Large Normal 92 - Game Over! Scum Win!

[zoraster]

First of all, the word zombie now gets this in my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N1_0SUGlDQ

You know what I hate? Websites for things that do not really matter (read: not my bank account) that require both numbers, capital letters, and lower case letters in their passwords. With this in mind, there can be only one person who receives my ire.

vote: Zer0ph34r

[zoraster]

Mastin: making it impossible to find a replacement from Day 1.

[zoraster]

Mastin: making it impossible to find a replacement from Day 1.

Nah.

I prefer the term,
Making every player Irreplaceable.

Or, alternatively,
Mastin,

Every game's a novel.

Ah, but see that makes verbosity seem like an asset, and I want to immediately discourage that notion.

[zoraster]

I just keep a tab for every game I'm in, because I use Firefox.

I can't speak for Opera or any of that Apple nonsense, but IE and Chrome both have tabbed browsing now.

Anyway, you missed Amished's Dust vote in your vote count.

[zoraster]

Do you think that you get better reactions if you ask 20 questions rather than one or two focused ones?

Chaos is a good scum weapon, and you're feeding it. First, you assert that you're trying to take us out of RVS. This is an admirable goal, but I have to question whether you're really doing it by trying to run 5 or 6 threads at once. Perhaps you just have a shotgun approach to scum hunting that I don't share.

Questions are certainly good to a point -- especially when they are incisive, but at some point you have to go out on a limb and say you suspect someone. I can't help but feel you're shrouding things in a guise of "scum-hunting."

So let me try and be incisive with my question: If you had to pick one or at most two questions from those posed above, to which one are you most interested in finding out the answer?

[zoraster]

Oh, and last... please don't post one of those links again.* Makes reading the page hell on earth

*Make sure to get the actual image url, not the google image search one.

---

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-2

Mastin - 3

(Caboose, Devestation, Amished)

Zwetschenwasser - 2

(AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)

zer0ph34r - 2

(zoraster, zwetschenwasser)

Dust - 1

(Mastin)

alvinz95 - 1

(Azhrei)

zu_Faul - 1

(Maturin24)

killa seven - 1

(OrangePenguin)

Not Voting - 16

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

[zoraster]

Yes, can we please not resort to replace threats yet? I'd prefer to talk some sense into Mastin before a) actually lynching him (i hate policy lynches) or b) having people replace out because of him. I don't know him, of course, but he doesn't seem immune to reason.

So for Mastin, here are some of the reasons why your play style is not optimal:

1) Quoting every phrase may on occasion catch a scum slip or something, but it's going to be infrequent. Viewing what someone says in context is usually the best method for understanding what someone is saying.
2) By missing the context, you miss the big picture.
3) Even if you're aware of the big picture, those reading your comments are not aware of how your comments fit into the big picture.
4) As a result of missing the big picture, it is exceedingly hard to follow your thread of thought from page to page. You may know what you're saying, but the rest of us really do not.
4) While you may have 12 hours a day to play each individual game, most do not. I'm not arguing people shouldn't have to read a lot at MS -- that's part of the game -- but increasing that burden is a negative for the town.
5) It does make it more likely that people will just tune the game out as it becomes more effort than it's worth.
6) It makes it easy for scum to slip by as any legitimate request for information at a player can get lost in the static of your posts.
7) It's a play-style that I believe you think of as being highly effective (as seen by your "novel claims"), but the irony makes the play-style even less palatable.
8) This isn't to say we don't want you to be super active. That part is good. Although you don't want to monopolize the game, having someone who is very active is a great thing to keep the game moving. If you could channel your efforts into more cogent posts, you would be a great asset to whichever side you're on in the game. Even more importantly, it'll keep the game moving along and away from stagnating. But the posts have to be thoughtful and easy to read. Yours are not.

I really do want to play with you, Mastin. I just think it's important early on you use some of that hyper energy in a more effective way. I know you take pride in your "novels" of posts, but this is misguided.

[zoraster]

Also, anyone who says we need less discussion is inherently scummy. Discussion is the one power of the town. We need as much of it, whether it's off-topic garbage or garbled quotes, as we can get.

I'm not saying we need less discussion at all. I'm saying we need more productive discussion. I completely disagree with your assertion that any discussion at all helps town. It does not.

[zoraster]

No, we're trying to make a 26 player game playable. And I appreciate Mastin trying to pare it down a little. I don't mind long posts at all if they're written in such a way as I can follow it, and there's a reason for it being long.

I think it is time for some of our missing players to assert themselves though. RedCoyote, King, hewitt, ryan2754, killa seven, Knight of Cydonia, Empking’s Alt, Tarhalindur, Caboose, orangepenguin all need to read and tell us what they're thinking.

unvote

vote: hewitt

for lurking.

Mod: You might be aware King has not posted anywhere since April 3rd

[zoraster]

No, we're trying to make a 26 player game playable. And I appreciate Mastin trying to pare it down a little. I don't mind long posts at all if they're written in such a way as I can follow it, and there's a reason for it being long.

I think it is time for some of our missing players to assert themselves though. RedCoyote, King, hewitt, ryan2754, killa seven, Knight of Cydonia, Empking’s Alt, Tarhalindur, Caboose, orangepenguin all need to read and tell us what they're thinking.

unvote

vote: hewitt

for lurking.

Mod: You might be aware King has not posted anywhere since April 3rd

Why did you single hewitt out?

Well, I wrote that list out. RedCoyote I've known for a while and will almost certainly come in to post quite a bit without much provocation -- he's probably just not around to post at this exact moment. Next on the list was King, who i discovered is probably going to need to be replaced. Hewitt, on the other hand, I think should be active now.

[zoraster]

Oh, my head hurts. Still liking my vote on killa seven. All his posts, in isolation, have been really scummy. So scummy, I don't even know where to begin. Look for yourself.

To my knowledge, killa seven has yet to post here.

[zoraster]

Vote: Mastin

I would like your next post to be anylyzing the first post of the player who had their first post in this thread after everyone who had joined up to this game.

First, please clarify this post. That is a nearly nonsensical sentence.

FoS: Empking

If you're going to make your first post a vote, you need to explain yourself. Do it now.

[zoraster]

As for people saying Mastin is unreadable, I have a read on him already.

Which is?

[zoraster]

As for people saying Mastin is unreadable, I have a read on him already.

Which is?

Which is information that I get more value out of at this point by it remaining private. I would rather disclose it at a proper time.

Which is when?

[zoraster]

Actually, I've found Caboose and Mastin's posts to be relatively helpful. Could mastin benefit by quoting the entire text and then taking it point by point so that people following along can put things in context? or summarize at the end? absolutely. But for the most part these posts are actually informative and advance the game.

Strawman, by the way, will always be a scum-tell (don't need wiki for that... it's a basic fallacy), though not always a determinative one. It can be used as townies decide they're convinced of someone's guilty and then work from there trying to fabricate reasons for that decision. But either way, it's not helpful to town unless it's an investigative role who thinks he can get away with a little strawman attack.

We still need to get some of the other players involved here.

