Outdoorsmen Mafia (Mini 1074) - Game Over!

[Ythill]

/confirm

@Mod: Are there standard day lengths? If so, how long?

I'm happy to be playing with Mac, Rice, and charter again. And I'm really looking forward to playing with Seol, who was in several of the games I read years ago when I first joined the site.

[Ythill]

That's nine.

Parama, what do you have against pre-game chatter?

[Ythill]

He didn't read the rules, since he didn't know about the length of the days, and he's not paying attention to the mod's posts, since he thought it was Parama who had a problem with pre-game chatter.

You forgot late confirm. I mean, if you're going to come out slugging, might as well cover all your bases. Fact is, I did read the rules but I was a little distracted because of this.

@Seol:

RV, Jeep-tell, or other?

[Ythill]

Okay... RV or other? I mean your Parama vote, obv.

[Ythill]

My "methods" won that last game.

Says the guy who was hellbent on mislynching my tracker wife in a recent game.

Why do you ask?

It wasn't obvious.

@Z:

Explain why scum is more likley than town to ignore modposts please.

[Ythill]

Then why not cite something obviously arbitrary?

[Ythill]

Why are you so keen that arbitrary early votes be labelled as such?

In your case, I was curious which it was. In Z's, I'm trying to determine the motivation behind his mixed signals. Also, there's nothing better to talk about.

This wagon is good.

Caught scum on page 2, have we? Bravo.

VOTE: Antihero

I prefer to use a reason for my RVS vote that is more closely related to the game

Why?

[Ythill]

Why does it bother you?

It doesn't. I already explained why I asked. Thanks for answering.

Oops, OMGUS.

Refering to pointed questions in the early game as "nitpicking" is bombastic, and not a good reason to place a serious L-2 vote on anyone, me included. Also, my gut doesn't like people who post inane details just to be "helpful." Besides, OMGUS isn't a scumtell.

[Ythill]

Ooops, distracted again. That last quote was actually from Para.

[Ythill]

I want.

[Ythill]

So you were breadcrumbing and now are softclaiming. Interesting.

I know that the probability of a there being a jester in this game is 0% because they are not allowed in normal games. And I didn't have to role-hint to say that.

Ninja'd: <3 Para.

[Ythill]

Big deal? You just said that L-2 "isn't really that big of a deal" but now L-4 is? Even though our reasoning is better than yours?

LOL.

[Ythill]

@Anti:

Lack of concern about NKs.

I love the

OMG, how did you catch me?

Never seen it this early before.

[Ythill]

And... he retreats into WIFOM and playing dumb. Heh.

I hope his buddies are this easy.

[Ythill]

I suppose I could answer you first question though, out of courtesy to townies trying to get a read on me. You said it unprovoked because you are antsy to fakeclaim.

[Ythill]

Then stop asking lame questions.

[Ythill]

There shall be no fullclaims before L-1 + hammer waiting. If you're interested in reaching that point, a vote could help.

No reason to get ahead of ourselves.

[Ythill]

Burden of proof is on you, Mac. Why

does

it call for exception?

[Ythill]

@Seol:

I see your point, but I still think the risk of giving scum rolehunting clues from a player we are not clearly willing to lynch outweighs the risk of giving Anti time to think about his claim. IME, scum can be caught because a lack of time makes a claim obv-fake, or because overthinking does. But whatever, it looks like Anti jumped the gun anyway, with no harm done.

That was a scum claim. Should we hang him now or use our remaining time to look for the rest of the mafia?

[Ythill]

one of these two is scum, ask me later which one

This is intriguing.

[Ythill]

@Seol:

It's not the day, it's the subject matter. I don't have any problem with your lobbying. What do you think of Para's false dilemma?

@Anti:

If it wasn't a scumclaim, then please continue to hunt.

[Ythill]

Well, turns out it's not a false dilemma, is it?

In all fairness, that reamins to be seen. Though I am making the same assumption you are.

The post, in general, seemed like a backhanded way to get off of my wagon.

[Ythill]

Let me get this straight... you think the mod ignored the normal guidelines to put in a pointless role with a flavor title that doesn't go with the game's flavor? And you think that Thesp gave the thumbs up for such a role?

