Large Normal 92 - Game Over! Scum Win!

[King]

I'm active and following. I don't feel the need to join in on the convo when I have nothing useful or constructive to add. I'll add a vote when someone makes a convincing enough argument.

[King]

zu-Faul, if by 'contribute' you mean posting random, inane comments accusing people I don't know to be guilty, then, yes, I won't be contributing. I'm watching the game closely to see how people act. When I notice something that's off, I'll post it. Until then all I'll have to say is, "I don't know who to trust." If you'd like me to do that until I know who to trust, I will. In any other case, I'll be watching.

[King]

Vote:Mastin

Mod-Note: Fixed tags

[King]

Ace, if you didn't catch my last post, I haven't been posting because I have nothing to add. I will continue to not post until I have something to add. If I'm considered a lurker due to my play style, so be it.

I didn't post an explanation because I thought my reasoning would be obvious. He has an anti-town role. At least, that's what he claimed before. I am now keeping my vote there because I just don't believe him.

Thanks to OP for pointing out my mistake. Just to make sure it goes through-

Vote:Mastin

[King]

Just a thought, but what if Mastin is a Woodcutter/Hunter/Kamikaze/Rambo/Whatever you'd like to call it?

[King]

Well, they are all basically the same but there are variations on the rule. Sometimes it's the lynch starter, sometimes the last vote, sometimes both. I've also seen kamikazes that have the ability to choose 1, 2, or, 3 other players to die with them depending on the day they get lynched.

[King]

I'm thinking that, if he is, he is only able to kill the first or last vote on him, which is why he wants to be vigged instead of lynched. So he can take out our Vigilante.

[King]

May I ask why that does not make sense? If you are a Kamikaze and you want to cause damage, you will want to be vigged rather than lynched. If you are lynched, who you take out is random (rather, based on whoever votes last/first). You could take out someone with absolutely no power.

If you are vigged, you take out the Vigilante, who you know is important.

Also, I never suggested you were some super-powered player. Only that you could possibly be a Kamikaze.

[King]

What if they are both Scum?

My theory: Mastin and Devastation are Scum. They come up with this plan to kill our Vig. Devastation falsely outs Mastin as a Lyncher and Mastin convinces everyone to let the Vig kill him instead of the lynchmob. The Scum lose a player but the town loses a weapon.

[King]

And Stevie, I just don't feel the need to do all that and be called FoS for no reason other than my thoughts on something. I think better in my mind than on paper (or, in this case, on screen). I add to the convo when I think I'm onto something, as I have been recently.

Also, to everyone, this will be my last post defending my style of play. So say what you will of it, I won't be replying to those kinds of comments any longer.

[King]

My theory: Mastin and Devastation are Scum.

If that were the case, then we'd know that Devestation was lying about my role, hence, was mafia as well.

Which is why I put you AND Devestation are scum (in my theoretically mafia world). I don't know what point you were trying to argue there.

And I've seen Villain Kamikaze before. And Rogue. And Town.

[King]

That is true, Mastin, but this is only my 2nd game on this site, so that isn't saying much.

[King]

And I appreciate your kindness, Stevie. It's not easy to find these days.

[King]

However, if we lynch you now:

1. We get rid of anti-town role (regardless of whether or not that player is an 'Honorary-Townie)
2. If you are telling the truth, clear Dev and Red
3. If you are lying, more or less confirm that Dev (and probably Red) is (/are) villainous.

[King]

I agree with Zor and we also like to point out that if we do not lynch someone who is known to be anti-town (Mastin), then our chances of lynching a townie goes up significantly.

In other words:
We lynch Mastin, we keep all our townies.
We don't lynch Mastin, we probably lose a townie.

This is the only thing that matters.

[King]

In other words:
We lynch Mastin, we keep all our townies.
We don't lynch Mastin, we probably lose a townie.

If we lynch Mastin D1, we'll still probably lynch a townie tomorrow. What's your point?