[zoraster]

[quote=orange]Well, if you say so. I will just vote for unvote, vote: Mastin because he is rather obviously scum. Serious now. Between his huge walls of texts, with the scum claim (which I don't see as a joke, minus the partner bit - I think Ace is town), slash "VOTE ME VOTE ME" mentality, I think we're just better off without Mastin.

This game is truly uncharacteristic of Mastin, and he is playing real badly.

[/quote]

I've never played with Mastin, so perhaps you can explain how he's playing uncharacteristically? As specifically as possibly, of course. That really is a claim that needs to be fleshed out.

[zoraster]

EBWOP:

Well, if you say so. I will just vote for unvote, vote: Mastin because he is rather obviously scum. Serious now. Between his huge walls of texts, with the scum claim (which I don't see as a joke, minus the partner bit - I think Ace is town), slash "VOTE ME VOTE ME" mentality, I think we're just better off without Mastin.

This game is truly uncharacteristic of Mastin, and he is playing real badly.

I've never played with Mastin, so perhaps you can explain how he's playing uncharacteristically? As specifically as possibly, of course. That really is a claim that needs to be fleshed out.

[zoraster]

Prod: King

(I don't buy he's active. He has posted ZERO TIMES since his /in post for 92 on APRIL 3rd.)

Prod: hewitt

My vote is on you. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the game, and why you have not posted despite being otherwise active.

Prod: killa seven

Prod: Phoebus

Trying to get everyone to at least post on their thoughts today. This is to get a read on lurkers, but it also has two very important roles:

1. Starts the process of replacement earlier. It will become progressively harder to find replacements, and I'd rather see replacements now than later.

2. It will hopefully make them read the posts so far. The length is almost to the point of a d1 mini replacement, and I don't want anyone to fall far behind.

Just to reiterate my vote:

Vote: hewitt

FoS: Emp's Alt

[zoraster]

oh and

Prod/Replace: _over9000

as he's unconfirmed still.

[zoraster]

I will now quote your entire contribution to the game thus far:

Post 109

Vote: Mastin

I would like your next post to be anylyzing the first post of the player who had their first post in this thread after everyone who had joined up to this game.

Post 192

FoS: Dev

I think he's fake helping the town.

You've popped in twice to cast suspicions on people, but you don't spend any time explaining why you're doing so. Give some support to your argument. To help guide you:

1. In 109, why do you find Mastin scummy? What is that sentence supposed to mean?

2. In 192, What exactly makes you think that Dev is "fake helping" the town?

---

I find your lack of content to be scummy because you're maintaining your "activeness" while contributing nothing.

[zoraster]

My apologies. I meant to quote his post before. Post 202 is directed at Empking's Alt from his comments in 200:

Zor: Why the FoS?

[zoraster]

Nope, I know what you are Mastin, curtosey of a 1 shot rolecop. But if you cant believe your own role, I won't press it >_> [/sarcasm]

Not even 10 pages and we've had a claim. Now explain yourself. Were YOU a rolecop?

[zoraster]

i thought Dev was being sarcastic about the last sentence, not the claim.

[zoraster]

The question at the above post is this: Did Mastin really just give up, or is there something more nefarious going on?

As long as lyncher is around, he has a hope of winning... especially if he's not a confirmed lyncher. He could play lots of WIFOM with us. But Mastin gives up without any sort of fight.

Which is kind of what's going on here. Some questions to consider:

1. Mastin is lyncher, Devastator some sort of weird jack of all trades. Or is Mastin Jester and Devastator Lyncher? Or could this be a pretty wild scum gambit?

2. Even if we accept on its face that Dev is jack of all trades and Mastin is lyncher, are we sure RedCoyote is the target? He claims Dust couldn't possibly be his target, but do we know this? He's not had a ton of success building a successful bandwagon on Dust in the first place.

3. If we don't take it on its face and assume Mastin is scum, what kind of WIFOM games can we play with RedCoyote? Generally, Lyncher targets are town. So is this an attempt to clear RC?

---
Note that IF we accept that Mastin is NOT Jester and his target claim is correct, lynching him is something that helps town quite a bit. Far more than his scum hunting posts do. RC is then clear of being mafia.

[zoraster]

@Mastin

1. Yes. You could have still won. A Devastator lynch was not a foregone conclusion. You certainly had plenty of time to evaluate whether or not we would lynch him. Lynches will not occur overnight in a setup that requires 14 votes to lynch. If Devastator was not lynched, you had every chance to lynch RC or Dust or whoever your target was. You don't need to be 100% cop to lynch someone. Admittedly, it's much harder, but the game isn't over.

2. For example, you claim that your attempt to lynch Dust would be "stupid" if you don't want to lynch him. But I don't buy this. While it's possible you could push a Dust lynch, I don't see any reason to believe he was going to get lynched today.

3. And breadcrumbs are what you make of them. For example, I can easily say you were breadcrumbing for a Dust lynch if you're actually lyncher. D2 comes along and you're not outed as lyncher. You claim cop with a guilty from D1 which is why you tunneled on Dust. You say you got an innocent on someone you suspect is actually town on D2. To me, that seems a more logical breadcrumb than your RedCoyote thing. If anything, THAT breadcrumb was designed simply so you could make this absurd argument.

4. A lyncher with a scum target doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In order for town to win, we couldn't lynch scum? I think that'd be a pretty broken setup.

5. It's interesting to me that you're trying to find any way to justify not killing you, but you gave up prematurely. I have little use for this.

[zoraster]

I'm aware they don't end most games. But they play for second place. Lyncher wins first because town lynched someone they HAVE to lynch to win the game? The best town could hope for would be a tie for first place, but most likely second place? No, that's a broken setup.

[zoraster]

After consideration, I can only come to the opinion that Mastin needs to be lynched.

I don't remotely buy that he just gave up. I don't really know who his new target is. If he's half as smart as he thinks he is (read his wiki), then he'll gradually try and lead us to the his real lynch target.

For another thing, I don't view this as a wasted lynch. Yes, we don't get mafia who is our ultimate goal, but we also do not a) risk outing a power role without a real reason or b) risk killing a townie.

Make no mistake though, this is a net positive for town. The only real downside I see is that should Mastin's target get NKed, Mastin will not be around to become a vanilla townie.

unvote

Vote: Mastin

[zoraster]

EBWOP:

I should also mention that, should we lynch Mastin, it's generally a good thing that Day 2 will not become another act in the Mastin Show. I think scum can easily use Mastin as a magnet to distract from the real task at hand. I for one will want to do something other than worry about Mastin in Day 2.

[zoraster]

Okay orangepenguin that was a complete, by the book, appeal to emotion right there.

Yeah, I don't care much for that paragraph about how anything he does is scum to Mastin. I don't give much sympathy for that. But I'll also point out that I think Mastin is playing to town's sympathies as well. He was caught, "gave up," and now is appealing to our sympathies and the chance that he could be masoned tonight.

What I don't get is that people keep making two points:
1) He could be vig killed.
2) There could be masons.

Why should we a) waste the vig kill (even if vig is not a one shot, he's using the night to kill someone we could have just as easily have lynched.) b) have someone mason him only to kill him?

The dual argument listed above means that we'd have to wait until day 3 to decide to lynch Mastin if we don't have Masons. At that point, we will have had far more information to work with and should be farther along in scum hunting.

