Mini 500 - Cult Mafia - Game Over!

[vollkan]

My turn: I'm vanilla.

[vollkan]

I now present updated PBPAs of everyone (as in, all posts since the last PBPA on that person ended):

Beginning with Tar and pwayne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tarhalindur

1333: promises content
1336: CKD must have targeted someone else
1343: asks why theo is being ignored because there is "a pretty strong case against him"; this is based on his focus on cult D1. Seems an exceptionally minimal case, frankly.
1383: Is on uni-related LA
1393: Scumdar:

Vollkan looks very pro-town, especially when I look at his scumdar posts. This is primarily due to him giving lots of what I consider quality analysis (a strong town tell IMO).

Trojan Horse also looks pro-town for much the same reasons - he posts lots of analysis to go with information. The main strike against him is his indecisiveness early in D1 (wishy-washiness is usually a scumtell), but his later actions lead me to believe that this is the result of inexperience instead of being scum.

I need to look over Pwayne again before I decide on him. On the one hand, upon quick inspection he seems to focus on the cult more than everyone else, which I consider a mafia tell for much the same reasons that focusing on one mafia group in a game with multiple families is a scumtell. On the other hand, his D2 analysis feels genuine.

I have no read on Theopor - he lacks content, but this is understandable to me as he has had limited access for some time. I have first-hand experience as to how hard catching up is when you have limited access. I haven't checked for all of the good tells yet, though.

Oman is probably scum - from what I'm seeing, he's posted a lot of information but very little analysis, especially good analysis. This is scummy - I've seen many scum attempt to use information in the place of analysis in their attempts to blend in (no example atm - the best example is in an ongoing game).

1411: Thinks MoS's plan lowers our chance of winning, based on the fact there isa vig and on probability. Thinks MoS is "moderately scummy", because he had no read on theo (?) and suggests that MoS's plan's potential for being anti-town may translate to scumminess.
1435: HoSes me for changing my tune, though I still don't know what he meant.

Conclusions: Well, not much to comment on. Anyway, the attack on MoS with regard to the D1 activity seems very weak. He says "especially" the D1 thing, implying there is a more substantive case, which is odd given he later says he has little read on theo and is still looking for the good tells. Similarly, in the attack on the No Lynch plan he just suggests it could be bad

if

the numbers were crunched. Finally, the attack on me at the end seems strange, but it is possible he just misread me, given that it makes no sense. Overall, this is a continuation of the "strangeness" I noted earlier, and makes me more concerned about the prospect of this being a scum gambit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pwayne66

1340: Continues TH PBPA and concludes that he wasn't as scummy as previously thought. Votes Oman because "He needs to squirm abit. He is taking his position most suspicious too lightly."
1341: Explains that Theo is at #2 for lurking. Thinks Tar and myself are pro-town or cult.
1342: Asks me if I have anything to add to a post commenting on TH
1344: Asks Tar to explain his case on theo
1347: Oman is suspect by elimination. Thinks I am scum with Oman. It is here that he first suggests I have a double-standard towards Oman; which I find odd because all I said was that I wanted to see a case from Pwayne and that Pwayne's breaking the ice was not necessarily a scumtell (this latter was to Oman). Pwayne says I gave Oman a pat-on-the-back for his expressed intention to vote Pwayne, when I said nothing of the sort. Wonders why TH has increased in suspicion between my scumdars. Alters his own scumdar to put me on equal rank with theo and tar, because of my apparent kid-gloving to Oman.
1349: Is looking for a full case on Oman
1351: Angry I defended Oman
1354: Asks me to clarify what my issue is
1356: Wrongly states I have put him in a Catch-22. Also says Oman is neither scumhunting nor trying to escape suspicion. As I said at the time, Oman could only rebut accusations if an actual case was made.
1358: Questions Oman and I.
1364: Thinks I am scum with Oman for giving him a "playful swat" when he voted TH. As I showed in 1368, my responses to both pwayne and Oman were equal in harshness and tone.
1366: Asks whether Oman is just waiting idly for me to defend him
1370: wants theo prodded
1372: "oops I knew that"
1373: Explains that his "all ears" comment was just to try and get Tar to post
1377: Asks Oman to detail TH's scumtells
1382: worries about prospect of replacements being unavailable
1384: "So no thought here tar?"
1497: "Thanks MoS!"
1434: "You guys are making my head hurt. Let me read and get a grasp. Numbers and probability are not my strong point..." Interesting; a confusion post.
1457: Suggests claim
1459: Asks whether my No Lynch vote was scummy
1467: claims townie
1468: clarifies that he meant vanilla

Conclusions: My most significant issue with Pwayne (that was not resolved in our debate) is his constant and, as I showed even then, unfounded accusations of me being soft on Oman and was showing a double-standard. Similarly, with the whole Catch-22 thing; it's another baseless attack. Later on he gets a "vague"; making a confusion post and then

asking

whether my vote was scummy. Overall, I really don't like his contrived attacks and he has increased in scumminess.

TH and MoS shall follow tomorrow...as well some comments on TH's latest post.

[vollkan]

I want to finish off my PBPAs (TH and MoS remaining) before I make full comment on the latest stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trojan Horse

I never did a PBPA of Trojan. For this, I will go from the end of Pwayne's PBPA on TH.
1295: Thinks Oman Pwayne is a "legitimate possibility". He wants to take a closer look at me.
1297: "Good point" - noting that Oman had given townie brownies to CKD and MoS
1306: He is working on a PBPA of me
1312: He tells me to do Tar's PBPA
1314: PBPA of me.

Conclusions: Let me just say that if vollkan is scum, he is sure hiding any connections between himself and his teammate very well. My scumdar is calling him protown all the way; and yet, because my scumdar has been proven very wrong already, I can't help having some doubts. I may be fooled.

1338: Says that Oman's attempt to make Tar claim CR was worth a shot
1339: Thinks there is "scant chance" of Tar being mafia and that "he deserves the victory (and an Academy award) for his performance at the end of day 1." Oman is now his top suspect because tyhess and MoS were already NKed. Asks Tar for a scumdar.
1375: We see TH using the "broken scumdar" line again here. "I suspected them all at some point, but only one turned out to be a bad guy (and he was the cult recruiter, not a scum)." Frankly, I find this akin to the 'newbie defence', though the newbie defence is occasionally legitimate. This is not. Says he has often watched people arguing and found it a mutual nulltell, stating that it is true that a case could be made on anyone. In response to be telling him to stop using the broken scumdar as an excuse for not scumhunting, he says: "Alright, I'll stop making excuses. But it's the truth." Admits that he was inconsistently emotional at the giving into pressure thing. Doubts Tar is scum.
1385: Comments that Oman has been the #1 vote-hopper. His scumdar is:
1) Oman
T-2) Vollkan
T-2) theo
T-2) Pwayne
T-3) Tar
1387: Says most of Oman's votes were reasonable, but inquires about the FA hammer
1398: Is liking the possibility of Oman being scum with Tar
1408: Explains that he suspects Oman by elimination. He hasn't seen anything scummy from me but "I have doubts about my scumdar". Thinks Tar is either townie cult or "extremely brazen" scum, though he says the scum is unlikely. That leaves Oman, Pwayne and MoS and since Oman has been "moderately scummy" throughout, Oman becomes the top suspect. "I'm going back and forth between Oman-pwayne and Oman-theo/MoS." Suggests that Oman distanced against theo on D1 and may have been bussing Pwayne around the "lynch vanilla" point. However, he thinks Oman-MoS is most likely. Something very interesting to note here is the fact that in just the previous post he thought Oman was likely scum with Tar but, all of a sudden, this changes, with no explanation. He also states he is thinking about who the vig is.
1410: No lynch is apparently a bad idea because we have "TWO chances to nail our first scum; the lynch today, and the vig kill tonight. If we no lynch, we lose one of those chances."
1416: Thinks that having a lynch and vigging is preferable to having just a lynch, and that "just a lynch" is what we will have that night, since no vig kill.

We need to lynch someone today, and regardless of whether we lynch scum or not, the vig needs to kill tonight. Then we'll have 3 left the next day, with (hopefully) at most one scum left. Sounds like "the numbers are in our favor" in that situation, and they won't be if we no lynch.

1417: Suggests publically discussing the vig kill.
1420: Thinks we should capitalise on the vig's ability. "True, a no lynch (followed by a no vig) does improve our chances of hitting scum with our next lynch. But it also gives up a chance for the vig to shoot a scum." Says he will take some time to think, but is not likely convinceable.
1426: Thinks we need to lynch someone on the basis of there being a CR. However, he says that there should be no vigging if we lynch scum.
1428: Tar is the most likely CR. If scum can work out who the vig is, they will kill the vig. Thinks Tar can't be the vig, based on his antics.
1430: Points out my cross-kills error
1439: "If we mislynch today, a successful vig kill tonight allows us to still have a chance to win. (We can win a 1:1:1 situation if our protown player is the vig.) After no-lynch/no-vig/mislynch, all a vig kill can do is give us a chance to draw. That's the difference."
1440: Thinks he and MoS are "both hypocrites" and thus are "even", because of their differing risk assessments. Odd phrasing there; strikes me as neutralisation.
1455: Is shocked that Oman was the vig. Says town has lost if there is a CR. Says nobody should vote until we agree on the lynchee. Suggests mass-claim.
1456: MegaFoSes me for the No Lynch vote.
1462: Suggests that each person picks the next person to claim
1470: Claims vanilla
1472: Is "finally starting to see the light". Asks MoS who he suspected.
1474: Is excited about the game and promises his case forthcoming, given that MoS had said nothing.
1475: Most recent. I will address this at the bottom.

Conclusions thus far: The "broken scumdar" thing seems to be his panacea for any suggestion that he is not properly scumhunting, and I don't like it. It isn't a defence; it is an excuse, and a bad one at that. Also

very

interesting is the fact that he completely drops the suggestion of Oman/Tar with no explanation. I don't know what to make of his opposition to the No Lynch. It could be scummy, or it could be a nullity, since it was a fairly complex matter. His argument was wrong, but I don't think it was necessarily scummy. The "seeing the light" stuff I dislike and I do think it is scummy (building up to a dramatic conclusion...) but more on that below. Overall, it should be clear that I have some serious issues with TH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MoS

1409: Opens up with a scumdar

Oman - VERY scummy. I can't believe he's not dead yet (almost).
vollkan - probably not scum. However, I can't believe the scum haven't killed him yet, when I think about it.
Tarhalindur (r. Dr. Blackstrike) - in the middle, too much WIFOM surrounding him.
pwayne66 - probably oman's scumpartner
Trojan Horse - in the middle, leaning scum if I'm wrong about my top two suspects.

