind it was a nothing kind of question.

Some discussion between Lowell and Lawrence on the game numbers. Bird reckons its balanced, some more chat on it, nothing much stands out.

Adel pulls up a previous game, town performed pathetically, I'm not overly sure what he/she is getting at, possibly looking for advice, mind it could be just newbieness. Gets the advice from Lawrence.

Ryan asks some decent questions to get things moving, Adel's obv done some research. Lowell answers the question, more thoery on masons etc. Sir Tornado ringing a few alarms nothing major tho. I like Ripley's post 38. Something scummy about Ryan posting this just after Ripley's quote.

I am suspicious of anyone who finds reasons not to hunt scum.

unvote

No suspect as of yet but I'm sure I'll have one soon. The reason for my unvote is we are well past the "random vote stage" so it's time to start huntin some scum. 8)

Seems to be trying too hard to fit in with Ripley's ideals. Lawrence kinda of defends Lowell.

I think they are a useful tool for getting reactions, though you do have to watch out for scum-driven ones

Be nice if we knew which ones they were at the time!

Some chat over bandwagons. Adel brings up the suspicion of lurkers. Ryan agrees. Lowell posts, Ryan then votes a lurker. Ripley appears good so far liking him. Bird defends the lurkers which is good being as he usually is one, Bird's posting actually concerns prob need to read up on him. Not keen on ALbert 54, from a metagame point of view I've seen him much more wagon-lynch happy.

EBWOP

And masons should attack scum too. And I'll attack. Yeah. Attaaaack.

Why wouldn't they? More chat re- lurkers. Lawrence votes me as does Adel.

Overall nothing inherently scummy stands out but for now.

unvote, vote Ryan

seems to be trying to hard to fit in.

[Adel]

unvote: theopor_COD

that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.

vote:A Papaya

for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

[A Papaya]

I'm here, but I've been very busy. I'm going to be busy today too, but I'll read this thread and post sometime tomorrow or saturday.

Sorry, you know. It's just life.

[bird1111]

[quote=theopor_COD]Bird's putting effort into a game, very strange.[/quote]

I've started do that in my later games (ie this game, SC's game, and Blue Jam)