No. Today is the day to lynch Mastin if we accept his lyncher claim. I share some of the concern that he's really a Jester.

---
Now to address RC's points to me from 310:

zora 296 wrote:
For another thing, I don't view this as a wasted lynch. Yes, we don't get mafia who is our ultimate goal, but we also do not a) risk outing a power role without a real reason or b) risk killing a townie.

I'm currently not in support of this.

a) This is bound to happen, this is pandering to fear.
b) Mastin will still be around. If you're scared of lynching townies then perhaps you should choose no lynch?

Absolutely not. Lynching Mastin gets rid of an anti-town force. Whether he says he's lost or not, I don't think town can afford to buy it. Therefore, getting rid of him is the correct decision.

You've either intentionally or accidentally misinterpreted my points. These are additional reasons this is a good thing to do. I'm in favor of day 1 lynching an anti-town role. This seems the smart thing to do. It avoids problems down the road.

zora 297 wrote:
I should also mention that, should we lynch Mastin, it's generally a good thing that Day 2 will not become another act in the Mastin Show. I think scum can easily use Mastin as a magnet to distract from the real task at hand. I for one will want to do something other than worry about Mastin in Day 2.

This sounds awfully different than some of your earlier opinions on Mastin's playstyle.

This comment is less about his wall of text posts and more about the fact we'd have to continually return to Mastin for any lynch we make. Scum hunting will have to be filtered each and every time with an analysis of Mastin. This is the distraction I'm talking about. I am not in favor of lynching him just because he's long-winded. I'm in favor of lynching him because of the practicalities of keeping him alive.

/quote]Mastin 309 wrote:

I place this along the scale of claiming SK in a setup, just after the beginning of day one, in the hopes that there's a psychiatrist to cure you. (Suicidal, in most cases, as you become the lynch d1.)

This is what I think zora, OP, emp... etc are forgetting. There could be any number of roles to convert you to town.[/quote]

I haven't forgotten it. I just don't think it's worth our time to really consider this course of action given that it's day 1.


----
If you ignore the rest of the post, consider the following:

I have to wonder about RC here. Consider this: As long as Mastin is alive, we have to keep RC alive. While I (as well as others) have a lot of doubts about who is actually Mastin's lynch target, we can't afford to assume it's NOT RC.

A town position wouldn't be too concerned about this point. But from his comments, RC seems aware of this, and I think he's going to use it to protect himself.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments for keeping Mastin alive. There are. I think they're vastly outweighed by the positives of lynching Mastin, but they do exist so reasonable people can disagree. But one has to question why RC wants to stay alive so badly.

The biggest argument for not lynching Mastin has nothing to do with his potential helpfulness to town. It's that he might be a Jester. I think this is a remote possibility, but it's not one that I will rule out.

[/quote]

[zoraster]

Okay orangepenguin that was a complete, by the book, appeal to emotion right there.

Yeah, I don't care much for that paragraph about how anything he does is scum to Mastin. I don't give much sympathy for that. But I'll also point out that I think Mastin is playing to town's sympathies as well. He was caught, "gave up," and now is appealing to our sympathies and the chance that he could be masoned tonight.

What I don't get is that people keep making two points:
1) He could be vig killed.
2) There could be masons.

Why should we a) waste the vig kill (even if vig is not a one shot, he's using the night to kill someone we could have just as easily have lynched.) b) have someone mason him only to kill him?

The dual argument listed above means that we'd have to wait until day 3 to decide to lynch Mastin if we don't have Masons. At that point, we will have had far more information to work with and should be farther along in scum hunting.

No. Today is the day to lynch Mastin if we accept his lyncher claim. I share some of the concern that he's really a Jester.

---
Now to address RC's points to me from 310:

zora 296 wrote:
For another thing, I don't view this as a wasted lynch. Yes, we don't get mafia who is our ultimate goal, but we also do not a) risk outing a power role without a real reason or b) risk killing a townie.

I'm currently not in support of this.

a) This is bound to happen, this is pandering to fear.
b) Mastin will still be around. If you're scared of lynching townies then perhaps you should choose no lynch?

Absolutely not. Lynching Mastin gets rid of an anti-town force. Whether he says he's lost or not, I don't think town can afford to buy it. Therefore, getting rid of him is the correct decision.

You've either intentionally or accidentally misinterpreted my points. These are additional reasons this is a good thing to do. I'm in favor of day 1 lynching an anti-town role. This seems the smart thing to do. It avoids problems down the road.

zora 297 wrote:
I should also mention that, should we lynch Mastin, it's generally a good thing that Day 2 will not become another act in the Mastin Show. I think scum can easily use Mastin as a magnet to distract from the real task at hand. I for one will want to do something other than worry about Mastin in Day 2.

This sounds awfully different than some of your earlier opinions on Mastin's playstyle.

This comment is less about his wall of text posts and more about the fact we'd have to continually return to Mastin for any lynch we make. Scum hunting will have to be filtered each and every time with an analysis of Mastin. This is the distraction I'm talking about. I am not in favor of lynching him just because he's long-winded. I'm in favor of lynching him because of the practicalities of keeping him alive.

/quote]Mastin 309 wrote:

I place this along the scale of claiming SK in a setup, just after the beginning of day one, in the hopes that there's a psychiatrist to cure you. (Suicidal, in most cases, as you become the lynch d1.)

This is what I think zora, OP, emp... etc are forgetting. There could be any number of roles to convert you to town.[/quote]

I haven't forgotten it. I just don't think it's worth our time to really consider this course of action given that it's day 1.


----
If you ignore the rest of the post, consider the following:

I have to wonder about RC here. Consider this: As long as Mastin is alive, we have to keep RC alive. While I (as well as others) have a lot of doubts about who is actually Mastin's lynch target, we can't afford to assume it's NOT RC.

A town position wouldn't be too concerned about this point. But from his comments, RC seems aware of this, and I think he's going to use it to protect himself.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments for keeping Mastin alive. There are. I think they're vastly outweighed by the positives of lynching Mastin, but they do exist so reasonable people can disagree. But one has to question why RC wants to stay alive so badly.

The biggest argument for not lynching Mastin has nothing to do with his potential helpfulness to town. It's that he might be a Jester. I think this is a remote possibility, but it's not one that I will rule out.

[/quote]

[zoraster]

Tar 320 wrote:
We *can* lynch Mastin. If we can't find a better candidate before deadline, we can run him up quickly and know that we've lynched a nontown role. We can't do worse than lynching Mastin... but we can certainly do BETTER.

Why is that not valid, zora?

I'm fine with this. But what constitutes a "better candidate" will likely be contentious. Those not in favor of lynching Mastin today (e.g. RC) will have a much lower standard for what a "better candidate" is. For example, it seems a few have decided OP is a better candidate. Unless I see something fairly damning, however, I'm unlikely to agree that someone is a better candidate than Mastin.

We lynch Jesters. Give 'em what they want; they're anti-town and don't end the game.

This is one of the things that has bothered me ever since Mastin's post. He acts like people shouldn't play to win the game.

No. Absolutely, 100% not. We do not lynch Jesters. As town we are playing for a win. It destroys the game to make up our own rules to what constitutes a victory. Yes, the game still keeps going, but that doesn't mean it remains fun or that we should do it. The goal of mafia as town is to WIN. It is not simply to eliminate all mafia eventually.

