Mini 1405: The Simpsons Mafia (Game Over)

[Ztife]

Oh, and more serious, I don't think the self vote would be a post restriction. It doesn't make any sense for it to be.

Why not? For flavour, there isn't much of a need for making sense does it?

VOTE: havingfitz

for not having a reason for voting.

[Ztife]

Ztife, what kind of flavor would help with this? In fact what kind of restriction would this be? "You may only vote for yourself."? "Your first post must be a self vote."? The former is just about impossible to envision barring a really, really sadistic bastard of a mod, and the later seems like an awful lot of effort and a cop out for the mod. "You must do this highly controversial thing with your first post. And you can't tell anyone about it. "

It makes absolutely no sense to me. More likely this is just Klick being klick.

I was thinking along the lines of a character restriction rather than post restriction, on hindsight I would agree that a first post restriction wouldn't add much to the game (flavour-wise or etc.) We now know that Klick has done this twice, once as mafia and another time in a game that is still on-going..

So what does Klick being klick imply? Pro-town move or pro-scum?

[Ztife]

Its notable that Klick hasn't been commenting much on his self-vote other than letting us know that he has done this before. I agree with qwints in post 66 that it creates a vacuum and is a more scummy move than a pro-town one, if not for flavour restrictions.

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars. It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim. However I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

Vote: Defender

[Ztife]

@Plessiez and DoubleJD

I have 2 completed theme games on this site with no name claims and they are played 3 years ago (or so). If that helps with anything.

As pointed out, name-claim does not equate to role-claim, and if the name-claim reveals the players alignment/power im pretty sure they will fake-claim anyway, protown or not.

[Ztife]

Happy New Years guys!

136 I would agree that the intent is more important than arguing over the stuff and that scum-tells or town-read signs might not neccessary be reliable. However I don't see why you keep that information to yourself when it can potentially be useful to the rest should you get lynched/NKed. As townie you would wanna share your town reads and why you feel so, arguments/

results of explaining your reads

is up to the rest to digest. We don't have to agree with your reasons, we just want to know your reasons.

That said, would like to hear about The Rufflig townread too. 119

[Ztife]

I'm not answering anything else until Ztife posts and answers my questions. You're already causing problems with what I was trying to do.

Why not? Why would my answer affect your answer since the question posted is "what has Ztife talked about that D3f3nd3r hasn't?"

Also,

im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars.

im pretty sure they will fake-claim anyway, protown or not.

Please reconcile those two statements.

Also:

I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

Vote: Defender

Wouldn't you describe your own play as fitting the criteria you voted D3f3nd3r for?

A couple of senarios for example why I think a name-claim could be useful than not.

I claim to be bart simpson, your character is bart simpson so you would know im lying, and if you get lynched that would be clear.
I am wiggum (cop), you claim to be lou (another cop), might seems suspicious to have 2 cops in the game so I could check you out at night.

I would assume that scums knows their scum buddies and therefore also know who are town, so my reasoning is that I don't see why a name claim would hurt town.

As for my vote on defender, he is a fence sitter on name claiming, im not pushing for one but Im saying I don't see how name claiming would hurt town.

[Ztife]

And speaking of Ztife...

A couple of senarios for example why I think a name-claim could be useful than not.

I claim to be bart simpson, your character is bart simpson so you would know im lying, and if you get lynched that would be clear.
I am wiggum (cop), you claim to be lou (another cop), might seems suspicious to have 2 cops in the game so I could check you out at night.

This doesn't really "reconcile" the two posts saulres asked about. In 93 you suggest

pro-town

players will also fake-claim. But if town players are going to lie about this, why is catching liars helpful?

As for my vote on defender, he is a fence sitter on name claiming, im not pushing for one but Im saying I don't see how name claiming would hurt town.

So D3f3nd3r is "a fence sitter", while you ... don't have a strong opinion one way or the other? Is that what you're saying? Do you think we should have a mass name-claim? Yes or no.

So, lets put this in the other way, why could catching liars

not be helpful?