Suggests and votes No Lynch
1413: Asks about the "NK Tar" thing
1414: Vig is a horrible crutch on which to rely to win the game. Affirms support for the no lynch and FoSes Tar
1419: No Lynch is better in terms of probability, with the only risk being loss of vig. Notes that TH is being optimistic about the vig's ability. Says (in response to TH's suggestion of vig direction) that we direct the vig by posting our suspicions and that should be it. Agrees with my numbers analysis of why No Lynch is better. "Interrocroc strikes again!"
1425: Doesn't trust himself to hit scum as vig and is more convinced that Oman is scum for suggesting that the vig will likely succeed because of the fact that MoS and myself are in this game. Thinks Oman and Tar are scum, with Pwayne as a likely possibility.
1427: Questions TH about his opposition to No Lynch
1437: Proves No Lynch is better with probability. Thinks Tar would not likely have been recruited due to the WIFOM of it. Thinks Tar would have pulled his antics as vig/scum.
1438: Is even more convinced Tar is scum based on his mass-claim suggestion
1441: Affirms that No Lynch has a much higher chance of success. It fits that Oman would also support a massclaim. Shrugs off the fact that theo did so. Says that not everybody who supports a mass claim is scum.
1442: Fixes grammar error
1445: Says Tar is Oman's scumbuddy
1447: Asks that we keep voting No Lynch
1449: Oman's off-hand support of vigging is further evidence of scumminess
1451: Says Oman's offhand comment has the effect of causing the vig to trust Oman more than MoS and may lose the game.
1458: Thinks scum got lucky with Oman and that they did not know he was vig. However, he thinks Oman's death is a lifeline because Oman was the number 1 suspect. Asks a whole set of questions.
1460: "Yes, Yes, Yes, aaaaaannndddd yes! However, not for all the reasons you might think. =P"
1465: Claim dice.
1466: Gives claim order
1471: Claims vanilla
1473: "No, Almost, Yes."
1477: Part of the recent stuff, so I will do this at the bottom.

Conclusions: Well, Theo was scummy D1, got much better around the time when he made PBPAs and now that MoS has come in, it seems like Theo/MoS has gotten less scummy still. My biggest issue is the way he shrugs off the thing about the mass claim suggestion. It fits with tar and Oman being scum, but, hypocritically, it means nothing for himself because he knows his own alignmnent. Despite this, I find myself in agreement with MoS on most things. Overall, I think MoS is probably pro-town (or, at least, the most unlikely scum) but I do worry that this may just be the result of him being an adept player. Theo's D1 behaviour still troubles me, despite the improvements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, a new scumdar ranking:

Tarhalindur - 70%
Pwayne66 - 70%
Trojan Horse - 75%
Mastermind of Sin - 55%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments on the latest posts

Beginning with TH in 1475:

I don't think it was luck at all. You know what I think? They probably have an information role on their team; perhaps they have a mafia rolecop, or a mafia tracker, or a mafia watcher. In any case, they investigated Oman night 2, and they got some information which led them to conclude that Oman was the vig. So they killed him last night. That makes much more sense than the suggestion that they just decided to kill the scummiest protown player, and they just happened to hit the vig.

For the mafia to have a power role with an investigative ability, that would balance things against town hideously, given that we only had two power roles.

Now, put yourself in a mafia member's shoes. Day 3 has just dawned. There are 6 players left: yourself, your scummate, the vig, and 3 other players. You just found out that Oman is the vig. As it is, the town has three chances left to pick off you and your scummate: two lynches, and one vig kill. If two of the three succeed, you're toast. You're going to kill the vig at night, of course. But what you'd really like is to do so without allowing the vig to make a kill. That would leave the town with no margin for error. But how can you do that?

How about suggesting a no lynch?

A perfect plan. It's a suggestion that you can make without looking scummy, since a reasonable case can be made that a no lynch helps the town. (I didn't buy MoS's case for a no lynch, but at the time, I didn't think he was scummy for making it.) Once the no lynch is made, the vig will obviously not kill the following night (that would be stupid). So you off the vig, and now it's 3:2. One more mislynch, and you win. Such an awesome plan.

Nice post hoc attack. No Lynch was the best option yesterday. True, it carried the risk of the vig being killed, but it was the better option than a lynch. You still haven't explained why the case for No Lynch was flawed. Instead, your logic seems to be that because the vig got killed, therefore No Lynch was not the best option and the people supporting it are scummy.

Moreover, as I notice MoS has already said, it is a ridiculous scum plan because it would suit scumMoS better to have Oman vig one of his suspects after a mislynch.

Ah, MoS. So slick. So sneaky. You knew that if we didn't go along with your no lynch strategy, then we'd all force Oman to claim, and he'd reveal himself as the vig. Since you had stated your "fears" that pushing for a lynch would lead to the vig being exposed, you would then look super-townie, and I'd look super-scummy. So now I'm glad that we went along with your plan and no lynched. Gave us the chance figure out that YOU'RE scum.

Okay, you try to paint MoS as being conniving and stuff by NOT taking an option that would make him look protown and you look scummy. Mind explaining how that works?

Also, I don't quite get why this proves MoS is scum. I must have missed that.

So, who's MoS's partner? Less certain. As I've said before, I really doubt it's Tar, since I don't think a scum would do the kind of antics Tar did day 1. Because vollkan joined in the voting for no lynch, I think vollkan is more likely than pwayne. But that's weak evidence. I'm not prepared to vote for vollkan just based on that (I'm still looking for harder evidence). But I'm DEFINITELY ready to vote for MoS.

Again with the argument that Tar is unlikely to be scum. It is a viable gambit to make. He has managed to evade all suspicion so far by simply being ignored as a vanilla/CR. And you suspect me because I voted No Lynch, despite the fact that No Lynch was the better option. Again, you are clearly suggesting that the fact that the worst case scenario arose therefore proves that the No Lynch plan itself was flawed and that its proponents (here, MoS and myself) were suspicious.

This seems to be the entirety of your case's basis and, frankly, it's a load of BS. All you have really said is "MoS and, most likely, vollkan are scum because they pushed something which I never agreed with (for no actual reason other than gut feeling it seems) and which allowed the scum to NK the vig."

Now,
MOS in 1477

Wow, I am fucking psychic. I'm like a freaking genius here. I read this post last night, and I was like "wow, this post screams scum to me. Troj sets up to make a "case" while excusing himself from having a bad scumdar all game, looks like a decent ploy to get people to believe he's finally right. And he's fishing for my opinion so that he can see who I suspect before he makes his case. So he's probably going to attack me, but I shouldn't say anything about how scummy this looks because then he'll just OMGUS me, and that would be bad." And look, it fucking happens, right as I called it. Jeez, I am better than Miss Cleo!

You've also noted the dramatic appeal with the "finally seeing the light" thing. Could you clarify what you mean about the OMGUS thing; I just don't follow you there.

Not to mention that you are completely ignoring the statistics here. With a lynch yesterday, there is a 66% chance of lynching town, which is a 66% chance of pushing the game towards a win for scum. Then, the vig has only a 50% chance of hitting the right target, which is a 50% chance of scum winning. With the no lynch plan, the scum only have a 60% chance of avoiding lynch today, and a 50% chance tomorrow when we lynch correctly. The numbers are still in our favor.

These numbers seem right. As such, this basically guts the whole of TH's "case".

Yes, I did want to see who you suspected before I made my case. Was hoping you might give me something that would link you to your scummate. You gave me nothing. Smart move. We'll have to settle for lynching you and agonizing over who your scummate is.

Your tone has really changed all of a sudden. You were so lacking in confidence before but now you are just throwing out "smart move" and assertions of conspiracy with no basis. Someone's getting cocky and aggressive towards endgame...

And as for the point about play balance: a vig is a strong role, don't forget. One lucky shot, and the scum could have been cut in half just like that. Makes sense that the mod would give the scum SOME power role to help in locating the vig.

Yes, but usually the town only has one scumgroup to contend with. Here, with the possibility of two, the town is at an immediate disadvantage so the vig is almost necessary as a balancer.

I didn't buy Tar's claim when he first made it. I definitely considered the possibility that he was scum trying to act townish. Also, I wasn't happy about his self-vote and immediate unvote that he made when he claimed. But when it looked like Tar might be lynched, he voted for himself AGAIN, saying that he'd rather have a recruitable townie (himself) lynched than a non-recruitable one (Kakeng). That's a bit too bold a move for a scum to pull off. If he's your scummate, then you two deserve to win.

It isn't too bold. It's a brilliant gambit. Moreover, you are still not addressing Tar as a valid candidate for suspicion. Now you are just saying that if he is scum, he "deserves to win". Tar could well be scum as much as anyone else.

Your top priority was to force a no lynch and then kill off the vig. I think this was just a backup plan; if we didn't no lynch, at least you could look more townish by having warned us that pushing for a lynch would expose the vig.

Prove No Lynch was the worser option. Then come back and make this accusation.

Wrong. You're an experienced player, MoS. You know exactly what would've happened if we were faced with two claimed vigs: we wouldn't have lynched EITHER of them. Let them shoot each other at night. Save ourselves a guess. Nah, you wouldn't have dared counterclaim the vig, since you'd just be trading a scum for the vig.

No.

Yesterday it was 4:2.

Oman vig claims. ScumMoS counters. I, for one, would most likely believe MoS.

Now, if we decided not to lynch either, we would stand the likelihood of mislynch, making it 3:2. Mafia NK Oman. Oman NKs scumMoS.
That makes it 3:1 with no vig.

In contrast, if we lynched the scumvig it goes to 4:1. MafiaNK of the vig makes it 3:1 with no vig. Exactly the same.

Overall: Trojan's "case", which he has said he is ready to vote on, is founded on an unproven assertion: That No Lynch was anti-town. His sudden shift in tone, as well as his emotional appeals, have made him significantly more suspicious to me.

[vollkan]

TH, I spent over 3 hours working on this post. I stand completely corrected. Based on what I can see here...the probability effect of the No Lynch was disastrous.

I'll just do this with numbers alone, sentences make things even more complicated.

* Probabilities are in total, not for each individual event
* Probabilities accomodate for the vig hitting same target as mafia.
* The no lynch outcome is the same as if just mafia NK.
* When I say "VigNK town" I mean that the VigNKs a different town to the mafa.
* I have also separated mafiaNK of vig from mafiaNK of town.

Prepare for the ultimate in number-crunching!