Mastin's arguent here is self-serving. He wants town to chill out and stop worrying about who his real target may be because if he wins the game still goes on. But as we're town and should want to WIN we cannot do this. Ever. So long as he lives.

I've acknowledged this. I certainly have a vested interest in keeping Mastin alive for as long as I can.

Obviously my arguments in support of Mastin should be read with that bias already in them, I would expect no less.

That being said, each player will have to make their own judgement as to whether or not they believe the sincerity of my "townie RC" support of Mastin staying alive as opposed to my "Lyncher's target" support.

You've acknowledged that you have a vested interest. But if you're town, then that vested interest is far less important. Something nice (no active player wants to be lynched), but it's not of great interest. However, if you're scum, then Mastin's claim that you're his target is a very strong shield. The strength of your desire to keep him alive then indicates to me that you may well be scum.

----------------

I'm going to summarize one of the comments that multiple people (e.g. RC, Mastin) have made. I'll try and be fair to the argument, but please call me out if it's misstating what you believe:

We can still lynch Mastin on a subsequent day. We don't have to waste the lynch today.

I certainly admit the technical truth of this. We can wait. But why should we? This waiting argument fails for one primary reason:

As the game progresses, lynches become more and more powerful. As a thought experiment, imagine that the before the game, the mod made the town decide on one day that they could not lynch: Day 1, 2, 3 or 4 (in a 27 player game). Which would you choose? Some may quibble, but the obvious answer is Day 1.

This scenario is analogous. We've got someone we COULD lynch day 1, day 2, day 3, or day 4... thus using that day's lynch. But Mastin is a strong day 1 lynch; he's a weak day 4 lynch.

[zoraster]

Let's put it this way:

A jester is outed, yet kept alive.

Nobody shoots him during the night.

Two scum, two town, and a Jester are all that are left--
Mafia/Jester collab. win.

Jesters are basically a mafioso who, if people refuse to get rid of them, is unlynchable.

First of all, I haven't seen anything that mentions Mafia can joint win with Jesters in mafiascum. It seems to me that should Mafia lynch fool, mafia comes in second, jester in first, and town in last.

Second, even if you suppose that's true, it gives absolutely NO reason to lynch the Jester. Town DOES NOT WIN if you lynch a Jester. That seems to escape you. In the situation you mention, the day before there's a premium on lynching mafia. It'd be lylo... just as can happen otherwise.

Anyway, I agree with you that vigil would be wise to shoot a Jester.

Quote:
This scenario is analogous. We've got someone we COULD lynch day 1, day 2, day 3, or day 4... thus using that day's lynch. But Mastin is a strong day 1 lynch; he's a weak day 4 lynch.]/quote]
Someone point out how bad the logic above was. I'm in a hurry at the moment and cannot do so.

But needless to say, I'm a strong day two lynch as well.

Why do you assume I'll live to day four?
There's night one, day two, night two, day three, and night three.

I can be lynched easily day two or three.

I think it's important for you to point out "how bad my logic is." You can throw out criticisms without backing them up all you want, but I hope it does little to change people's minds.

Let's consider, shall we? Will Mafia kill you? Very unlikely. Will SK kill you? Unlikely as well. Will Vigil kill you? Possibly. But Vigil will kill you precisely for the same reasons we should lynch you today.

You say you're a strong day 2 lynch, and maybe that's true. But you're a stronger day 1 lynch. As I've stated, the time to lynch Mastin is now. Not later when we'll have more information at our hands and really should be focused on lynching mafia.

[zoraster]

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.

I agree with the conclusion that we should lynch Mastin, but the primary reason for doing so is not that we might lynch a townie otherwise. This is certainly a helpful side-effect (and perhaps one that causes fence-sitters to lynch Mastin), but it is not the determinative one.

It's this type of talk that lets Mastin say things like "you're like a newbie who wants to no lynch." If your primary and controlling reason for a Mastin lynch is that he's not a townie, he has a point.... we can't be totally afraid of lynching townies.

ALL THAT SAID, Mastin is still a great choice. The fact we won't be lynching a townie or outing a power role is definitely good news for town. It's just not the main reason for doing so.

[zoraster]

I would not be surprised at all. It's hilarious seeing the town listen to him though. I am pretty sure he is lying though. This is why I want lynched day 1 instead of 2, because we don't know for sure who his lynchee is, other than his word. We could mislynch on a townie today and the day would be wasted, whereas lynching Mastin day 1 would prevent a mislynch, and then Day 2, we can focus on finding scum. But Mastin has twisted this to compare it to a no lynch, which is stupid. Mastin =/= a no lynch.

Actually, I see what you're saying here, and I agree that a Mastin lynch is better than a mislynch. The only qualms I have about a Mastin lynch is that it would make our JOAT nightkill fodder. Thoughts?

My thought is that there's been a lot of assuming lately. We assume there's a vig. We assume there are masons.

So why don't we assume there's a doctor, one of the most basic roles? Or for that matter that Dev can't hide one of his nights.

I think Devastation is already at risk for being nightkilled. I don't think lynching Mastin will make that risk much higher. If we have a doctor -- or if scum think there's a doctor -- then Dev is probably safe. If there's not and mafia don't think there's a doctor, then Dev is probably a dead man. "Confirming" him via Mastin isn't going to make that significantly more or less likely.

[zoraster]

Prod: Knight of Cydonia

[zoraster]

I DARE someone to counter that point.
How does lynching me day one influence what will happen?

It doesn't.
It's the same as what leaving me alive would do, except giving us more information if I am left alive.

-I ALSO gave reasonings as to why Red Coyote is my target. Meaning I am harmless if you stay away from him. This was ALSO ignored by most people, also rather conveniently--

Okay, I'll dare. Just because bodies dead are the same in number doesn't mean the order is not significant. From a simple probabilistic viewpoint, it makes a difference.

Let's set up some scenarios. Let's just assume for the moment we have 4 mafia, 1 SK, and a vigil. They all shoot. Scum here refers only to Mafia and SK.

Scenario 1: We let Mastin live d1 and lynch him day 2.
Probability of Lynching correctly day 1: 5/26= 19%
Probability of Vigil hitting scum night 1 if we lynch wrong (81% of the time): 5/25= 20%
Probability of Vigil hitting scum night 1 if we lynched correctly (19% of the time): 4/25: 16%
Total chance of lynching or shooting at least one scum: 45%
There's also a 3% chance we could kill TWO scum.

Scenario 2: We lynch Mastin d1 and scum hunt day 2.
Probability of vigil hitting scum n1: 5/25: 20%
Probability of lynching scum d2: 5/22: 23%
Probability of lynching or shooting at least one scum: 48%
Probability of lynching or shooting at least TWO scum: 4.6%

Of course the probabilities are certainly higher for lynching scum than stated because we actually play the game and get scum tells, etc. But that works on both scenarios.

In fact, I'd suggest that scum hunting would be far more effective day 2, so this probabilistic look at things UNDERPLAYS the benefit of lynching Mastin today and scum hunting tomorrow rather than the reverse.