I didn't say liars equate to scum, but liars would draw attention and this would be something scum wouldn't want.

Defender is a fence sitter because he suggested a name claim and didn't push for it, avoided having discussions about it and not really supporting it nor pushing for it (mentioned it to be a double edge sword, IIRC). I was on the discussion about defender and name claiming and therefore got caught up in it.

To put it more clearly, here's my thoughts about name claiming. to re-illiterate. This are

my point of views

1. Name claiming does NOT equate to role claiming. So knowing names might not mean we know roles. This supports the view that name claiming would be useless. (to town).
2. Name claiming that might suggest roles or alignment would most probably lead to lying, and the lies might or might not be revealed later. Knowing that someone lied does not mean he or she is scum, but this information could be weighted against the integrity of the player's statements. Again, the lie might or might not be exposed, so this is far-fetched and potentially useless.
3. Defender suggested a name claim, but did not push for it. This makes him an indecisive fence sitter. Why suggest if you would not push for it?
4. If it must be defined ever so clearly, im favoring a name claim, slightly more than not. In my opinion there is a very slim chance of it being useful, and a large chance of it being useless. Either way it doesn't hurt town, and therefore it is better to have it than not. So

yes, we should have a name claim

. Does this answer your question?
5. So yes, although I favor a name claim, I do not feel strongly about the usefulness of it, and therefore im not pushing for one aggressively. Rather, im more interested in the other issues such as defender's fence sitting and saulres responses. Does this makes me the same as defender? No, because I did not suggest on name claiming, I merely commented that im slightly pro-name claim and that's it. Defender suggested it and then fence sitted. That's does not make us a fair comparison/argument.
6. @ Plessiez: You mentioned in an earlier post that you think name claiming is a null-read, so why are you asking me to define my stand about it?

[Ztife]

5. So yes, although I favor a name claim, I do not feel strongly about the usefulness of it, and therefore im not pushing for one aggressively. Rather, im more interested in the other issues such as defender's fence sitting and saulres responses. Does this makes me the same as defender? No, because I did not suggest on name claiming, I merely commented that im slightly pro-name claim and that's it. Defender suggested it and then fence sitted. That's does not make us a fair comparison/argument.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Both you and D3f3nd3r suggested early in your posts that you were in favour of a mass name-claim. Neither of you did anything to push it. None of you have offered any compelling arguments in favour of it (in fact, neither of you have really talked about it at all except when you were defending yourselves). Both of you have since downgraded how important you say you think it is. From where I'm sitting, you both have very similar stances. Similar enough that I find the reasons you give for your vote for D3f3nd3r baffling. You are both, in my view, clearly guilty of "fence-sitting".

6. @ Plessiez: You mentioned in an earlier post that you think name claiming is a null-read, so why are you asking me to define my stand about it?

See above. The fact that both you and D3f3nd3r have talked positively about name-claiming doesn't seem to be an alignment tell. It's something that I think is explained by your lack of experience with this sort of theme-game. But the fact you personally keep trying to establish a difference between how the pair of you have behaved where I don't see one, and the fact you say you are voting for D3f3nd3r because he is doing something I feel you are equally "guilty" of ... that is what I find noteworthy, and that is why I'm suspicious of you.

False. in post 10 D3f3nd3r said he was in favour of a name-claim because it was an alignment-tell, and yet did not push for it in subsequent posts.

In [quote="In post 80[quote="In post 93 I have specified that a name-claim might be useless because fake claims will prevent the alignment-tells as according to D3f3nd3r, but that im a supporter because it could potentially reveal liars.

Perhaps fence-sitter is too ambiguous or the wrong term to be used, I would say my vote for D3f3nd3r is due to his lack of actions in supporting his views, while im more of a fence-sitter/neutral/no strong opinions otherwise in essence.

[Ztife]

@saulres
Summary of your posts on your "trap"
84
96
139
1st 2 post asking me to "reconcile" my statements, with a 3rd the same and a vote on D3f3nd3r for a "scum-slip" and lyncher win-con.