On D3, assuming 4:2 (no cult).
Mislynch vig = 3:2 (P=0.167)
-MafNK town = 2:2

(P=0.167) LOSS

Mislynch town= 3:2 (P=0.5)
-MafNK vig= 2:2 (P=0.167)
--VigNK town = 1:2

(P=0.084) LOSS

--VigNK mafia = 2:1 (P=0.084)
---Mislynch D4 = 1:1

(P=0.056) LOSS

---Maflynch D4 = 2:0

(P=0.028) WIN

-MafNK town = 2:2 (P=0.333)
--VigNK town = 1:2

(P=0.083) LOSS

--VigNK same target = 2:2 (P=0.083)
---No Lynch D4 = 2:2 (P=0.083)
----MafNK Vig = 1:2

(P=0.042) LOSS

----MafNK town = 1:2 (P=0.042)
-----VigNK same target = 1:2

(P=0.014) LOSS

-----VigNK mafia = 1:1

(P=0.028) DRAW

--VigNK mafia = 2:1 (P=0.167)
---Mislynch vig D4 = 1:1

(P=0.056) LOSS

---Mislynch town D4 = 1:1

(P=0.056)DRAW

---Maflynch D4 = 2:0

(P=0.056) WIN

Maflynch = 4:1 (P=0.333)
-MafNK vig= 3:1 (P=0.083)
--VigNK town = 2:1 (P=0.062) .
---Mislynch vig D4 = 1:1

(P=0.021) LOSS

---Mislynch town D4 = 1:1

(P=0.021) DRAW

---Maflynch D4 = 2:0

(P=0.021) WIN

--VigNK mafia = 3:0

(P=0.021) WIN

-MafNK town = 3:1 (P=0.25)
--VigNK town = 2:1 (P=0.125)
---Mislynch vig D4 = 1:1

(P=0.042) LOSS

---Mislynch town D4 = 1:1

(P=0.042) DRAW

---Maflynch town D4 = 2:0

(P=0.042) WIN

--VigNK same target = 3:1 (P=0.063) this means D4 opens at 3:1
---Mislynch vig D4 = 2:1

(P=0.016) LOSS (since no vig)

---Mislynch town D4 = 2:1 (P=0.032)
----MafNK vig = 1:1 (P=0.016)
-----VigNK town = 0:1

(P=0.008) LOSS

-----VigNK mafia = 1:0

(P=0.008) WIN

----MafNK town = 1:1 (P=0.016)
-----VigNK same target = 1:1

(P=0.008) DRAW

-----VigNK mafia = 1:0

(P=0.008) WIN

---Maflynch D4 = 3:0

(P=0.016) WIN

--VigNK mafia = 3:0

(P=0.063) WIN

If we lynched,

Probability of a win = 0.263

Probability of a draw = 0.155

Probability of a loss = 0.589

Total = 1.007 (due to rounding errancy)

Thus, if we both lynched and vigged yesterday, the likelihood of us winning is 0.263.

If we mislynched, the likelihood of us winning was just 0.084.

This analysis is not fair for mafia lynch, though, since people took the view that in the event of a mafia lynch, vigging would be bad.

Thus, another analysis for if the vig did not NK in the event of a mafia lynch:
Maflynch = 4:1 (P=0.333)
-MafNK vig= 3:1 (P=0.083)

A

--Mislynch D4 = 2:1

(P=0.062) LOSS

--Maflynch D4 = 3:0

(P=0.021) WIN

-MafNK town = 3:1 (P=0.25)

B

--Mislynch vig D4 = 2:1

(P=0.063) LOSS

--Mislynch town D4 = 2:1 (P=0.125)
---MafNK Vig = 1:1 (P=0.063)
----Vig NK town = 0:1

(P=0.032) LOSS

----Vig NK mafia = 1:0

(P=0.032) WIN

---MafNK town = 1:1 (P=0.063)
----VigNK same target = 1:1

(P=0.032) DRAW

----VigNK mafia = 1:0

(P=0.032) WIN

--Maflynch D4 = 3:0

(P=0.063) WIN

Thus, if we chose to lynch, but guaranteed no vigging on a maflynch,

Probability of a win = 0.232

Probability of a draw = 0.116

Probability of a loss = 0.659

Total probability= 1.007

As we can see, it turns out that not vigging in the event of a mafia lynch actually would actually have decreased our probability of winning.

Notice the bolded A and B above. In those scenarios, we can choose to No Lynch.

A - Vig has been killed

No Lynch = 3:1 (P=0.083)
-MafNK town = 2:1 (P=0.083)
--Mislynch D4 = 1:1

(P=0.042) LOSS

--Maflynch D4 = 2:0

(P=0.042) WIN

B - Vig is still alive

No Lynch D4 = 3:1 (P=0.25)
-MafNK vig = 2:1 (P=0.083)
--VigNK town = 1:1

(P=0.055) LOSS

--VigNK mafia = 1:0

(P=0.028) WIN

-MafNK town = 2:1 (P=0.167)
--VigNK town = 1:1

(P=0.056) DRAW

--VigNK same = 2:1 (P=0.056)
---Mislynch vig D5 = 1:1

(P=0.019) LOSS

---Mislynch town D5 = 1:1

(P=0.019) DRAW

---Maflynch D5 = 2:0

(P=0.019) WIN

--VigNK mafia = 2:0

(P=0.056) WIN

No Lynch in B also makes it: (as in with no lynch in A AND B)

Probability of a win = 0.229

Probability of a draw = 0.159

Probability of a loss = 0.618

Total probability= 1.006

Okay. So, in the event that the vig chooses not to NK in maflynch, A and B as well, the probability of a win increases to 0.229.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, what about a No Lynch/No Vig as proposed and performed
On D3, 4:2
No Lynch = 4:2
-MafNK vig = 3:2 (P=0.25)
--Mislynch D4 =

2:2 (P=0.15) LOSS

--Maflynch D4 = 3:1 (P=0.1)
---MafNK = 2:1 (P=0.1)
----Mislynch D5 = 1:1

(P=0.05) LOSS

----Maflynch D5 = 2:0

(P=0.05) WIN

-MafNK town = 3:2 (P=0.75)
--Mislynch vig D4 = 2:2

(P=0.15) LOSS

--Mislynch town D4 = 2:2 (P=0.3)
---MafNK vig = 1:2

(P=0.15) LOSS

---MafNK town = 1:2 (P=0.15)
----VigNK same = 1:2

(P=0.05) LOSS

----VigNK mafia = 1:1

(P=0.1) DRAW

--Maflynch D4 = 3:1 (P=0.3)
---MafNK = 2:1 (P=0.3)
----Mislynch D5 = 1:1

(P=0.2) LOSS

----Maflynch D5 = 2:0

(P=0.1) WIN

Now, the probabilities are:

Probability of a win = 0.150

Probability of a draw = 0.100

Probability of a loss = 0.750

As we can see...the No Lynch has dropped our win probability by a significant margin.

I've checked this again and again, but, regrettably, I think it is correct.

[vollkan]

Indeed. Vollkan, the problem with your numbers above is that you're taking the vig into account too much. Your probabilities are treating the vig as an entirely different case, when the proposed No Lynch/No Vig plan was not counting on the vig at all. The vig might be considered a backup plan that could save the day if all goes wrong, but the benefits of a vig were not factored into the plan, because we do not trust the vig to kill correctly. Right now we have a 50% chance of lynching scum, disregarding evidence that makes us more likely to lynch correctly. Yesterday, that chance was only 33%. Your problem is that you are delving too deeply into reliance on the statistics. The statistics are only meant to deal with the here and now, to give us the best chance of moving on in a positive manner to the next "day". The no lynch plan turned our 33% chance into a 50% chance. That is an improvement for us. It's true that the numbers statistically point towards a better chance the first day, but that's because the numbers after a successful mafia lynch are ridiculously in the town's favor. But if that was truly a statistic to be relied upon, why has the no lynch plan been broadly accepted across the mafia community? It's because you cannot depend on that first unlikely correct lynch to get you into a situation where the statistics are heavily in your favor. The no lynch plan does bring the scum slightly closer to winning overall, but it DOES give us better chances at making the correct decision. You have to realize this to be able to understand how it all goes together.

First up, what's with the 50%? If there are 2 scum and 5 players, our odds of lynching scum are 2/5.

Anyway, what I gather from this is that whilst the No Lynch is worse as a matter of pure global probability, the non-numerical factors (chiefly, not relying on a vig and not making a less-informed D3 lynch) actually cause it to run in our favour. And, as you say, our chances of lynching successfully in the here-and-now have actually increased. Thus, it was actually for the best.

[vollkan]

Where's the contradiction? I said that the town can't DEPEND on the vig making good use of his shots. So, for example, if we only have one chance of hitting a scum, it's better that we use a lynch (where we all contribute to the discussion) than a vig kill. But when we were in day 3, we didn't just have one chance of hitting our first scum; we had TWO. One lynch, and (if that failed) one vig kill. Why not pool our chances?

As we've already seen, the probability of a mislynch yesterday is higher than that of a mislynch today. Thus, it was very likely we would need to depend on the vig, which places us in a dreadful position. Today, we have better odds and slightly more information. It's true that we lost the "second chance" of the vig and it is true, as I showed, that globally it lowers our probability of winning, but it is still best move because, as MoS pointed out, the global probability analysis is skewed.

The ship wasn't just sinking. Water was about to come over the deck. No time for continued antics, if he was scum. I will say one thing, though. While I think RIGHT NOW that it is very unlikely that Tar is scum, my convictions will be shaken if Tar and I are both in the final 3 (with just one scum left to be found). That would seem too much like a perfect setup for me; the 3rd guy would be so "clearly" scum, that I would inevitably wonder if I was wrong, and that Tar was scum all along.

Tar's not 100% off my list. Close, but not quite.

I've already said that Tar may well just be making a gambit. You continue to assert otherwise. Why is it so unlikely that Tar is scum? You clearly are not ruling him

out

, because you concede that you might think he was scum in a certain scenario, so what makes you think it "close" to 100% right now?

No, your backup plan didn't have a greater chance of success than the main plan. Getting rid of the vig without having him kill would be best for the scum in any case. If you couldn't pull that off, you could at least try to not look scummy. But that isn't as good a scenario from your perspective. Just how non-scummy would you look? You might get lynched/vigged anyway. Getting rid of the vig was the best case scenario for the scum.

MoS has already commented on the most interesting aspect of what you have said.

Something else that interests me is that this is another flawed attack via criticism of the No Lynch plan. Yes, it is true that scum would want to eliminate the vig without the vig killing, but you are ignoring that it was numerically to our advantage not to have a lynch or a vig kill. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point. But it doesn't actually demonstrate anything because the fact remains that the No Lynch/No Vig was still better.

On another note,

Guardian - can we get a prod on pwayne and Tar.

[vollkan]

I'll respond to the points you have made now, though I expect you have more as well.

*gasp* I do not approve of this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the "edit" quoted by Pwayne part of Blackstrike's signature.

This is kind of obvious when you consider that blackstrike posted at:

Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: 13

But the signature edit thing reads:

Last edited by Dr. Blackstrike on Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:45 am; edited 1 times in total

Unless blackstrike has a TARDIS, there is nothing odd about it...

Information? Yes. Analysis? No. Scumhunting? Definitely not. Scum trying to use information instead of analysis to give the perception that they are participating? Quite possibly.

First up, that was my second post in this game, and it was in the random voting stage.

At that point in time, people were confused about BS's signature. Pwayne had voted BS and flameaxe had gone "*gasp*". I was just pointing out that there was nothing wrong.

Okay, so yes, I was not engaging in detailed analysis in my second post.

How many townies are in the game?

Can't help you there.

I would say that in this game, a townie lynch is almost as good as a scum lynch.

Why? Townies are the lifeblood of the cult. No townies= no recruits, No recruits= good.

Therefore, any townie claim should be punishable by lynch.

Interesting. It is true that any claimed vanilla will almost certainly be cultised but a townie lynch is not "almost as good" as a scum lynch. If we get into the situation where someone is forced to claim vanilla, then we are basically forced to lynch a townie. It is not a good thing; it is a situation best avoided.

Plus, remember that even if the vanilla lynches hurt the cult, they help the mafia. There are two enemies we need to consider.