Look at my posts before I claimed--it was fairly obvious I was breadcrumbing cop VERY heavily.
AND my meta is exactly what I'd do if I were to be a cop as well.
So there's no denying I was trying to breadcrumb cop heavily.

From my perspective, you were breadcrumbing cop, but you were breadcrumbing a Dust lynch. But again, I could be wrong on that. It could really be RC. Or it could be someone else entirely.

A lyncher is not mafia. The goal is to eliminate mafia above all else. We do that by scum hunting. Lynching me is not scum hunting, not lynching scum. It gives us NOTHING going into night--we gain nothing that we didn't already know. We knew I was lyncher, we knew Devestation was some sort of Rolecop, we knew I claim Red as my target, but Devestation could be a mafia rolecop, and people might not believe Red is my target.

You are technically correct. Lynching you is not lynching a mafia member. But it's getting rid of someone anti-town, and that's a small victory because you can serve to take us off track repeatedly.

As for the assertion Dev could be a mafia rolecop, the thought has occurred to me. But that seems like a matter we can discuss later. And I think you underestimate the amount we can actually read into you turning up lyncher. At the very least, it confirms you were not in cahoots with Dev, however unlikely that seems at the moment.

Red, if mafia, would've just lied--said he was a lynchee. Confirm me to avoid being the lynch. He didn't. He's telling the truth, hence, isn't mafia. Hence, he wouldn't be lynched, anyway, even if I had claimed someone else as my target.

Red is a much better player than this. Why would he confirm this? this would actually INCREASE the amount of suspicion on him because it's so rare (at least to my knowledge) for a lyncher target to know he's the target.

DESPITE WHAT IS SAID, I am still an easy lynch day two. Easier than day one. Because it seeds doubt into the minds of others, if I live, if a vig exists at all. I bet you that I could be speed-lynched day two, yet day one drags on and on.

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't lynch you because this has taken a while? No. We get to tomorrow and scum hunting really has to begin in earnest.

Though I am outed as an anti-town role, I'm contributing as if I were a pro-town player. I call it being an honorary townie. I've given new insight into the game, insight that other players can't/won't/didn't give.

As a now-outed third party role, I can give a new perspective to the game that others who are unclaimed can't. As a third party role, I can share my opinions freely, knowing there's no consequences. That's something I can't do in any other circumstance.

-I am confirmed NOT SCUM. NOT MAFIA. Therefore, as my goal is also to see mafia dead, I'm one of only three people who you can say are at least semi-cleared. Of them, I'm actually the MOST cleared as NOT mafia.

Again, I do not buy this. You are not mafia, so we think. But I don't buy that your goal is to see mafia dead. I think your goal is to get your lynch target lynched. And this is town negative.

---

I guess in summary, I still haven't heard a cogent reason that lynching you tomorrow would be the wise call if today is not. To my mind, it is either one or the other. If we don't lynch you today because we believe the RC claim, we believe you're in it for the town, provide a different perspective, etc., then I don't see why lynching you tomorrow would be a good idea.

But I don't believe the RC claim, that you're in it for the town, or provide a helpful different perspective. So I advocate for a lynch. And I advocate for that lynch today rather than tomorrow rather than never.

[zoraster]

If I reach L-3, I'd want any conversion role to claim. If they exist, then we can afford to not lynch me. Put the doc on the conversion role, have the conversion role convert me (obviously) and ask the vig to shoot me, just in case.

You want us to out more PRs for your sake? This is exactly the type of activity I'm talking about that can be anti-town by leaving you alive. For example, tomorrow you come out and claim masoned. If we have real masons, they have to make a choice: CC you and call you out but out themselves? If there are no masons, no one ccs, and town has to make a choice of whether to believe you or not (which is the same thing that probably happens if there are other masons).

If I die as a lyncher (this is the second-most dangerous scenario),
Then we could have a roleblocker,
Or the "conversion role" was lying.

If I do NOT die, and yet, someone else flips mason,
-Then the mafia have a bus driver.

If I do NOT die, and yet, nobody flips mason (most dangerous due to the different options),
-The mafia probably has a bus driver and a roleblocker,
or
-The mafia has a bus driver, the conversion role was lying,
or
-There is no vig,
possibly others.

I get the logic behind the first two situations... if we have both masons claim (if there are indeed two).

But the last tells us very little. There are a plethora of reasons you wouldn't die and no one would flip mason.

Mastin's theories on day talking scum, two mafia factions, and theories on who is voting for him

Perhaps something to revisit later, but ultimately not all that important to the task at hand. I think the daytalking thing is a huge stretch. Two mafia factions is certainly possible. And I think we have both scum and nonscum on Mastin and off it.

Zor wrote:
I think it's important for you to point out "how bad my logic is."

It's in the numbers.

You say it's in the numbers and you say it'll take time. which i can respect in that it took me a while to write up my own numbers. But you're going to have to do better than that. And you're probably going to have to compare to the numbers I've posted -- which are accurate as best I can tell. We can argue about which assumptions to make, but the numbers will be similar either way.

Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you post your numbers on all variables.

Quote:
Will Mafia kill you? Very unlikely.
If I lead the lynch on scum day one, and the possibility existed that I'd both survive the night and become a full-fledged member of the town, would they leave me alive?

Doubtful.

The high esteem you hold yourself aside, I don't think this would overly concern mafia. They likely have much better things to do. Such as try and kill power roles. If they know you're becoming mason... maybe they'll kill you. But I kind of see it as unlikely. If we follow the plan above, I see it more likely they'll kill the original Mason.

Besides, below, you say that vigil killing you would confirm vigil's existence. It's one or the other. either mafia is unlikely to kill you and we can use it to confirm vigil, or mafia may kill you and we don't know if we have a vigil or not.

And in the process, would be confirming that we have a vig.
Lynching me today removes that.

Testing the setup, Zor, is very important to breaking it.

Speaking of which, I'll be doing research into previous games of Jebus. Look into what roles he's seen in games and whether he liked/disliked them. Check all previous mod experience, etc. This might help me determine if he'd be cruel enough to make sure that the ONLY way I could win is if Red were lynched.

See above for the first part. And we can test the setup without using you. Vigil kills look a lot different from scum kills. There's a small amount of WIFOM in this, but it takes some courage from scum to kill someone that town is likely to suspect. For example, if OP dies tonight in a multikill night, it seems likely we have a vigil. If, say, Dev dies tonight, we've probably got a scum kill on our hands.

We have the same info.

I did some rough math earlier.

Give me a few hours, and I'll give you ALL the scenarios possible--


From one to two scum factions, a serial killer or not, zero to two vigs, and a fourth to a third of the players being scum.

And the math behind them.

The estimate given earlier was based off of how 2 night-kills is the average I've personally seen.

But I am confident that the math will support me when I do it.

I look forward to seeing this. I've already done numbers and they clearly support my statement... although you have not directly addressed them. I don't think that changing the number of scum teams, vigils, etc. will cause a difference in the end result (i.e. lynching you today is superior to lynching you tomorrow), but I'm willing to look at the math.

[zoraster]

I'll wait for Mastin's math before commenting more fully, but a few additional responses to his post (he posted after I started replying to his other one):

SCREW STATISTICS!