Occam's razor says pooh-pooh to you.

[Ythill]

@Anti:

Since you've already claimed, please explain how your role indicates there is no jester.

[Ythill]

Stop rolefishing.

[Ythill]

Sorry, that last post was directed @ Anti. Ninja-guard didn't catch it.

[Ythill]

@Seol: @Ythill: Flavor

Was this supposed to be your response to my #92? It's inadequate.

[Ythill]

You're the one who said that my role doesn't fit with the flavor? Why doesn't it?

You should know half of the answer, which is that VTs don't have occupations, according to the sample PM. The half that you don't know is the rolefishing part.

Why is Antihero scum, besides the roleclaim?

Opportunistic wagoning for a non-reason. Breadcrumbing/softclaiming (aka lack of NK concern). Retreating into WIFOM/playing dumb on defense. Backpeddaling to say L-2 was no big deal, but L-4 on him was.

OMG, how did you catch me?

Calling for a hammer on himself. Changing his mind because I told him to. And now, rolefishing.

How many reasons do you need? Why aren't you considering that RBT's vote could be a bus?

[Ythill]

"Nuh-uh," isn't really a defense.

I'm leaving for work shortly. Will be back online when I get home.

[Ythill]

We should lynch the mod.

What were Ythill and Seol doing, then?

Answering your question. I

really

don't like how you asked me to explain why Anti was scummy, and then twisted my answer into me conning that hammer out of you. I

did

want to lynch Anti but I didn't care whether or not you hammered. Adding in that baseless defense of him makes it a good case for you being scum and I

would

be voting you now but...

Vig softclaim is solid unless someone CCs. So... yeah.

Assuming a 2:8 setup with a vig, a mislynch plus a missed shot makes this game a scum win @ the dawn of D3. Just sayin.

I'll look back at the thread and post my suspects sometime in the next couple of days, maybe even later tonight.

[Ythill]

Meh. D1 is pretty light on evidence. If there was scum on the wagon it was Charter or Mac, obv, but it happened with such airtight justification that I can't really tell them apart, and it happened so quick that it's possible both scum were just staying out of the way. Really, the only thing I

did

learn from a context reread is that Parama's claim looks legit because the killing ability completely explains his ambivalence around the hammer.

I think it's possible he's a SK but I have no desire to focus on him at this point. I would like to say that any argument based on balance or set-up or normalcy is laughable because... well... statsitician.

VOTE: Charter Just for the hell of it.

[Ythill]

I showed you that if there's a SK town can't really win without lynching today

1. Seol and I already showed you why statistician is a stupid role that breaks several of the normal guidelines. If your stance is that we should dismiss you-as-SK because the mod was thoughtful... well... the
   only thing we know
   at this point is that he has some learning to do.
   
2. I really don't care if you're a SK or vig rigt now. We need to lynch mafia today.

How does this sound... we lynch one of Charter/Mac forthwith. If that person is town you shoot the other one. If both are town, we whine in the postgame and blame our loss on bastard modding.

[Ythill]

Also, if we're going to do that, we might as well use your WIFOMy point regarding Charter and kill Mac first.

UNVOTE: Charter
VOTE: Macavity

[Ythill]

Hey Yth, why are you cleared from the Antihero wagon?

I'm not, but I know my alignment so...

@Para:

Play it safe if you want to but a Charter shot looks good to me.

[Ythill]

It's obv-LYLO. Massclaim. Charter first.

@Charter:

You hammered someone you thought to be town in order to prove that the non-CCed second-killer was scum? WTF? I assume your buddy is buried pretty deep.

[Ythill]

@ Ythil: Why do you assume that scum-Charter's partner is buried deep?

Charter's not worried about looking suspicious. If he's scum, he's overconfidant, which means that his partner is well-hidden.

Claim: VT.

Next up: saporovirus.

[Ythill]

Why do you think I am scum? I must have missed that.

Only unknown alignment on the Anti wagon, plus your vote post felt contrived. Discrediting Para's claim, which proved him to not be mafia, and then hammering someone else to prove that he is mafia, which is a very bad reason. How regularly do you LOL-vote as town?