In short, if someone does claim vanilla they really force our hand. But that just demonstrates that the vanillas should do all they can to avoid having to claim.

Other things:

a) How much of an effect would it have on balance if the cult leader was the day one lynch?
b) How many townies are likely in the game? There need to be enough to give the cult a chance along with power roles to help us get the cult/mafia.

a) Depends on the set-up
b) I've never been in a cult game before, so I can't really say.

Therefore:

I think that townies should try get killed by the mafia. It hurts the cult.

This is so wrong!
IF every vanilla began to try and get killed by the scum (I assume that you mean that the vanillas should play very well and draw attention to themselves) then the logical response for the scum would be to target quieter players and for the cult to target the loudest. This ends up in WIFOM, of course, but the point is that imposing some sort of uniform strategy will only serve to sort power roles from vanillas. In short, your strategy does the very OPPOSITE of what you suggest its purpose is.

Once again - lots of information and discussion (this time mostly about mafia theory), but very little scumhunting.

Rather than snipping my post in isolation, it might pay to look at it in context. Page 2 of the thread. Almost that entire page was just theory discussion.

Well my point is that townies are the lifeblood of the cult and if all the townies die than the cult is nuetralized.

Read my post above. This logic is utterly pro-scum. (I say pro-scum to distinguish it from anti-town that also helps the cult)[/quote]

So, you're saying that a player's logic is pro-scum, but you don't draw the logical conclusion and suggest that he *is* scum (or provide reasons why you think he is town despite his bad logic)? I can't see a good reason for town to fail to point out these conclusions, but I can think of at least three good reasons for scum to do so (bussing, giving the appearance of bussing to cast doubt on a townie, and scum not wanting to step on toes). [/quote]

The read I got from BS was that he was a newb who was just questioning things. I knew that the cult situation presented a novel scenario and, thus, that people would be more likely to make errors in reasoning. Thus, I wasn't going to attack an apparent newb when I could see that his logic might well just be a product of the situation.

I just read the rules again and we have exactly 4-6 recruitable people.

Reading from the front page:
12 players: 1 Cult. 2 Scum. 2-4 power roles.
Therefore, 5-7 are vanilla.

More information, still no scumhunting. A pattern is emerging here, and it's one that suggests that Vollkan is scum himself.

That was on the same page and in the same context and continuing my response to BS's questions.

I had a thought: how on earth are we going to handle claims at the start of the game? Once we've reached a consensus on who is scummy, should we demand a claim from that person? If we do, and that person says "townie", we're in a bit of a pickle. It may well be best to lynch them; they may be lying, and even if they're not, it'll deny the cult a possible recruit.

I said this back in post #34.

At this stage of the game, I think the only real difference the cult makes to play strategy is that it provides a good reason for lynching claimed vanillas. A vanilla lynch is still very bad, because it helps the scum, but it is better than the cult gaining members.

I don't think lynching vanillas is a good idea. Period. Lets get the cult recruiter D1 so we don't even have to worry bout it. Kk?

Easier said than done.

I'm gonna have to agree with this post entirely. Everything I've heard from you has been from a 'culty' point of view. You just really seem like you don't want to help the town that much and are more worried about eliminating the amount of recruitable townies...aka...the vanilla ones...

I'm not a fan of your play...and I think pressure would be a nice discussion starter right now...Unvote, Vote: Dr. Blackstrike

Hang on. You are saying that BS sounds 'culty' because he wants to eliminate the vanillas? And you voted on the basis of this.

While there may be instances where lynching vanilla is of benefit, I think those instances are rare. But yes, we are better of we dead vanillas then recruited vanillas.

To me, this strategy just seems like the cult is all that matters here. THERE IS STILL A MAFIA, AND THEY DO HAVE A WIN CONDITION. Lynching vanillas fights back against the cultists, but is basically helping the mafia get closer to a win.

You're misrepresenting what was said. Pwayne was clearly not calling for the lynch of vanillas, he was saying (as I have been also) that a dead vanilla is better than a claimed and therefore recruited vanilla.

I'm not advocating lynching townies as much as I'm advocating them trying to be killed in the night by the mafia. Why? I repeat, because it's another night that has gone by without a power role dying and one less potential cultist.

Wouldn't a townie want the mafia to kill the CULTISTS...so the town could, I dunno. Win?

There are real problems with vanillas trying to be NKed, I addressed those earlier. Of course, ideally the mafia will NK the cultists, but second to that the best thing is for the mafia to NK vanillas. It means we don't lose our power roles and it makes the cult's job more difficult.

Flame's voting basis is ridiculous. His subsequent attempts to justify it on the basis of pressure ignore the fact that discussion was happening anyway. Plus, he seems adamantly against the lynching of vanillas. "Period".

Unvote, Vote: Flameaxe

Cool, a vote with a reason on it. Of course, that reason is total BS. Vollkan said two posts earlier that Dr. Blackstrike's logic was anti-town, failed to act on it, then votes Flameaxe for making the pro-town play that he failed to act on earlier? The rest of his attack is even worse - it basically consists of attacking Flameaxe for advocating pro-town play. That's scummy as all hell.

(Aside: Pwayne's quoted comments about vanilla lynching are pinging my scumdar. I'll need to examine closely when I get time for the Pwayne PBPA.)

My points that I voted on were:
1) Him just suggesting we lynch the CL D1. As I said, "easier said than done". At the time, I saw it as stifling the discussion on how to deal with vanillas.
2) Calling BS "culty" despite the fact that BS was pushing vanilla lynches
3) Misrepresenting the discussion on how to deal with vanillas

The point you seem to be criticising on, namely the BS "pro-scum" thing, wasn't actually one of the reasons I was suspicious of flame. I don't mention the "pro-scum" as an attack on flameaxe. I simply commented on it in terms of what the best scenario was.

Tell me right now, what is the fucking problem with not wanting to lynch vanillas? Nothing wrong with trying to lynch the goddamn scum.

Nobody is calling for the lynch of all vanillas; that's a strawman you have raised.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you: A lynch of a mafia or cult leader is great. That is what we want. However, if someone claims vanilla then it makes sense to lynch them, since they will in all likelihood be culted. It is not that vanilla lynches are good, nobody except the mafia will want a vanilla lynch, but it is a practical necessity in a cult game.

The way he (and alot of people so far) have been viewing this game is that it is Town Vs. Cult. I don't really like repeating myself so many times like this, but what the hell. Mafia. That should be all I have to say.

Way back in #34 I even said:

Plus, remember that even if the vanilla lynches hurt the cult, they help the mafia. There are two enemies we need to consider.

And you know what, in BS's next post he admitted I was correct. His plan was anti-town, sure, but he abandoned it once it was pointed out and it really just looks like a honest mistake.

Since then, nobody has said "Vanilla lynches are good" and ignored the mafia. The point, which you evidently miss, is that a dead vanilla is better than a claimed vanilla who will get recruited.

Get rid of the cult recruiter early, get rid of the scum later, win.

Your logic is just so wrong. You seem to be saying that we should not lynch claimed vanillas but we should lynch the cult recruiter. Fine. Let's say person X is the recruiter. If X is put at L-1, I wonder what role X will claim....vanilla most likely.

If you can explain to me how we go about lynching the recruiter (or Mafia) and being certain that they are the recruiter/mafia then I would love to hear it.

If you still think my vote was entirely baseless, please go back to pages 1 and 2 and read some of the things he had to say. They all look necessarily
anti-town to me. (Not from the culty perspective exactly, but anti-town.)

You've admitted the culty label was wrong.

His plan was anti-town, but he abandoned it once I pointed out how flawed it was. That said, he was correct about lynching claimed vanillas and he was right to suggest that vanillas being NKed is a good way for the cult to be weakened (though his plan was deeply flawed in terms of execution).

More craplogic. Vollkan once again states that my predecessor's logic was anti-town, yet he still won't bring up the obvious (albeit incorrect) possible explanation. The rest of his post effectively consists of attacking Flameaxe for attempting to get the town to scumhunt instead of discuss theory about the cult. That's not pro-town in my books.

I've already explained why I didn't attack BS.

As for FA, maybe I am missing something, but I seem to be arguing against him on points that he is raising in argument. It's hardly that I am disrupting scum-hunting.

There is one way around all the controversy: Nobody claim vanilla townie until the recruiter is dead. I think that is at the root of everything. If nobody claims, nobody gets lynched and nobody appears scummy for going after townies.

Well, there are two circumstances where people might claim:
1) My randomly mentioning it in discussion (I have seen this in other games, people just saying "I'm vanilla")
or;
2) At L-1 if they are forced to claim

1) is always a bad idea even in a regular game and here it provides a good case for being lynched.

2) is slightly more complicated. If a vanilla is at L-1 and is asked to claim, they basically have 3 choices:
a) Claim vanilla = Lynched
b) Don't claim anything = By not claiming they are indicating they are vanilla (or potentially scum/cult leader who does not want to risk claiming a power role). Hence, they are effectively doing the same thing as a).
c) Claim a power role. This gives rise to another 3:
i) They claim a role which nobody else has. No counter-claim & probably NKed
ii) They get counter-claimed. They will be lynched and counter-claimer gets NKed. Not good, obviously.
iii) They claim a role someone else has, but that person does not counter-claim. This should cause the power-claiming vanilla to be NKed. If not, then things get confusing.

All in all, things are messy...

Another Vollkan post that gives information/game theory instead of scumhunting.

Again, it was the discussion of the time. I don't pretend that it was scumhunting, but I was responding to the points that people had raised.

Just for the record, my vote on Flameaxe was and is totally random.

Then unvote.

Why is everyone voting Flameaxe?

I don't know about this bandwagon on Flameaxe; to me, he hasn't acted any scummier than anyone else.

I'll give my reasons:
1) Making a serious vote for BS on the basis of BS being 'culty'. A nonsensical justification (and possibly a freudian one)
2) Justifying the vote on the basis of pressure and discussion. BS was already talking and discussion was already happening
3) Misrepresenting the case for lynching claimed vanillas, presumably to legitimise his vote on BS

1) That's funny, I thought that voting someone because you think that they look scummy (and, by Occam's Razor, probably are scum) was good play for town. Is there a reason that you disagree, Vollkan?
2) Um, that seems like a blatant misrepresentation of Flameaxe's case to me. "Player X's actions are scummy IMO and I'm calling him out on it" seems like a much more accurate summary to me.
3) Not necessarily incorrect (though it's possible that Flameaxe simply misunderstood your arguments), but given Vollkan's misrepresentation of Flameaxe's case it is hypocritical.

1) Yes. As was made clear from my post above. My problem was that he was calling BS "culty" for wanting to lynch vanillas.
2) Actually, flame said:

I'm not a fan of your play...and I think pressure would be a nice discussion starter right now...Unvote, Vote: Dr. Blackstrike

I found this a superfluous justification, since he had presented a "case", despite my problems with it. The reference to discussion just seemed to be a way of making additional justification to cover himself.
3) I didn't misrepresent him. What you say is a misrepresentation (me attacking the discussion point) was me simply attacking something he had said as a poor factor in his justification, which I had broader problems with.

Yeah, I don't know what's going to make me look scummy or not. (That probably made me look scummy, but I wouldn't know.)