Of course. That's the risk we typically MUST take. But we DON'T have to take that risk today because we have someone who definitely is NOT A TOWNIE. How was that not obvious?

[King]

if we do not lynch someone who is known to be anti-town (Mastin), then our chances of lynching a townie goes up significantly.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Lynch someone who's anti-town, and the chances of lynching someone who's pro-town increase.
Lynch someone who's pro-town, and the chances of lynching anti-town increase.

Take, for example, a newbie game, nine players.

A mafia is lynched day one.

That means that, of the seven alive day two, one is scum, and the other six pro-town.

A lynch of a pro-town player, however, leaves seven alive, two scum, and five pro-town.

So, yea, don't use this logic. It's flawed.

First of 2 more points I thought I had laid out clearly but now must clear up. That statement was meant to be taken in the context of a single day.

For example:

A nine player game where there are three scum and six town

Normally, the chances of lynching scum, more or less randomly, which is usually the case, one day one is 33.3% (3 out of 9).

A scum is outed day one (while not technically 'scum', this one represents Mastin). They decide not to lynch the scum they found on Day 1 (it's weird, but it's the same argument currently going on in this game) and instead try to lynch a different scum more or less randomly. They now have a 25% chance in lynching a scum on day one (2 out of 8, discounting the scum they found and, for whatever reason are not lynching).... 25%

33.3%>25%

The way you are putting it sounds like you are advocating lynching pro-towners so the chance of lynching anti-towners goes up, which you cannot possibly be advocating. What you are saying is mathematically true when taken over multiple days, but that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant to the game of mafia.

-------

Of course. That's the risk we typically MUST take. But we DON'T have to take that risk today because we have someone who definitely is NOT A TOWNIE. How was that not obvious?

Do you typically try to avoid as many risks as possible?

Yes, in mafia, as in life, you avoid UNNECESSARY risks. This is something that I thought was also obvious. I'm ust fine with taking risks if we have to, but we don't right now.

[King]

Posting now to preempt any bitching about me not posting. The only thing I am feeling about this game right now is complete apathy about the continual circular conversation currently occurring . Unless someone comes up with new info or claims, I am done posting for day 1.

[King]

Posting now to preempt any bitching about me not posting. The only thing I am feeling about this game right now is complete apathy about the continual circular conversation currently occurring . Unless someone comes up with new info or claims, I am done posting for day 1.

King thinks that the town has suffered through enough discussion, he thinks that Mastin should be lynched immediately and there's no more sense in arguing about the issue (despite having two people re-reading, and at least one replacement on the way). Do the other people on the Mastin wagon agree with King?

I never said that you should stop discussing, I just said that I don't care about what is being said anymore. This lynch is a pretty simple choice in my mind. I'm not trying to speak on behalf of anyone but myself, whether or not they or voting the same way as me. As for anyone who is catching up, unless they post something new, I don't care.

[King]

@zu_Faul I am. After all, I'll need to know if/when something comes up. Thanks for looking out, though.

[King]

Vote : Zer0ph34r

For losing his temper and acting suspiciously.

I also don't trust cateraction or zu_faul, but those are just based and the feeling I get from them. No other thoughts at the moment.

[King]

Picking up the prod and hopefully killing Zero with it.

[King]

Better than a no-lynch and there are good reasons for it.

unvote, Vote: Ace

[King]

I wanted this to be done yesterday...

Vote: Zero

[King]

I know exactly what King would flip and I'll tell you, if you'd like. It's nothing exciting or dangerous to anyone.

[King]

Of course it is a likely story. In a game this large, there is bound to be plenty of people without interesting roles. I just happen to be one of them. I obviously can't prove this but who can really prove anything. Trust me or don't.

[King]

Of course it is a likely story. In a game this large, there is bound to be plenty of people without interesting roles. I just happen to be one of them. I obviously can't prove this but who can really prove anything. Trust me or don't.