If we rely on luck, sure, stats can be accurate.
We don't.
We SCUM HUNT. From SCUM HUNTING, we increase our chances of winning SIGNIFICANTLY.

We're not relying on luck, but those who ignore statistics are ignoring a major tool. Yes, we have to scum hunt. Yes, we should be able to increase our chances of winning. But if scum hunting on day 2 give us a more statistically probable chance of catching scum, then it's a strong indication that's a route we should pursue.

When a person only gives one scenario, then they can manipulate it to favor their stats.

DO ALL THE DARN MATH!
Nobody can know for certain if that scenario is true, unless they, themselves, are mafia.
Your sudden switch of stance, over one-sided math, is noted.

I don't think I've manipulated the numbers at all. I used some numbers of what I thought to be a somewhat likely setup. I fully acknowledge the setup can be different, but if you run the numbers on a different setup, I'm pretty confident the result will be the same in their end result (i.e. we should lynch Mastin d1 instead of d2). Adding another vigil or another scum team or changing the number of scum will adjust the numbers, certainly, but it will not change the result.

That said, I am not a statistician, so I am willing to see how I am wrong. But I remain skeptical.

[zoraster]

Even though we could "do better" with a lynch as Tar has stated earlier, we also could still do worse (lynching a pro town role such as doc, cop, vig, etc.)

Yeah, the argument keeps being brought up. And?

This fear of lynching a townie is such a scummy sounding argument to me. The town cannot be afraid to lynch, period. We'll lose if we let the fear of lynching power roles keep us from taking risks.

It's not about taking risks or not taking risks. It's about taking calculated risks. Is option (a) a lower risk than option (b)? If so, the reason for choosing option (b) has to be much higher than (a).

---

[/quote]

I'm fine with this. But what constitutes a "better candidate" will likely be contentious.

Welcome to the game of Mafia. We argue and have contentious debates over who is guilty and who isn't.

Those not in favor of lynching Mastin today (e.g. RC) will have a much lower standard for what a "better candidate" is.

No, I disagree. I'm scumhunting like I normally would. Why is that a problem?[/quote]

Fluff. And disingenuous fluff. My point was that those not in favor of lynching Mastin today may try and scum hunt, but the level of certainty they have to have to lynch someone over mastin will be far lower than I will. Keep in mind my statement was in response to your quoting Tar with the following (paraphrasing): "If we have a better target, we should lynch them. If not, we should lynch Mastin."

But if you're town, then that vested interest is far less important. Something nice (no active player wants to be lynched), but it's not of great interest.

Well, I agree and disagree. I see what point you're making. I'm coming at it from a different perspective though. I see myself as a Lyncher's target, which gives my arguments lot more creditability. Keeping Mastin alive is self-serving in that sense, no doubt, but it's not based on preservation for the sake of playing the game, it's preservation based on the sake that me and Dev are the closest things the town has right now to being clear. Having our opinions out here is going to be very likely the closest thing to a genuine, town perspective on the game that one will get.

You are not remotely clear. Yes, if Mastin is masoned and he confirms you really were clear, then you'd be clear. But that possibility requires two things: (1) that there's a mason who masons Mastin (say that five times fast); (2) that you really are Mastin's target.

I find the first only somewhat likely. I'm pretty sure the second is just not true.

However, also consider the dangers here that I've mentioned. D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

Let's consider, shall we? Will Mafia kill you? Very unlikely. Will SK kill you? Unlikely as well.

Why? Why are you completely discounting the possibility of Masons/Psychiatrists?

I mean, the mafia, and SK... these players don't want us to have a cleared role.

Why would mafia kill someone we're likely to lynch day 2? Why would Mafia kill someone we're likely to vig n1? The fact that he MIGHT be cleared is probably not outweighed by the fact if they get rid of Mastin, they're doing our job for us.



---

I think Mastin is lying about his lynchee.

Who is it?

No one knows which is why Mastin is so freaking dangerous to keep around. Not only is it dangerous because we might lynch his real target, it's dangerous because we'll have to view every lynch possibility through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target?"

But if you want my best guess based on game play to this point, it's Dust.

---

Ace, why couldn't we gain any information from Mastin's lynch? I've heard this comment be stated by others as well I think, and I can't see how there couldn't be ANY information obtained as well as the fact that we could exterminate a threat for tomorrow.

I want to answer this too because I think this is an important question.

Any forum mafia player worth their salts will tell you that the flip after a lynch or a kill is worth so much more than all of the hot air that everyone in the game creates.

The mafia's big advantage over the town is always information. Lynching someone is the best way for the town to get more information.

I think few people on the Mastin wagon disagree with the fact he's a Lyncher, because it's likely that he is. Obviously we don't

want

to lynch a town member, but lynching someone else, even if they are town, will cause them to flip. If we know whether or not said person was scum, we can base further opinions we have tomorrow and the day after that on what that player said and did today.

If we lynch Mastin, and he comes up Lyncher, all we'll get is that Dev is basically a confirmed JOAT, and the same back and forth about who Mastin's target was.

If we lynch someone else, we not only get the information from that lynch, but we create a chaotic WIFOM situation for all anti-town roles at night by leaving Mastin alive.

All things equal, I wholeheartedly agree with this line of reasoning. It's why no lynches in mafiascum are rarely a good idea.

But things are not equal. I think most believe there will be at least two night kills tonight. Those night kills lead to some great information as well. If we decide to lynch Mastin tomorrow, we've thrown away a good opportunity.

I'll agree that lynching Mastin doesn't provide quite as much information as lynching someone else. But it's a great reason to lynch him today rather than tomorrow.

Mastin is an anti-town force. I can only say that so many times.



---

My thought is that there's been a lot of assuming lately. We assume there's a vig. We assume there are masons.

So why don't we assume there's a doctor, one of the most basic roles? Or for that matter that Dev can't hide one of his nights.

It's a two-way street. You can't use this as an argument, it cancels out with the fact that Mastin could be converted or killed.

How are Masons and Vigilantes not "basic" roles?

you've taken me out of context. This was in direct response to the idea that Dev was in mortal danger IF we lynched Mastin because it confirms Dev. My point is that those arguing for saving Mastin have argued that Masons and psychiatrists* are probably around to turn him town. In addition to this argument, they say that we shouldn't lynch Mastin because Dev will be confirmed, endangering him. So I wanted to basically make the point you have: you can't assume one without giving thought to the other.

*By the way, does anyone have a single game where Lyncher was saved by a phsyiciatrist? http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ychiatrist is the entry for psychiatrist and it's only about SKs. It's my toughht the term Psychiatrist is just added to mason each time to make it sound like there's even a higher probability that he'll be turned town... which isn't true.


---

The math is here. People "conveniently" ignored it, because they didn't want to hear how they're wrong and I'm right

I don't know if that's the reason, but I agree with this logic 100%.

The sheer number of positive possibilities of leaving you alive outweigh the negatives to such a degree that I'm confident the scum/third-parties are rooting for a Mastin lynch today. zora can flash all the statistics he wants, there's no way to account for the sensibilities of players with killing powers that have to make a serious decision during the night. You can't simply say mafia has X percent chance of shooting someone, we don't know who the mafia is, we don't know if they're risky or conservative, we don't know whether or not there is a Mason, we

don't know

.