Its not your problem IF you're town. Your problem is finding scum, not getting out squeaky clean.

For the record, I said almost exactly the same thing as Rump is saying now in my first game of mafia. The "everything I say can be turned against me" fear is something I had and which a lot of newbies whinge about.

I don't see how this can be dismissed as mere information. Here I am saying that his behaviour fits with that of a newbie. That's completely on target in terms of scum-hunting. I am providing my own view on an issue regarding BS.

<snip mod edit>

I'll try to kickstart this:

Rump explaining

Mostly because he seemed to misinterpret BS's post to, as vollkan said, legitimize his post . However, looking back, I can understand how anyone would misinterpret that.

This doesn't explain anything really.
The reasons in brief given by me were:

1) Making a serious vote for BS on the basis of BS being 'culty'. A nonsensical justification (and possibly a freudian one)
2) Justifying the vote on the basis of pressure and discussion. BS was already talking and discussion was already happening
3) Misrepresenting the case for lynching claimed vanillas, presumably to legitimise his vote on BS

Fine, you think 3) is possibly understandable; but what about the rest of these?

Also, Tyhess respond to CKD and Pwayne.

Vollkan wants other people's reactions to his points, which is pro-town. First time I've said that in this PBPA. Asking another player to respond to another person's comments, however... feels like scum trying to blend in by encouraging discussion.

This seems to be a matter of playstyle more than anything else. Avoidance of questions is a major peeve of mine. When I told him to respond to CKD and Pwayne, I was trying to ensure he responded to those questions, that I wanted answered. You say it "feels like scum trying to blend in by encouraging discussion", but you don't explain any further as to what makes that explanation the most plausible.

Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence - I can see scum doing this if Doctor's town - he was incredibly scummy first three or so pages and doesn't want us to assert pressure and bullying tactics to catch scum - I see that as very anti-town whatever the method of game. Seperately I've seen a lot of scum do them list things, ppl think they look great, so scum do the odd one liners to impress. Anyways all for now.

Well, I also said that BS looked like he had simply made an "honest mistake" and Oman said that

I think our good doctor has tried (and phailed!) to come up with a good plan.

So, in terms of "defending" BS, Pwayne is hardly singular.

Something else,

Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence

and now,

I don't like pwayne more for his suggestion to not use pressure votes and bully players etc. Plus his recent list doesn't sit too well with me.

Subtle shift. People criticise you for voting on the basis of Pwayne defending BS, so you shift you main reason to being the opposition to bullying, which was a minor factor from before.

Does this mean that your basis for suspecting Pwayne is that he is opposed to bullying tactics? If so, why does that make him more likely to be scum? I personally have no problem with bullying tactics, but I have encountered many players that oppose them.

Points out flaws in Theo's logic, asks for explanation. I've seen this kind of

behavior

from town and scum in the past, so I'd call it a null tell. The bigger question is, what will Vollkan do if/when Theo explains?

Could you clarify what you mean here?

I'll do my best to explain that anyway. My two paragraphs ("Subtle shift..." and "Does this mean....") are independent points, hence the paragraphing. The criticism of his logic with the shift was separate from the question about the bullying tactics. What I wanted to know was why bullying tactics was a scumtell at all.

It's more the tone of your post that I find an over-reaction.

The post, I presume:

I don't like that vote on Pwayne at all. I think the defence of a play whos alignment is unknown should not factor into the concept at all. We have three factions here, only one of them knows who the others in their faction are (there is only one cultist now, scum know eachother). I don't like the idea of Pwayne being scum because BS looks scummy, but you say Pwayne is scummy is BS is town as well...hmmm.

I don't like it really.

I don't see any "tone" beyond a slight hint of Oman being suspicious of you. Given the basis for your vote, however, I think that is wholly reasonable.

FoS: Theo

So, when Theo elaborates, Vollkan's response (to an explanation that is, in my eyes, far scummier than Flameaxe's early play) is a FoS. There are two likely explanations here:

1) Vollkan genuinely thought that Flameaxe was scummy and delayed moving his vote onto Theo because of this.
2) Theo was Vollkan's scumbuddy, and this post is a textbook example of the Friend of Scum (FoS) tell.

Well, theo didn't actually respond to my points (just to make that clear, because it isn't from what you have quoted). He said that it was the tone of Oman's post that he found suspect. As I pointed out, no such tone existed, other than rightful suspicion. I thought flame was scummier and, moreover, I thought I may have missed something in Oman's post. They were the reasons I did not vote.

Ok looking back the tone doesn't seem all that bad, it did originally jump out at me that Oman commented on nothinge else and I found it puzzling that he (Oman) doesn't express any outright suspicion on me, it's more a defence of Pwanye if that makes sense - probably not. I guess if anything I over-reacted to Oman's original post

Wait, hang on. You accused him over-reaction but now you are saying you were actually puzzled he did not suspect you outright?

And no, don't try to turn this into a game of people defending Pwayne, the issue is people attacking your vote.

I've got my eye on pwayne because I found him defending Blackstrike more than anyone, asking Curious/Flame in 45 to not bully him, not use pressure votes to extract information.

Way to go and dodge the shifting I just pointed out:

Something else,

Mainly because he jumped to the Doctor's defence

and now,

I don't like pwayne more for his suggestion to not use pressure votes and bully players etc. Plus his recent list doesn't sit too well with me.

Subtle shift. People criticise you for voting on the basis of Pwayne defending BS, so you shift you main reason to being the opposition to bullying, which was a minor factor from before.

Now what you have just done is to combine them all together as salient factors, but it is yet another shift from your previous positions.

As far as pwayne not being the only one to defend Blackstrike again I'm being overly attacking towards him, I will say he was more defensive than anyone else but Oman, Volkan do both show support for him only after Tyhess votes Blackstrike for acting oddly. Oman then shows support, Trojan follows up straight after - more a following kinda post - similar to his one above, Volkan you then do so.

I find it interesting that you represent several people taking a common position (which happens to be against your view or your vote) as "following".

Hence perhaps I'm being severly misguided on Pwayne's defensive nature, defensive players could just as likely be town/scum and without having any prior knowledge of meta-gaming of Pwayne unvote - after all I only re-read properly a couple of hours ago.

I don't see why you only recently re-reading affects your ability to vote for sensible reasons.

For that very slippery response, you've been upgraded to first class:

Unvote, Vote: Theo

Theo's next response is enough to convince Vollkan to vote Theo, with solid reasoning. Whoa, a pro-town action.

NOTE: Vollkan's reasoning here seems far more sincere than his reasoning on Flameaxe (a preliminary readthrough suggests it is also more sincere than many of Vollkan's later cases, too). This, to me, suggests that if Vollkan is scum, then MoS (Theo's replacement) is likely to be his buddy - from scum play I've seen in the past (including my own play as scum in games such as Mini 462 and Stargate SG-1), scum find it much, much easier to bring up a case on a fellow scum than to fabricate a case on a player they know is not Mafia. Something to keep in mind for later.

The case on Theo was stronger, I don't deny that, but only because he had made a number of fairly significant scumtells.

Ok to finish early good list - Flameaxe, Curious, Volkan. Not really any vibe - MoS, Oman, ac1983fan, Trojan Horse. Not liking a lot probably due to newbishness/scummyness - RumpWat, Tyhess. Not liking even less - pwayne66, Dr.B.

Does anyone else see the odd thing I notice about this list?

The fact that Theo says he doesn't like one group due to "scummyness" but then lists Pwayne and BS as "even less" initially looked a little odd to me, but not after I thought about it. It looks like he is just saying that you two are the top of his suspect list.

Unless, as I suspect, you are talking about something else.

That's some awfully wishy-washy (and therefore scummy) analysis there...

I do not have time to finish this PBPA tonight (will do ASAP), but here's a good start.

It isn't wishy-washy. I am simply saying that it initially looked odd to me, but that I had interpreted it in one way. However, since it was a matter of interpretation, I figured I could be wrong so I noted at the end that I could have misunderstood.

[vollkan]

Tar's case seems like smoke and flames to me.

Similarly to his previous attack over alleged "shifting" in relation to No Lynch, which he still hasn't explained...

I like Tar's ultimate conclusions, but I definitely don't like how he got there.

I find it interesting that you have and, I shall presume, continue to argue so firmly that Tar must be pro-town. Even here, you aren't taking the next logical step and analysing the implications of the fact that Tar is adopting a similar position to your own, though with a case that you admit is dodgy.

Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the crux of your case against myself and MoS revolving around the No Lynch issue, which I think has already been dealt with.

The point which strikes me here is that both TH and Tar have professed suspicion, but neither has presented a proper case (TH's was on the No Lynch and got dealt with by MoS, and Tar's was flimsy).

So you quote a bunch of vollkan's posts where various kinds of information are given, and then because those particular posts weren't focused on scumhunting, vollkan is probably scum? Bah. Vollkan has done plenty of scumhunting, if my memory serves me right. (I certainly remember the scumhunting he has done against ME.) I'll take another look through vollkan's posts to see what he has done, but I'm sure I'll find a reasonable share of scumhunting.

Those posts where he does cite me as not scum-hunting were in context. You'll find that this game has a number of points where it breaks into theory discussion (the latest No Lynch debate as a good example). Tar's case revolves a lot around snipping my posts out of those points and then using them to accuse me of not scumhunting.

[vollkan]

True, that was the crux of the case, but it was more of a case against MoS than against you. The only thing I had against you is that you decided that MoS's arguments for No Lynch were good, and so you voted No Lynch. Not much of a case against you, considering Oman did the same thing, and he was protown.

Again, I reiterate that No Lynch was the better option. I know this has been debated extensively already, but the point is that any suspicion grounded on the premise No Lynch = anti-town is fundamentally flawed.

Also, I just reread this:

So, who's MoS's partner? Less certain. As I've said before, I really doubt it's Tar, since I don't think a scum would do the kind of antics Tar did day 1. Because vollkan joined in the voting for no lynch, I think vollkan is more likely than pwayne. But that's weak evidence. I'm not prepared to vote for vollkan just based on that (I'm still looking for harder evidence). But I'm DEFINITELY ready to vote for MoS.

(Incidentally, even though I think vollkan is scum, I believe vollkan when he says he didn't realize he was hammering no lynch. I'm sure he honestly missed the 50% rule; otherwise, he wouldn't have voted so quickly after Oman did. I think he was just trying to be #3 on the bandwagon, and have someone else be the hammering vote.)

In your most recent post, you said it doesn't mean much, and you say even in this older post that you were "looking for harder evidence", although you still say that you think I am scum, with no explanation. And you take this to the extent of inferring that I voted No Lynch to avoid being the hammerer (can you explain what you mean by this?)

What I am saying is that I am noticing that both you and Tar have suspected me (though you have been attacking MoS significantly more) but neither of you has presented any substantial case (Tar's being poor).

Tar's effort is impressive but does somehow warrant some suspicion given his previous inactivity. I am waiting for him to unveil the rest of his conclusions before I comment on them.