I'm going to choose "don't" as well. I don't see why you aren't participating, frankly. This looks like your second game? Are you just not interested or what? It just seems like you aren't interested in playing to me, which could easily be read as lurking. What do you think of WC? The NL yesterday? Do you have any questions for Zaz or Javert? Is OP wrong to pressure you into showing more activity? If the Zer0 wagon doesn't pan out, do you have an alternative? Why?

This is my second game on this site, but I've played plenty elsewhere. I'm not uninterested and I am participating. I'm not actively posting because I don't feel the need to put my every opinion on the thread. Most of what I think has been said by others and I don't feel the need to repeat it.

WC? I don't particularly trust him, but not voting could easily be a mistake due to a miscount. It was irresponsible of him to not put a vote down if he is town but he could have thought it unnecessary. It could also be that he was not voting to protect Ace. Could go either way but I am leaning town on WC.

NL? I am incredibly frustrated at the NL yesterday but it happened for a number of reason and because of a number of people. No blame can truly be placed anywhere. I do think Ace and Zero are not town, which is why I voted for one, than the other, yesterday and am again voting for one today. Either is an acceptable lynch IMO.

Zaz and Javert? No questions

OP? It's not wrong of him, but, to me, it makes him look scummy. Scum can sometimes get an easy town lynch by pointing out someone who appears inactive. Could also be a townie looking for a little more help, but I am leaning scum.

[King]

@Kmd

I disagree with your evaluation of the Day 1 lynch. You call it a 'mislynch.' I think lynching Mastin was the right thing to do at the time. You also stated that a lyncher can be treated as town in your analysis, which I think is wrong due to the fact that some (myself included) voted Mastin solely because he was not town.

Also, you should make note of those who switched to the Ace wagon as a last minute second choice. It is, I think, an important distinction to make.

[King]

Of course I don't think all the Scum avoided the Mastin lynch. I just think that in this case, the town had more reason to join the lynch than Scum.

Then again, the Scum may have purposely all kept their names off, because Mastin was really killing himself and didn't need any Scum votes. It's possible, but I don't think it is likely.

Either way, I don't think the number is more than one.

[King]

Prod in hand, I shall read through today's posts now.

[King]

OMGUS

Unvote
Vote: The Fonz
Unvote
Vote: Zero

[King]

Hewitt, I've been helping the town by staying alive and thereby keeping a townie in the game, placing my vote where I think it needs to be, occasionally adding thoughts that hadn't been mentioned, and not adding too much to the wordy mess that the game has been so far.

Also, that is not a productive way to have a discussion. If you are going to ask a question with the premeditation that you are going to disagree with whatever answer is, then you are not a person worth talking to.

Also, to the thread at large, I meant my OMGUS as a joke which is why I immediately put my vote back where it was. I was not expecting the post to get as much attention as it did.

[King]

I don't like the WIFOM like maneuvers that hewitt is pulling. Is he town because he is unafraid of us questioning him, or is he scum trying to trick us by acting like he doesn't care about being questioned? It's a scummy tactic and I don't trust it.

FoS: hewiit

[King]

If I had to vote someone right now, it would be hewitt. Along with what I said before and the other points against him, I'm just getting a general vibe of scuminess from him today. I'm still holding my vote until we get closer to the deadline.

[King]

Vote: hewitt

For reasons, look at my previous posts and other points players have made against him

[King]

Pre-prodding pick-up. Circular conversation is circular. My vote is where I think it needs to be. That's all for now.

[King]

Vote: Amished

I'll be back on the hewitt train tomorrow, but this seems to be a solid claim. I can see no good reason why Ryan would falsely claim.

[King]

There is no reason to suspect me more than anyone else in the game. Anyone could have been recruited at any point. Just the fact that I might have is not sufficient evidence (nor any evidence at all) for a vote. BTW, not that I expect to be believed me, but I was not recruited by any group at any point. My claim still stands.