I believe Z's claim 100%. Nullish on sapo and edmund but, after quick isos, the former looks more like town. Scumteam is therefore charter and edmund. This is backed up by charter's afterthought distancing yesterday.

I'd like to read conclusions from everyone else before we vote.

[Ythill]

...you did seem to have a slightly cavalier attitude towards going for either Mac or Charter and having Parama kill the one we didn't lynch.

I'm annoyed with this game and want it to be over.

[Ythill]

I'm not seeing why Zdenek is town, when it's easy to claim a power role with convenient targets when you claim last.

True... yet Mac was an inconvenient target. Do you have a reason to suspect Z or is this just more of you being "clever"?

[Ythill]

Mac was inconvenient in that Z helped lynch him yesterday. It was an apparent contradiction that he needed to explain, an unnecesarry risk when any null result was believable.

Stop dodging the questoin. Are you suspicious of Z for something or just discrediting our information role on principal? If the former, what is that something?

[Ythill]

I have an echo.

[Ythill]

Is there anyone who doesn't want to lynch charter today? Other than charter, of course.

[Ythill]

Oh, I forgot to repost something that was eaten by my internet last night...

@Z:

PoE is the reason Ed is scummy, which I stated. "Echo" wasn't an attempt to do anything except point out that your list of reads mirrored mine exactly and hopefully prompt a response from you. Just because I think you're town doesn't mean you get a free pass.

[Ythill]

Why are you discrediting him for something you don't find scummy?

[Ythill]

You say I'm discrediting him, I say you're buddying up to him. Pretty much the same deal.

No, it isn't.

I have a reason to believe he's telling the truth, and I gave that reason. You, on the other hand, are attacking his credibility when you have no reason to suspect him. Said so yourself.

VOTE: Charter

[Ythill]

You've already got two votes on you. Also, I'm not scum.

If I'm wrong about you then so be it, this game is annoying. But I don't think I'm wrong.

[Ythill]

Reading is tech.

For those of you playing along at home... charter is lying. I gave reasons for believing Z's claim here and clarified them two posts later. Both posts were directed at charter, and he replied to them, so I don't see how he could have missed them.

[Ythill]

I hope that was a town hammer on scum.

Z, if they are dumb enough to kill me tonight, I'm sure you know how to win a 2:1 endgame as a tracker. Otherwise, I'll try to make a good decision.

Goodnight.

[Ythill]

Charter mentioned Ed in two spots, once where he linked him to Para, and once where he called him a lurker and linked him to me. Other than to respond in an argument, he didn't mention Sapo at all. This looks bad for both of you.

Edmund SK hunted, buddied to me, and voted charter D2, then didn't post again until D3. He left himself a back door while attacking charter in #209 and demonstrated cognitive dissonance in his stance regarding Para in #221. His reaction to my "buried deep" accusation was telling because that phrase could mean any number of things but he took it to be a reference to activity when he was lurking; looks like a guilty conscience.

Sapo took strong stances throughout the game. His assumptions were linear, transparent, and based clearly on the public record. He's

prima facie

town, and the charter iso doesn't sully him enough to question that conclusion.

VOTE: edmund.angles

@Sapo:

If you're scum, GG. I don't think you are, obv, so I suppose we should talk about me. Remember my cavalier attitude about getting charter shot? Yes it could have been a bluff but did it feel like a bluff? If I am scum with charter, why did I want him to go first in massclaim and why did he want me to go second? Compare my stance to ed's regarding the PR claims of Para and Z.

[Ythill]

Is it because you're scum? I hope not.

Either way... yay! Game over.

[Ythill]

f5 f5 f5

C'mon. Let me know so I can update my record and get on with my life.

[Ythill]

@Sapo:

Oh well. Good job. You played well.

I was pretty much done with this game after the first cardflip. Figured we'd go for the speed record. Eleven pages is probably close.

[Ythill]

Oh, actually it was ten pages.

[Ythill]

I think the statistician stupidity would be enough for me to not count this as a loss.

Meh. I'm counting it. No need to be a sore loser, but I hope Kit learned from this. That role should not have been in a normal game. Or any game for that matter.

[Ythill]

it's something that SOMEONE should've done. VCA in 3p lylo = incredibly useful.