What about Tar's post is impressive? His case wasn't actually lengthy (when you remove all of the quotes by me), nor did it have any substance. Also, you seem to just be echoing the negative sentiment that Tar has received (by attacking him for...making a large post after being inactive?) without actually commenting on the substance of the case. I know you have said you want to wait to comment, but I can't see why (particularly given how long this may take)

[vollkan]

I know, I know, we've discussed whether or not no lynch was the right move yesterday, and a few of you have concluded that it was. I'll reread your arguments, but I doubt I'll be convinced. Had there been no chance of a cultie still being alive, perhaps you could've convinced me that no lynch was the right move. But if there is a cultie out there, then we've just given up our chance to lynch all 3 baddies. Now we need some luck. So I still think no lynch was the wrong move.

This is the biggest problem with the No Lynch as things have arisen. If there is a cultist, we do stand a possibility of not being able to win from here, no matter what happens today.

Maflynch D4 = 2:1:1 (P=0.4)
-MafNK town = 1:1:1 (we can't win) (P=0.267)
-MafNK CR = 2:1:0 (P=0.133)

Now, what if we had chosen to lynch?
Well, let's assume D3 was 3:2:1

Mislynch = 2:2:1
-MafNK town = 1:2:1 LOSS. Even if the vig succeeded in hitting mafia, we still couldn't win, since that would still make it 1:1:1.
Maflynch = 3:1:1
-MafNK town = 2:1:1. Now, obviously, if the vig succeeded, we would end up in 2:0:1 or 2:1:0, both of which are LYLO. If the vig failed, we would hit 1:1:1. If we assume no vigging, then we lose if we do not lynch mafia (unless we were to No Lynch and the mafia NKed the CR)
Cultlynch = 3:2:0
-MafNK town = 2:2:0 LOSS

As we can see, the situation would still be bad even if we did lynch. Since we can't rely on a successful vigging in this sort of analysis (I shall assume No Vigging) the only scenario from where we could win is if we lynched mafia (P=0.333) and then either lynched mafia again (P=0.25) and then lynched the CR (P=0.333) or No Lynched and had the mafia NK the CR (P=0.333) and then lynch the cult (P=0.333).

Our sole crutch to rely upon now is succeeding today and then having mafia NK a cultist.

As for my comment about the hammering vote: if a lynch goes bad (as our no lynch definitely did, given that the vig got killed), whoever is the hammering vote is naturally going to be under suspicion. Whether that suspicion is warranted or not. So naturally, a scum wouldn't want to be the hammering vote. But let me make it clear: I dont think that the fact that you were SPECIFICALLY the hammering vote makes you any scummier.

This is more a matter of opinion than anything else. I take the view that the whole wagon is equally culpable. Every person has an opportunity to remove their vote. Any unique stigma about hammering is unjustified. The issue is, and should always be, whether the person genuinely had good justification for their vote.

Incidentally, I'd like everyone's take on my other point against MoS:

Also, mafia would want to lynch today, because that gives them the best chance of winning. There is no way to prevent the vig from killing tonight if we mislynch, because it's the obvious thing.

However, by lynching today, the scum have a chance of smoking the vig out in the open with a bandwagon, which means they can kill the vig and hope that the vig misses his 50% chance of hitting scum.

Even if the vig hits scum, 2:1 with a dead vig is decent odds for the mafia. Right now our odds are 4:2, and I'd prefer to have chances at scum at 3:2 and 2:1 than just hope that we'll reach 2:1 through a lucky vig kill.

This was a post from day 3; I added in the bolding for emphasis. I would like to point out that if we had gone ahead and tried to lynch someone during day 3, then we most likely would've forced Oman to claim. So indeed, the vig would've been "smoked out in the open".

Makes me think MoS had some inside information.

It is certainly plausible, but remember that you are basically inferring the intention of somebody. I don't see how this is actual evidence though. It is just that MoS said something about the game's situation, which could be taken to suggest inside knowledge, but is equally apparent objectively.

[vollkan]

I'd like to refer you all back to this post for a more extensive case against Trojan, on top of what I already said.

There was a significant stream of rebuttal and counter-rebuttal following that PBPA, so it can't really be considered on its own.

I'd like to refer you all back to this post for a more extensive case against theo/Mos, on top of what I already said.

(Okay, this PBPA of theo isn't completely a case against him. But I figured I better put a link to it anyway. Turnabout is fair play, MoS.)

First up, I don't see why you need to counter a case on yourself with a case on MoS. Turnabout is not unfair (Why on earth did you cal it "fair play", like that is a justification?), but that doesn't explain why you just reciprocated.

Also, that PBPA was not a case, at all.

My conclusions there:

A definite shift towards becoming more helpful over time. The early blind focus on ac1983 is strange, but not "scummy". Just weird. There are a few other oddities which are suspicious in aggregate, but nothing that I would be prepared to vote on. His latter content is definitely very helpful. I'll say 55%, mainly just for the early stuff.

55%. And 50% is where people start at. In contrast, at that same point in time I had you at 75%.

[vollkan]

First up, I don't see why you need to counter a case on yourself with a case on MoS. Turnabout is not unfair (Why on earth did you cal it "fair play", like that is a justification?), but that doesn't explain why you just reciprocated.

He didn't make a case against me. He just pointed to an earlier case made against me; a case that I had already responded to. If he had asked me to respond to certain things, I would have. But he didn't. What was there for me to respond to? Figured I should just do the same thing back to him.

Hmm. I have a question. It may seem odd, but it has a point: What did you think the purpose of referring to the PBPA of you was?

[vollkan]

Okay. Now, my interpretation of MoS's actions in referring to the PBPA on you was that it was just meant to be a springboard for further discussion, hence why I said it "can't be considered on its own". There was much more that needed to be discussed if that PBPA was to be considered. MoS's response to my comment about the lengthy debate which arose from the PBPA demonstrated this to me.

Now, I would argue that, objectively, it is more feasible to view the reference to the PBPA on you as a springboard. Suggesting it was designed to make you look scummy seems overly-paranoid to me. Particularly since everybody knows that there was an extensive debate flowing from that PBPA, it would hardly be an effective means of enflaming any suspicion of you, would it? That's the main reason I think your interpretation of things is weak.

On the flip side, MoS called it an "extensive case" and made no reference to the ensuing discussion until I had raised the matter (which was after you had posted). In that light, your initial response may have been justified.

Either way, though, reciprocation seems an inappropriate response. Question the validity of that PBPA as a case, by all means, but simply referring to an equivalent post about MoS seems diversionary. Rather than engaging the issues raised, you add more to obfuscate.

[vollkan]

Okay, I'm going to look over the latest bits of the debate which flowed from the theo case on TH.

vollkan in 1363
TH's response in 1375
vollkan's counter-response in 1376 (is just below TH in 1375, obviously).

Now,
The first issue that was never resolved was the "broken scumdar" matter - that TH was using a "broken scumdar" as an excuse for not actively scumhunting. This exchange ended with a comment by me:

Well, if there's any doubt about my scumdar being broken, check out the four players who have been nightkilled so far. I suspected them all at some point, but only one turned out to be a bad guy (and he was the cult recruiter, not a scum).
....

But more to the point: I have spent some time looking at everyone's posts and trying to find scummier things than just "Oh, MoS hasn't settled on anyone yet, strange for him" and "Oh, tyhess is hopping like crazy, could be scum". Had I found stronger evidence than that, I would've brought it up.

I admit, too many times I've watched two (or three) players go back and forth in a huge argument, and I've sat there and thought it was a null tell for both. "This looks like an argument between two townies with weak evidence. Not sure why this even started. Both are looking like the typical protowner right now. Scum must be happy right now." MoS summed it up well when he said a case could be made against anyone. And that has really frustrated me.

Well, it does not really indicate brokenness. I think everybody has suspected almost everybody at some point. My issue, as you no doubt gather, is that a "broken scumdar" is a rather convenient excuse.

This matter basically got reduced to TH saying that his scumdar was

actually

broken (though he has now apparently gained enlightenment ). Anyway, the fact that it was an easy excuse was not resolved in the debate. I don't think there can be any disputing that it is a fairly dodgy explanation for behaviour in that it evades the consequences of actions and inactions by placing them upon a personal playstyle fault.

I've never seen this sort of excuse before, so I would hesitate before calling it a scumtell. However, I find it suspect on the basis that it is an evasive excuse.

3) Uses this impaired ability to scumhunt as an excuse for his "nicey-nicey" scumdar.

Alright, I'll stop making excuses. But it's the truth.

Same thing as above. TH thinks it is the truth and not an excuse (again, interesting that when push comes to shove today, he is so full of ideas)

4) Theo makes a good point that TH actually makes himself sound scummiest, and calls this being apologetic. TH says that he just wanted to be "comprehensive".

I want to carry my own weight in this game. Don't just want to follow the crowd. I was having trouble finding scumtells. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so apologetic about that.

But as for my being "comprehensive", I think I've been consistent in that regard. When theo was doing breakdowns of various players during day 2, I wanted us to pitch in and do one for him. When you were doing breakdowns today, vollkan, I did one for you. Is it silly for me to add in what I expect to be the main argument against me, when I do my scumdar for everyone else? (Ok, maybe it's silly, but I did it anyway.)

To which I replied:

Well, I don't doubt you being comprehensive. The thing is that I see "self-scumminess" admissions as a form of apologetics and damage control. Sort of like that if you confess your sins you will be absolved and not get hunted down for them. It isn't necessarily a scumtell, but it has an unhelpful neutralising effect which is anti-town in the long run.

Again. Not resolved. TH puts apologetics, which I do find scummy, to playstyle again. The fact that he again uses this tactic of reducing things to playstyle is notable.

5) The whole giving in to MoS's pressure and voting tyhess thing he puts down to frustration at being wishy-washy and having nothing to go on. This is effectively an emotional excuse and TH doesn't seem to be a particularly emotional player. Possible inconsistency.

Yes, that was an inconsistency. I'm not usually an emotional player, but that was a rare moment of emotion for me.

I made no response to this at the time, because it's sort of an undebatable response from TH. Again though, we see it being put down to playstyle fault - a lapse into emotiveness.

6) Argues that we should consider lynching lurkers because we don't want the scum to be able to hide. The problem with this is, obviously, that town are just as likely to be lurking as scum are. Hence, lynching them is hardly helpful.

Call it a meta, if you want. I don't want the game to degenerate into a lurk-a-thon, which would only help the scum. I want people to talk. (If a scum managed to lurk the whole game, and survived the whole game, and won, I'd be REALLY mad. Fortunately, doesn't look like that'll happen; the only remaining player who could be called a serious lurker is Tar, and I really doubt he's scum.)

I didn't address this point either.

The interesting thing here is that TH never engages me on the point I raised ("What about the fact that town can also lurk") by relying on the nightmare scenarios of the game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory. It's a sort of slipper-slope thing. Rather than explaining why potentially lynching a townie at that point was justified, he focuses on the worst possible consequences.

[vollkan]

Apologies for the lack of posts. I was running around all day today, and I'll be doing the same tomorrow. I just have time to respond to vollkan's final paragraph right now. If there's anything else you want me to give top priority to, please say so. (I'll have time for another quick post tomorrow, but probably not time enough for a lengthy one.)