118 you said

D3f3nd3r clearly has a lyncher wincon

153
In this post you suggest that you are not voting him for having a lyncher win-con, and elaborating on his scumread for being the order of him describing players.

156
Repeats that your not voting for his lyncher win-con.

161 Plessiez posts several questions and loopholes in your voting which you decide to avoid answering until my response.

At this point, it is clear that you are voting for D3f3nd3r with weak reasoning at best, and you have no way of answering youself and the new reason you came up with is that you have set a trap for me.

178
This post points out that I've been ignoring your questions. Not answering.

198
Explaination and vote on me.
218
So here's your explaination that you got pressured without me answering your questions and using that to explain your bad votes and lack of reasoning.

As Plessiez has pointed out the timing and order of your "trap" is bad, not to mention. At 178 you have posted that you aren't sure if my posts are alignment tell, and in 198 you posted my "nonsensicalness and contradictions around liars and nameclaims" is scum read to you.

To sum it up, you claim im taking the chance to push for a name claim after D3f3nd3r suggested it which made me suspicious, and then my explainations for it make you think im scum. The fact that im

not

pushing for a name claim aggressively was why the logic of your trap failed. You were trying to scum buddy me in my attemp to push for a name claim when im not, and this make it looks like you are attempting to make me look scum than scum hunting. The fact that after I had responded your questions (twice, once you asked me to "reconcile again") and the 2nd time you responded you revealled your "trap". If you wanted to me to explain my favour in a name claim why wouldn't you comment about it? About my "nonsensicalness and contradictions" When your have baited me out to comment in your trap why have you instead become defensive about your vote and your "trap" instead of commenting how it made me look scum?

I don't think you are scum though, however your reasoning does not make any sense to me.

214
This post is dodgey as hell, doesn't anyone else see it? Scum attempting to buddy up to score town points after saulres is lynched as town. Votes on D3f3nd3r please.

Also, Klick please give your comments on the case. You've been lurking for a long time.

[Ztife]

rather than talking about the trap himself, he is using the vote on him to justify the whole trap.. which is weak reasoning. doesn't really contribute much otherwise. Tell us D3f3nd3r, what's your scum list? Why are you not voting?

[Ztife]

I don't have much time in hand, I'll have to read up again and I'll comment on guile tomorrow.

@Plezzies
Im asking saulres questions because im getting him to elaborate on his trap and making his logic to connect. I don't think he is scum because I believed he was scum-hunting and drawing needless attention which I don't think scums would actively do. I do however question his answers so far because I don't really get anything about this trap and the results he was trying to get. And his repeated persistant in trying to draw the topic away from the trap and accusing me is starting to look scummier by the minute.

@saulres
So being defensive and saying things like "im actually setting up a trap/not answering anything" is a better way to scumhunt than commenting on my answers? How about I phrase it in another way, tell me what is my answers that you were expecting to lure me in with your "trap", and how it would show that im scum? Please keep your answer short, direct, and straight to the point since we're talking about possible scenarios.

My case on you is not the same as plezzies, he was focusing the timing and whether your trap existed. Im asking you what results are you expecting from your trap, what possibilities, what are you trying to do. You admitted that your trap failed and im still looking scummy to you? I don't quite get your points either. Also, I've repeatedly mentioned that my stand on a name-claim on D3f3nd3r is not the same. Which part of it did you fail to see? Tell me, what did you expect me to say out of your trap should i have been not "inactive"? Please answer this.

I was seeing you as a townie with fail-scum hunting attempts but your repeated persistence in trying to accuse me of being scummy which I fail to see makes me think you are reacting badly as a defensive scum. Now tell me how you would comment on D3f3nd3r's play so far? Is his play similiar to me or does he look far more townish to you compared to me? What differences?

Unvote, Vote: saulres

D3f3nd3r is repeatedly lurking (active posting but little content). His latest attempt to buddy up with saulres' logic has little contribution and makes no effort to scum hunt. Continues lurking because we have little content going on and there's not enough pressure votes to get any discussion going.