And you can dismiss statistics all you want, but they're still an important part of the discussion. No one is arguing that the statistics I listed are exactly correct by any means... we don't operate in a vacuum. But the question is whether the relative statistical difference between the two is reversed given scum hunting? My thought is that the difference is actually

larger

given scum hunting.

If we don't lynch you today because we believe the RC claim, we believe you're in it for the town, provide a different perspective, etc., then I don't see why lynching you tomorrow would be a good idea.

No one is saying that Mastin will be for sure town tomorrow, and I'm certainly not saying Mastin should be kept alive indefinitely.

The idea that we won't be able to lynch Mastin tomorrow, or any other day, because of potential reports, is ludicrous. Assuming we have a Cop/Tracker/Watcher, assuming they get a guilty report, assuming the supposed guilty doesn't counter them... so many assumptions.

I quite agree that your statement is ludicrous. It's not what I said. I'm saying the reasons for lynching Mastin tomorrow are lower than they are today. I say nothing of the chances of reports. My argument is based on the fact we'll have night kills to go on, and the probabilities of finding scum are higher.

In any case, not getting any new information from the D1 lynch could seriously hinder this town, especially after we may have just lost our JOAT's usefulness.

Not getting rid of the lyncher can seriously hinder this town. Lynching him d2 rather than d1 will seriously hinder the town relative to the situation we would have been in had we lynched day 1.

-------------

I know lots of people don't read all these posts, so I just want to highlight a few things:

1. Mastin will likely claim Masoned tomorrow regardless of whether he actually is.
2. Dismiss statistics if you want, but do so if you have solid reasons for it. The mere fact we scum hunt does not negate a statistical advantage. .
3. Lynching Mastin today is superior to tomorrow, in no small part because of point 1 but also for a host of reasons discussed ad naseum in this post and others before.

[zoraster]

What is the risk of Mastin winning today, zora?

Low to zero, but as you make the point, the big picture is necessary. I'm not worried about Mastin winning today. I'm worried about him winning tomorrow or the next day if left alive. Even more so, though, I'm worried about him simply throwing town off in multiple ways by his mere existence.

My response was not removed from this, you are effectively labeling those on the Mastin wagon as supportive of lower standards in their scumhunting. I'm saying that just because I don't want Mastin lynched doesn't mean I would want our lynch to be a random person.

I hope I haven't done this. I'm saying that those not on the wagon presumably have a lower standard for what makes someone a better lynch than Mastin.

You don't need a Mason to accomplish this.

Look, you say flat out that I'm not Mastin's target. Fine. Whoever Mastin's target is has a great propensity than anyone else (aside from Dev) to be town, right?

Don't you think said player would be the closest thing to a clear townie we have?

And how do we know who Mastin's target is to clear them? Without a mason, it's impossible. Even if Mastin tomorrow says, "whoops. you caught me. RC wasn't my target. Person Y who just died was my target, but now I REALLY can't win" we have to question the veracity of the statement.

zora 476 wrote:
D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

This is just more fear pandering. The past handful of posts you've been saying for us to not so easily accept the fact that there are Masons, and then you come out with a hypothetical that leaving Mastin alive will out all of our Masons?

This is not fear pandering AT ALL. It is a discussion of the risks we are at if Mastin isn't lynched. I'm pretty mystified why you'd label a complete discussion as fear pandering. This is not some sort of wild theory I have. I think anyone who reads that will agree it seems to make a great deal of sense.

Let me be clear though: the risk of outing masons less concerns me than the risk of Mastin claiming Mason and there being no other masons. Both are certainly negatives though which is why both are discussed.

zora 476 wrote:
No one knows which is why Mastin is so freaking dangerous to keep around. Not only is it dangerous because we might lynch his real target, it's dangerous because we'll have to view every lynch possibility through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target?"

So do you think Dev is lying about the fact that Mastin can't win until tomorrow? Otherwise, why does this worry you today?

No, I don't think he's lying. And it worries me because I'm here to play the complete game. Not just live day to day.

zora 476 wrote:
But things are not equal. I think most believe there will be at least two night kills tonight. Those night kills lead to some great information as well. If we decide to lynch Mastin tomorrow, we've thrown away a good opportunity.

What opportunity are we throwing away by lynching Mastin tomorrow? Hypothetical guilty Cop report lynches?

I believe I've answered this, and I worry you're just trying to bury my reasoning:

1. If we lynch Mastin today, tomorrow we can lynch without worrying about lyncher. Moreover, we can do so with additional information: the nightkills. If there are cop reports or whatever, all the better. But this is not necessary.

2. If we lynch Mastin tomorrow, we have to lynch today. We do so without knowledge of those night kills.

Thus, we've lost the opportunity to lynch based on additional information.

I'll agree that lynching Mastin doesn't provide quite as much information as lynching someone else. But it's a great reason to lynch him today rather than tomorrow.

What? This is just a blantant contradiction. Not getting as much information is a great reason to lynch Mastin today?

It's not a contradiction. I'm arguing against this half-ass theory that we should lynch Mastin tomorrow over today. We lynch Mastin today, we miss out on the information we would have gained from the lynch that would have occurred otherwise. We lynch Mastin tomorrow, we miss out on the information THAT lynch would have given us.

zora 476 wrote:
Mastin is an anti-town force. I can only say that so many times.

And mafia are more anti-town than Mastin. And using our lynch for information rather than getting rid of a Lyncher who can't win today will give the town more to work with tomorrow. I can only say these things so many times.

The fact he can't win today is irrelevant. In fact, it seems logical that we should want to eliminate Mastin BEFORE his power activates.

And yes, I agree mafia are more anti-town than Mastin. That's why I'd rather get rid of Mastin today and focus on those more anti-town elements tomorrow.

zora 476 wrote:
And you can dismiss statistics all you want, but they're still an important part of the discussion.


I agree with that, but statistics like this ignore the bigger picture. Your basing your statistics off of a specific setup that you have no idea whether or not is close to the actual setup. Granted, you try to make the hypothetical as close to basic as you can, but, honestly, how much good are statistics that have no real basis in the reality of the game? When you don't know what roles there are, it's hard to argue that either side has a statistical advantage, can't you at least agree to that?

Give me another potential setup, and I'll do the statistics for that as best I'm able. The results will probably be similar whether you have two scum teams, 2 vigils, etc.

[zoraster]

First of all, your math does not in any way dispute my numbers. Your math says the difference is "small" (although you use one and two scum so the result will be small as will only having one night kill), but it doesn't come out with a different result.

Anyway, I admit that the probabilities are different because of the body count. But that's a nonstarter. My question is "so what?"

Second, My argument (and the math supporting it) with statistics is about whether or not lynching you day 1 or day 2 is a better option. This is why I have stated that it's preferable to lynch you day 1 vs. day 2.

If, on the other hand, the debate is between whether we lynch Mastin AT ALL, then I have very different responses.

So which is it? Are we having an argument about whether to lynch you day 1 vs. day 2 or are we having an argument about whether to lynch you at all? Because this is important.

---

23.13% chance of lynching scum.
19.28 % chance of lynching my target,
17.72 % chance of my target being night-killed.