The interesting thing here is that TH never engages me on the point I raised ("What about the fact that town can also lurk") by relying on the nightmare scenarios of the game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory. It's a sort of slipper-slope thing. Rather than explaining why potentially lynching a townie at that point was justified, he focuses on the worst possible consequences.

I know full well the town can also lurk. And that's what I'd like to prevent. My hope when I push for a lurker lynch is that the lurker will stop lurking, and then we won't have to lynch them. It's a threat. Now, if they won't respond to the threat, why not lynch them? In that case, they're either scum (and lynching them is good) or they're an unhelpful town (and lynching them is not so good, but at least the more helpful townies stay around). And perhaps after that lurker is lynched, the rest of the town will think twice about doing the same.

You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because I felt that he was town (although my confidence in that has been shaken now). In the case of Flameaxe, I considered him of above average scumminess. Also, he did some lurking at a key moment: at the end of day 1, when we were all scrambling to find a lynch. So I felt a lurker-lynch of Flameaxe was justified.

So I'm not in favor of lynching all lurkers. But some should be lynched, and at least the threat of doing so can do some good.

Was there a specific push for a lurker lynch I made, which bothered you? Was it my push against Flameaxe, or was it something else I've forgotten?

I just noticed something in the progression of this lurker issue, which changes things.

I'll try and snip the relevant bits:
Theo's initial post

* Comments that he won't be worried about AC's dissapearance if Kakeng performs.
...
* Calls Tar out for his lurking.
* Willing to vote for him if he doesn't appear.
* Next few posts seem pretty low-key, not much going on, definately no scumhunting.
* Oh look another scum looking post, how many is that - reasons follows someone CKD, wants to lynch a lurker.

You just had to give me another thing to think about, CKD. Tar definitely hasn't been a very helpful replacement yet. (Hmm. Perhaps Kakeng deserves a look for the same reason.) Do we want to do a lurker-lynch? I'm tempted.

* Few more contentless posts.
* Actually wants to force pressure on the lurker circa posts 62 - 66.

TH's response

And lo and behold changes his opinion slightly on ac, complete turnaround from post 30

Oh, and theo... lemme go see what acfan said before he got replaced. I'll go see what you're talking about.

Interesting that I post the case against AC, he raises his suspicion a notch

Okay. I'll raise acfan/Kakeng's scummy level a notch. But just a notch.

* Comments that he won't be worried about AC's dissapearance if Kakeng performs.

And is it a bad thing to change my opinion based on someone else's argument? As for the last comment there: it's always tough dealing with lurkers, since you don't know if RL just got in the way, or if the person is scum and is trying to stay below the radar (or is trying to avoid confrontation). If Kakeng actually contributed, I'd have to assume RL got in acfan's way, and that would be that. But Kakeng was as bad as acfan, so I had to think...

...

* Calls Tar out for his lurking.
* Willing to vote for him if he doesn't appear.

Okay, that's the last thing I'm going to quote concerning lurkers. Why is it so wrong to consider lynching a lurker? The last thing we want is to give the scum a chance to win the game by just saying nothing. We need to get the scum talking (by getting everyone talking), so we can try to catch scum.

From my initiral re-evaluation

.....
6) Argues that we should consider lynching lurkers because we don't want the scum to be able to hide. The problem with this is, obviously, that town are just as likely to be lurking as scum are. Hence, lynching them is hardly helpful.

Basically, the point that needs to be made is that the justifications for the lurker lynch were made

after

the fact. That may seem a rather pointless matter, but I wanted it to be clear that TH was not (judging by what I just read) actually using these arguments (the nightmare "total lurking" scenario as an example) at the time of pushing no lynch. His justification at the time, to use one of the bits quoted by Theo was:

You just had to give me another thing to think about, CKD. Tar definitely hasn't been a very helpful replacement yet. (Hmm. Perhaps Kakeng deserves a look for the same reason.) Do we want to do a lurker-lynch? I'm tempted.

What this changes is that we are not actually debating the arguments he made at the time, but his subsequent defences.

[vollkan]

The lack of activity here disturbs me.

Guardian - please prod pwayne

As for Tar, I am beginning to think that he is beyond prodding. I know he said a while back that he needs to do more work for this game, but his level of inactivity here is really killing this game. An idea that just occurred to me is that we could try asking tyhess to replace Tar. I suggest tyhess only because he hasn't been gone that long (and getting anybody new to replace into a 62 page game is pretty much impossible)

[vollkan]

Many thanks to tyhess. Welcome back.

[vollkan]

Thanks Tyhess. Prod received etc, etc, etc.

I don't buy into TH's MoS theory. It's my feeling that had we lynched yesterday, we would have lynched oman. (I may be wrong but that seems to have been the direction we were going). MoSscum would have been content with this lynch and even more so by having a chance to NK yet another protown player. The only reason I can see MoSscum pushing no lynch is if there was a chance to lynch him or his partner.

On top of this, if MoS knew that Oman was Vig (as TH suggest) he would be doubly happy with this lynch. This doesn't mean that MoS is not scum, only that I am not compelled to believe so based solely on the arguments that you have made.

I agree that had we lynched yesterday, Oman would have been the most likely candidate, based on the opinions people had expressed.

As far as things go in respect of MoS, I just struck what I think is a very persuasive argument for MoS not being mafia:

First up, consider a counter-claim situation. Speaking for myself, I know that I would likely have believed MoS over Oman. I would have needed to do some serious thinking if anyone else had countered.

Now, the next point depends on whether or not we think that the scum knew the role of Oman. TH has indicated already that he thinks this was probably the case and, whilst his power role suggestion seems weak, I think this is a reasonable suggestion.

If so, then it really begs the question as to why MosScum would advocate No Lynch at all. If he pushed Oman's lynch, which would have been easy given the suspicion Oman had attracted, scumMoS could have counter-claimed Oman when Oman claimed. Lynching the vig in the 4:2 situation yesterday would have meant our loss. (@TH - It's pretty clear that scum counterclaiming well yesterday would not have been "incredibly stupid")

If not, then it would still seem odd for ScumMoS to call for No Lynch/No Vig when it looked like things would moving to an Oman lynch. The only risk to scumMoS would be the vig killing. Thus, this scenario is dependent on risk assessment speculation.

[vollkan]

Okay. Last time.

Two people claim vig. We know one is vig and one is scum. What do we do? We don't risk a guess. We no-lynch (the one case where I would've favored a no-lynch). Let the vig and the scum take each other out. No guesswork needed.

Scum counterclaiming vig would've been incredibly stupid. It would've meant certain death for that scum.

Am I the only one who has heard of this situation before?

I've never heard of this situation before.

You may have a point here. In the event of Oman claiming, a counter-claim would trigger your acceptance of a No Lynch. I don't know whether a No Lynch would have been guaranteed even then, but it definitely would be an option in that scenario which worked against the scum.

[vollkan]

I had this sweet post written up, and then it was messed up by my computer, so here's shot number 2 (which is never as good as number 1). I was killed on page 51, and my first thought after I was killed was that Vollkan was scum. I beleive that CKD and MoS were the 2 people killed by the scum at night; at the time, ckd was at little to no suspision, and MoS only at moderate suspision. This leads me to beleive that volkan would have been NK if he wasn't scum, based on the fact that the scum would want him out of the game- everybody seemed to listen to him.

You make a legitimate point. That said, the fact that I have not been NKed can indicate a myriad of things, rather than your conclusion that it means I am probably scum (eg. - that my opinions are hideously misguided and I am barking up the wrong tree, an effort to WIFOM, perceiving me as less dangerous than MoS or CKD, etc.)

Was this the entire extent of your case, or did you have something more substantial in your full post?

[vollkan]

I'll respond to the points raised regarding myself.

In post 1359, vollkan defends oman hammer for some reason, saying that Oman explained it when he voted, so that makes it all fine and dandy. I disagree (a lot). This was before Oman had some what explained the vote in 1360.

Oman's "preventing a self hammer" justification was an unusual one, but still "valid". As I say in 1359, that raises the obvious question of why Oman chose to support the lynch when he suspected TH. I did not say it was "fine and dandy", nor did I imply that. My thinking was that it was a sufficient explanation, in that it covered everything, but was a "bizarre reason" nonetheless. I did, however, take issue with the TH anomaly which I raised.

in 1361 Vollkan calls out oman for the same faulty reason that I saw, which was good. But he also called out oman for "thinking" vollkan and himself was town, which was stretching it in my opinion.

vollkan also "noted" oman's "soft claim" were he claimed town....

Actually, I only called him out for saying that he thought himself to be pro-town, since I would have expected a bit more certainty from him. Really, this was just me being pedantic in order to garner some reaction from him - it wasn't stretching because it wasn't really "suspicious", just something I was interested in seeing how he explained it.

end of page 55....if it seems like most of my stuff is attacking vollkan, it's because it is. His are the only posts that look suspiscious too me as I'm going through....

Again, I ask whether the points you have raised in-thread were the only ones you had, because I can't actually see any case for me to rebut.

I mean, so far we've only had:
1) The fact I have not been NKed.
2) My partial defence of Oman. (I say "partial" because whilst I thought that his actions were bizarre, I could not see what necessarily made them scummy, other than the TH thing)
3) The "thinking" point

[vollkan]

-links mentioned between him and Th

Where were links to TH mentioned?

[vollkan]

I thought about both of those other possibilities; however, I beleive the case I presented to be more plausible: I don't beleive their is a lot of WIFOM going on and even if you are wrong people are following you and theres a chance you find scum-if scum, I would rather be able to control the town-not possible with you in. I would say just based off of this its 5% hideously misguided, 19.1% WIFOM, and 75.9% scum, based solely on those options for not being NKed.

This is a fairly unarguable point, since it basically depends upon how you perceive the probability. You said before that you believe CKD and MoS were the scum NKs. With that in mind, is it very unlikely that the scum would target CKD over me? Similarly, it is it very unlikely the scum would target MoS over me? I would answer in the negative to both of those.

Also, you keep talking about how people are "following" me. I can't recall any instance of being followed by other players of the top of my head, but I assume that you have some examples?

[vollkan]

Aw, you didn't have to wait for me. You could've kept posting.

Where were links to TH mentioned?

Tyhess mentioned it right here, in post 1560:

Post 1311 and 1312 by TH and vollkan look to me as if they are scum partners......

What was this supposed connection between me and vollkan? I looked it up, and I don't see what tyhess is talking about.

Post 1311:

Gack! Not the final installment ; I was being too optimistic. I still need to do Tar, TH and Pwayne.

I might go lazy and not do TH since he has been done adequately by theo.

Post 1312:

Besides, pwayne is working on mine. So don't worry about it.

Just do Tar's. His is easy. We can fight over who will do one for pwayne later.

I've got about 20 posts to go for vollkan. I'll post the full PBPA either later today or tomorrow.

Those were from when we were divvying up PBPA's. And this is supposed to be a connection between us?? I don't get it.

...

Tyhess, would you mind explaining how the division of the PBPAs is a scum-partner tell?

[vollkan]

Well, I won't answer for TH, but let me go back to what I said:

Gack! Not the final installment ; I was being too optimistic. I still need to do Tar, TH and Pwayne.