@Rufflig
There's little D3f3nd3r has posted to present a really good case, but I would like to see him discuss more about saulres and me. And now that we're on it, something I've noticed.

@D3f3nd3r

UNVOTE

This was my reasoning:

I was voted for, according to Saulres, scumslipping. I, in a list of three names, listed a scummy target second. Apparently my wording is "how scum thinks." That doesn't seem that scummy, and I did them internally as Read 1 - Read 3 - Read 2

Read 1: Town

Next, Rufflig. Definitely not as town as the others. You're not doing

that much

scumhunting (yet more than I am, admittedly). The best you've done are 56 and 97.

Read 3: Town

What does

internally

mean in this context? Why would you place your reads this way, and do you think its scummy to place them this way or not? Yes or no? Why did you not question him earlier if it was just "overreaction" before you knew the trap existed? You posted 141 and 149 which pretty much ignored his vote on you.

[Ztife]

Waiting for a day doesn't mean much for saulres claim. What if he is confirmed town to a scum? What the player he pick dies?

Too many possibilities imho.

[Ztife]

Im a cop. Rainier Wolfcastle.

Im going with a saulres lynch today definitely. Wouldn't wanna claim but there isn't much time left till deadline.

[Ztife]

I'm not sure how far im allowed to quote/paraphrase, so I'll try to get this out as much as I could.
I'm also not a fan of simpsons and i'm not well versed with the characters.

Im Rainier Wolfcastle, a cop. Town. And I have a limited number of my ability I can use.
My flavour is along the lines of being a movie star, and real life crime fighting would make excellent movie making material.
I have no other win cons except being townie.
I have no idea if there are any other cops in town.

A big part of my play during the mass claim, I was in support of a claim because scummy/cop characters would be suspicious to me. I do not think there would be more than a cop. And anybody who suggests a name claim would probably be scum.
I have my doubts about a name-claim because I've never had experience in one, and im pretty sure I would lie about my claim to hide my role as cop.

These are suggested in 80, 163, 173
In a nutshell, a name claim would definitely help my role, but im not sure how it would affect town as a play overrall.



@saulres
Saulres trap is too farfetched and draws too much attention, but I believe he was actively scum hunting, just at the wrong place. If you set a trap to prove im scum, what happens when im not? The trap is poorly explained in many areas and has no results. Check out the posts, I've already asked what if im not scum? What are you exactly looking for? Repeated twist and turning the story when I've already said im clearly NOT on the same page with D3f3nd3r on a name claim.
219, 251

So being defensive and saying things like "im actually setting up a trap/not answering anything" is a better way to scumhunt than commenting on my answers? How about I phrase it in another way, tell me what is my answers that you were expecting to lure me in with your "trap", and how it would show that im scum? Please keep your answer short, direct, and straight to the point since we're talking about possible scenarios.

My case on you is not the same as plezzies, he was focusing the timing and whether your trap existed. Im asking you what results are you expecting from your trap, what possibilities, what are you trying to do. You admitted that your trap failed and im still looking scummy to you? I don't quite get your points either. Also, I've repeatedly mentioned that my stand on a name-claim on D3f3nd3r is not the same. Which part of it did you fail to see? Tell me, what did you expect me to say out of your trap should i have been not "inactive"? Please answer this.

I voted for saulres because I got frustrated and I think he's trying too hard to accuse me, which felt scummy.
Also saulres, since you claimed neighbour,

I think it would be good to let us know who you are targetting to let known of you alignment now.

@Ruffling
I have little to make of your claim. I used wiggum because it was the first name to come up on google("simpsons police"), and lou is the first name on wiggum's page.. The term "chief of police" sold me on your breadcrumb, but that's about it. I have no idea the chance of having 2 cops/police (terminology) in this game.

guile is scoring townie points from me for 378, im not really liking his lynch either.

D3f3nd3r is still full of lurking posts, and right now im more inclined to Babyspice for her sheeping.

Unvote, Vote: Babyspice

I should be able to be online for most of the day tomorrow before deadline.

[Ztife]

get the lynch going.