I know. These days I do VC analysis in every one of my games, but I wasn't lying about wanting this one to end. Also, the isos seemed clear enough to me that a VC analysis was unlikley to change my mind. There weren't that many votes, and I looked at them in the isos. When I saw the conclusion and realized that I wasn't likely to vote for Sapo no matter what, I just laid down my vote for better or worse. Funny part is, if you look back at the massclaim, it's clear that my gut was favoring Sapo-as-scum at that point, but she played well and deserved the win.

I'm also even more surprised Ythill is upset too - weren't you one of the key voices against or worried about the standardization of Normal games?

Upset might be too strong a word, but I'll chat about this with you. Me being a voice against increasing the standardation of normal games is one of the reasons this role rubbed me the wrong way. If not for those guidelines, I might have (as you said) considered the claim too wild to be fabricated. However, I was invested in the evolution of the current guidelines, am intimately familliar with them and, seeing a role that broke so many of them, it was not possible for me to imagine a mod, let alone a reviewer, who would have allowed the role.

Seol wrote a poem in-thread that explained it all but, to summarize... It is/was my impression that named townies are against the current rules; that new role-powers must be based on the typical mechanics of killing, investigating, protecting, blocking, and voting; and that calling common knowledge "inside information" is a mild violation of the "no lying to players" rule.

It's not really a big deal though. The main reason I lost interest in the game was that, after I found out that the claim was truthful, I had a suspicion that Kit had slipped some strange, bastard set-up by the reviewers, which turned out to not be the case.

@Kit:

No hard feelings at all. I've seen far worse performances from first-time mods. You ran a smooth game, were attentive, and gave us some light, enjoyable flavor. Please don't mistake my annoyance with that one role for anything more. Overall, I thought you did fine.

[Ythill]

I don't want to stifle creativity and the evolution of the game by imposing regulations on smaller things in the game, even if it makes more sense one way over another.

QFT. I think the disconnect was legislative vs. judicial. I don't think we should ever make a rule about whether or not the roleblocker can block+kill but,

if

we did, allowing an exception would effect the game because of the preconceptions of players familliar with the guidelines.

Regardless of all that, I very much appreciate the investment demonstrated by your follow-up. Way to go above and beyond. <3

[Ythill]

Sorry ed.

[Ythill]

One-Shot-Governor, Mafia Encryptor (day talk enabler), Cop/Doc/Whatever Enablers, Priest/Godfather that is immune to Gunsmith investigations

Macho Double Voter, Weak Gunsmith, Mafia One-Shot-Vig, to name a few

In the first list, Mafia Encryptor is the only one that isn't based on the normal mechanics. I'd expect any of those to be allowed as a unique role in a normal, and the Encryptor could be argued as deserving leeway because scum roles are not going to claim and nothing in the normal guidelines outlaws daytalk. Without commenting on balance or utility, the roles on the second list all seem like

appropriate

combinations.

I like the idea of leeway for role experimentation, but I think that granting leeway makes discernment even more important when it comes to the nature of those roles, simply because players are going to make assumptions based on the rules. If I created a JoaT with a redirect power, I'd expect it to be ruled not-normal because redirection is on the blacklist. Here we have a role that breaks more than one rule and but it was allowed. Again, I think this was not a problem with the rules so much as it was a problem with an interpretation of them that was too loose.

Frankly, I think if the role had said "no Doctor in this game" rather than no Jester, I wouldn't have had a problem with it: the sticking point was the complete theoretical pointlessness of it more than what was in the Normal rules (although the pointlessness was mostly imposed by the Normal rules, so when checking that I found supporting points).

That would have made it more acceptable in a few ways. (1) Knowledge of whether or not there is a doc is not public information, so calling it "inside information" wouldn't have been a lie from the mod. (2) The inside information is a functional power, so the role would not have broken the convention on naming townies. (3) A static information role is not explicitly allowed by the guidelines (it doesn't "investigate") but there is an argument for leeway in that there are static info roles on the whitelist (Innocent Child) and none on the blacklist. I probably still would have thought the role was mostly pointless, but I don't think I would have considered the claim obv-fake due to rules conflicts.