I might go lazy and not do TH since he has been done adequately by theo.

First sentence is me realising I needed to do more PBPAs. Second sentence is me deciding to opt out of a TH analysis because it had just been done well by theo.

[vollkan]

Let me ask you all the same question that MoS I (his first incarnation, the protown one that was nightkilled) asked when it looked like he was going to be lynched. If all four of you are now so sure that I'm scum (which I'm not), who do you think is bussing me right now?

I think tyhess is most likely bussing you. Outside of that, of course, I suspect Pwayne more so than MoS.

[vollkan]

What more do you want me to say? I don't see how the scum could've located the vig without some inside info, and MoS's actions during day 3 make me think that he had that inside info. If you have a better explanation for Oman's death last night, let me hear it.

When you say "MoS's actions during day 3" do you mean the posts 1419 and 1437?

[vollkan]

That, and his pushing for a no lynch. I know, you said that no lynch was the right move to make, and apparently the rest of the group was convinced. But not me. (No need to rehash the arguments again. I know what they are.)

And that's it?

1419 is a simple theory level fact about probabilities, and 1437 is MoS saying that he doesn't think the vig's identity is obvious. As for the No Lynch matter, I maintain it was the correct course of action.

I really fail to see how, at this stage of the game particularly, you can consider those valid foundations for suspicion.

A question, TH: If Oman had not died, would you still suspect MoS?

[vollkan]

Oman had not died, I would've continued to suspect Oman until he (inevitably) claimed vig. Once he did so, I would've been satisfied with that (and if someone counterclaimed, I would've pushed for a no lynch). Would I then have suspected MoS? MoS would probably have been only of average scumminess to me at that point.

This is just the thing, though: What I gather from this is that the death of Oman and the No Lynch are both required to justify your suspicion.

The significance of this, were it not obvious already, is that you are effectively making your suspicion contingent upon the NK. I had problems with tyhess's arguments revolving around NK speculation, and I think those same problems operate here also.

You just said it yourself - if Oman had not died last night, MoS would only be averagely scummy to you. That effectively negates the whole No Lynch argument of yours, since it demonstrates that the major factor in your suspicion (tipping MoS from "average" to your #1) is the fact that Oman was NKed.

[vollkan]

I don't understand this. Maybe I am an idiot (possible) or its just to early here (very likely). How does Oman's death negate the no lynch?

It doesn't.

My point was that TH's suspicion of MoS was purely contingent upon the fact that oman died. Thus, it is basically NK speculation.

[vollkan]

I just checked over my posts and I never mentioned the issue of the vig living or dying in respect of the No Lynch. The analysis I made of the different options was based on the merits of the pure numbers of the situation (as in, 3:2 or 2:1 or 1:1:1 etc.) My assumption was that whichever situation had the most advantageous numbers was the one we should take.

[vollkan]

@TH: I said the sorts of things you cite above, but that wasn't what MoS was asking about. If I understand MoS correctly, he meant discussing the vig specifically in relation to No Lynch.

[vollkan]

Let's see...1 in 4, and 1 in 2, over 2 nights? That's essentially a 2 in 6 chance of occurrence during that time period, since they are separate probabilities. That's a 1/3 chance of hitting the vig over two nights. At most, maybe 66%. It's not *that* likely. It seems as if you were basing your entire analysis on the fact that something *might* go wrong. Your insistence that it would makes me think that you knew something would go wrong for the town. That would also explain why you came up with the "theory" that scum knew Oman was the vig when they killed him, and it would be a perfect ploy to use as scum. Let Trojan argue against no lynch, while his scumpartner goes along with it and stays under cover. Having Trojan do it is perfect for them. Because he's had a "broken scumdar" all game, no one is likely to actually give credence to his arguments, yet they are perhaps likely to dismiss them as him being himself, rather than being scum. That helps give the illusion of Trojan actually thinking there was a protown benefit behind his plans, while he could still push the scum's agenda on the offchance he was listened to. Then Trojan can say "I told you so" the next day, when everything he "prophesied" against comes true. It's almost as if he knew it was coming...

You're resorting to a fairly large amount of speculation there. That said, when I read the last sentence, I immediately thought back to that post by TH about his broken scumdar finally being repaired.

I've read the rest of this probability debate and I don't see what the point of it was. The probability of the vig dying N3 was 1/4. I thought the mistake I made with that enormous coloured probability thing of mine was that I took into account differing outcomes which skewed my results, rather than focusing on the "here and now" probabilities, so to speak. Thus, am I right in thinking that only the 1/4 figure was actually relevant to yesterday's decision?

[vollkan]

Yes, the 1/4 figure is correct, we were just arguing about the probability over two nights because Trojan had made some comments yesterday about the vig dying over the next two nights. This argument was fairly pointless, but I think we're running out of relevant things to discuss at this point.

I agree with you here.

The fact that, despite the point in the game we are at, activity has plummeted and most of the discussion of late has been on probability points towards the end of meaningful discussion.

The first thing I will do after the Christmas hype is review the arguments against TH.

[vollkan]

We've got just two days until deadline (and no indication that Guardian will extend it) so I will do as promised and review the TH case.

My most recent previous posts on the TH case in depth were:
Post 1532 and Post 1538 (which was basically a comment on something in the former).

The main points which surface from that are:

1) TH's repeated use of "broken scumdar" as an excuse for poor efforts in scumhunting

This is a strange issue, being one I have never encountered before. My main dilemma here is how to judge TH's behaviour. Obviously, an inability to scumhunt is not "scummy" - it is just a mark of poor pro-town ability. However, relying on an ability (real or made up) as an excuse for not making the effort is evasive and scummy (though I wish that I had some precedent for this so that I could be more confident on this point).

It is also relevant here to mention TH's sudden epiphany on the matter of MoS. After professing inability all game, he suddenly has some massive revelation that MoS is obvscum. Not only is the sudden change in behaviour bizarre, to say the least, but the arguments TH has made are hardly very persuasive - particularly to induce such a fervent attack.

2) Apologetics and damage control

I took issue with TH making arguments against himself such that he almost sounded the most scummy in his own view. He called this being "comprehensive" - does that not mean that if we take a comprehensive view of things, TH is scummy? - and leaves it that.

The issue here is what do we make of this behaviour? I interpreted it as damage control - "confess your sins you will be absolved". Now, in one of TH's posts on this matter he said:

Is it silly for me to add in what I expect to be the main argument against me, when I do my scumdar for everyone else? (Ok, maybe it's silly, but I did it anyway.)

TH, what was the reason you made arguments against yourself? Calling it "silly" just dodges the issue (kind of like point 1).

3) Emotional lapse by giving into pressure

This was another point which never got resolved because TH again turned it into a matter of playstyle rather than a matter of scumminess. TH just calls it a "rare moment of emotion" and leaves it at that - again making an excuse for his behaviour. Moreover, like the previous excuses, it is one that stifles debate on the subject (in that one cannot challenge the reasoning behind anything if it is simply reduced to a matter of personality)

4) Lurking lynching nightmare scenarios

Now, I initially challenged TH over the fact that, when he brought up lynching lurkers, he evaded the matter of town lurking and brought up the nightmare scenarios of "game degenerating or of scum lurking to victory." In his response, TH actually dodged my question by saying:

I know full well the town can also lurk. And that's what I'd like to prevent. My hope when I push for a lurker lynch is that the lurker will stop lurking, and then we won't have to lynch them. It's a threat. Now, if they won't respond to the threat, why not lynch them? In that case, they're either scum (and lynching them is good) or they're an unhelpful town (and lynching them is not so good, but at least the more helpful townies stay around). And perhaps after that lurker is lynched, the rest of the town will think twice about doing the same.

You'll note that I never pushed for a Tar lynch, despite his uber-lurking. That's because I felt that he was town (although my confidence in that has been shaken now). In the case of Flameaxe, I considered him of above average scumminess. Also, he did some lurking at a key moment: at the end of day 1, when we were all scrambling to find a lynch. So I felt a lurker-lynch of Flameaxe was justified.

So I'm not in favor of lynching all lurkers. But some should be lynched, and at least the threat of doing so can do some good.

Was there a specific push for a lurker lynch I made, which bothered you? Was it my push against Flameaxe, or was it something else I've forgotten?

In other words, TH simply says he wanted to stop town from lurking (when my question was why he did not

address

the matter of town lurking at first instance) and makes no mention at all of the nightmare scenario issue.

Here, again, we can see TH repeating the pattern he has been doing on these issues because he tries to reduce the point to a matter of theory, by saying that he believes the threat should have worked, rather than actually explaining his in-game conduct.

For now,

FoS: TH

[vollkan]

Good game

Vote: Trojan Horse

[vollkan]

So what? Was I right about MoS/theo, or were you two (vollkan & pwayne) BOTH scum?


I can't wait to see all the upcoming scathing posts about how I played this game...

Yup. It was Pwayne and myself.

I'll wait until the game officially ends before going into post-game analysis, though.

[vollkan]

As far as everything else, it was a pleasure being partners with Vollkan.

Same goes for yourself; you did excellently

I don't know how he nosed in on Oman. When he brought up killing Oman, I was against it. He finally convinced me otherwise and assured me that he was the vig.

Heh. I mustn't have explained it to you.

I was seriously grinning when TH said that there must have been a scum power role, because the process of working it out was quite easy:

- We knew that the vig had killed White and tyhess, so all I did was look over every one of the remaining town players to see who had suspected both White and tyhess. Oman came in front for both of them by a long shot: he was the only person to suspect both AND he had reasonably strong suspicions of both.

As for why we chose Oman - this seemed to boggle MoS - my fear was of a game setup consisting of 4 power roles, including kakeng, (which was a possibility from Guardian's opening). If that setup existed, if we NKed a vanilla townie then all remaining townies would have power role claims and it would fall to us to do some fake-claiming. Thus, since I knew the identity of Oman already from N2 (the reasons we chose to NK MoS rather than Oman were fear of MoS and the hope that the death of MoS would turn other people to suspect Oman) we got rid of Oman, to prevent the nightmare scenario.

Thoughts on the setup? My Moding? Random things? I'd love to hear it

When the game first started, the fact that we had a two-man scumteam made me think we were underpowered, but given the actual setup (only two-protown power roles) I think the balancing was right. It was kind of a shame Pwayne and I had to get so lucky on N1 and spoil the interesting cult aspects.

[vollkan]

So, theo/MoS was the recruit all along. MoS, please tell me that's the reason why you pushed for a no lynch during day 3, and that you wouldn't have done so if you had been town. (If you would've pushed for no lynch regardless, then I'll feel REALLY stupid.)

That reminds me:

The No Lynch/No Vig thing was an absolute godsend for the mafia.
1) It placed the town in permanent LYLO (the distancing between Pwayne and myself should have ensured we would not be tied to each other even if one of us got lynched)
2) It let us get rid of the vig - allowing us to safely quicklynch the following day and ensuring the town stayed in LYLO
3) When it inevitably resulted in Oman dying, the heat would fall to MoS and not me - because he suggested it

So, TH, I think were actually correct about No Lynch being dreadful.