Don't you see how this is a negative result for town? Of course, there are more scum around, so the likelihood of lynching scum is higher, but a 19% chance of losing the game outright over five days? That's not a risk I'm willing to take when we can easily eliminate you now. Admittedly, town can mitigate this by being aware of what you're doing, but again... do we really want to try and foil Mastin every day we want to lynch?

---

Last, consider his charge that my logic was bad because of my math. Then he uses, to prove that the differences are insignificant, an unrealistic setup -- which, by the way, reaffirms that my math was right and holds true whether you're talking 1 scum or 4+sk+vigil.

Rather than show all the math, Mastin, why don't you show us the math in the scenario that you think most helps your case (so long as the setup is within the realm of possibility)?

[zoraster]

I'm barely at the surface, and I already gave one (albeit risky) scenario where the numbers favor keeping me alive for a greater chance at hitting scum.

Again, my discussion of numbers was about whether d1 or d2 makes a better lynch.

The discussion about whether to lynch you at all is a very different discussion and involves the question of "is it worth having a higher chance at getting scum if there's also an infinitely higher chance of losing by lynching lyncher target?" Getting a 5% advantage to getting a scum in exchange for a 19% chance of lynching your target is less than optimal. And I'll argue the existence of a lyncher alive only makes that chance of finding scum smaller.

---

Anyway, I didn't cherry pick my scenario. It seemed one likely to occur. To my mind, much more likely than the 1 or 2 scum scenario you've painted.

But as I've said, I'm not sure anyone wants to read through pages of numbers... or for you to have to do all the work required to do all those numbers. Simply coming up with the most helpful numbers for your case in at least a plausible setup can do wonders for the town's understanding of the probabilities. That includes my understand as well, by the way.

[zoraster]

Because the only way to know what scenario best supports my case is to do the math for said scenario. And if I were to do that, then I'd be hypocritical, anyway, for I'd be using math that ONLY supported my argument, and none that did NOT. And I made it rather clear that to do so would be scummy.

Well, there are trends. For example, I know that if you add another mafia to your calculations, the numbers will shift, but it won't make it a statistically better call to lynch you d1 versus d2. If you're going for your best case, I doubt the right way to look is simply to add more mafia to the situation.

But if you find that by calculating the chances of cross shooting between, say, 2 scum teams of 3 each and 1 sk, makes it come out so that it's actually advantageous to lynch you d2 versus d1, then you might start to look at whether adding a second SK will make that difference even bigger.

Then, if when you post it people say something like "well, that's just an isolated example" you can say, "no. it's also true to a lesser extent in Setup X, Y, and Z."

Frankly, it's not hypocritical. If the charge against me is that I handpicked my example, and then you turn around an show even one plausible example that shows the opposite result (rather than just a smaller similar result as you've done so far), then my statistics are weakened considerably. This is because my argument is that my statistics are representative of a universal result.

---

And in the given scenario with one scum, over 20% chance of winning the game in five days. Increase the number of scum (I was about to do that math, too!), and you increase the percentage drastically, yet keep the lyncher percentage the same.

Yes, I agree with this. But that's a higher percent chance that we catch ONE scum. Not that we catch ALL scum. The issue is that catching one scum does not win us the game. The 20% chance that you get your target lynch loses us the game.

[zoraster]

Quote:
Getting a 5% advantage to getting a scum in exchange for a 19% chance of lynching your target is less than optimal.

No. It's OVER 20%, not five.

I said 5% advantage. That's the difference between 23% and 18%.

I'm confirmed not scum, which is AT LEAST one less person.
My claimed target, if believed, is semi-confirmed (my statistics did not take this into account), making Red drop out,
And the person who outed is not counted as confirmed, but only semi-confirmed, as well.

We're simply not going to resolve this at this point. I don't believe you've stated your real target. I don't think any amount of "proving" it at this point will make me believe it. Therefore, RC is (sadly) not close to clear.

[zoraster]

Disagreed. VERY strongly disagreed. The changes in the statistics can be HUGE with a simple adjustment to the setup, like adding a roleblocker, subtracting a mafia, adding a serial killer, etc.

Even simply adding one mafia will change the stats.

Change the stats, yes. Change the result, no.

A-hem.
I DID post a scenario with the opposite result (although it's not a lynch me day two one). I posted some similar results to yours, sure, but also gave reasoning as to why they're not an accurate measurement.

Of course the chance of us hitting scum, at least in a vacuum, is higher if we don't lynch you. But the chance of hitting your lyncher target is much, much higher as well. This is why I have the duality listed. D1 vs. D2. It's why the discussion whether to lynch you, period, is a far different question.

Or a vig, or two vigs, or two scum factions, or maybe even three...
You get the idea.

ANYthing can change the statistics.

And I intend to show them all.

That's fine, but given the time it takes, I'll continue to push your lynch. You've shown me no data that has flatly contradicted my point: lynching you D1 is preferable to lynching you D2. THIS is why I'm trying to get you not to waste your time and ours by giving us your best possible case.

Additionally, don't expect everyone to suddenly fall behind you because you've put a lot of work into this. If the statistics show something startling, yes. If it's just a bunch of statistics that you spent days on, I don't think you're going to get much.

Quote:
The 20% chance that you get your target lynch loses us the game.

1: It's 19,

Sorry.

2: You yourself said that the town doesn't lose--you say that you'd play for second place, an opinion I disagree with. (I say that a lyncher win on MS.net is just one extra person who wins, who wouldn't win, otherwise. One extra player winning doesn't really mean anything. On Epicmafia, I can understand wanting to get rid of any anti-town role who could steal points and cause you to lose, but MS.net isn't point-based.)

The town does lose. Playing for second place is consolation, nothing else. Perhaps there's some fun left to be had playing for second as we try and track down scum. But while I still have a shot for first, I'm going to play it that way. Put in a hypothetical situation where I have two choices: one that gives me automatic 100% chance at second and one that gives me a 5% chance at first and a 95% chance at third, I'll take the latter every time.

This theory that a lyncher win doesn't make town take second place at best is self-serving hogwash. You win, we do not. It's as simple as that.

My goal in this game is to win. Not to defeat scum, not to lynch you. not to do anything else. It's to win within the parameters of the game itself. If there's a lyncher, then I do not win if I hit the lyncher's target. The only question I can ever have at the core is "is this the best option to get me to win?"

Finally, I'm not interested in EpicMafia.

[zoraster]

If Red isn't my target, then WHO IS?

Give someone who you think is my lyncher target, or I'll call it BS.
Give someone who you think is my lyncher target, so I can prove (again) how they are NOT my target.
Don't give someone who you think is my lyncher target, and--as I said--I'll call BS and basically, strawmanning me. For I can't defend against an imaginary attack, for it wouldn't exist.

In the immortal words of Goldfinger: I don't expect you defend, Mr. Mastin. I expect you to die.

More seriously, I don't understand why feeling fairly certain that RC is not your target and not knowing who your target is otherwise are inconsistent. Yes, it's hard to impossible to defend this charge, Mastin. I don't believe there's any way for you to do so or I probably would have pushed you to prove it in that way.

But it's precisely because you can't prove it that we need to lynch you today.

Oh, and I've mentioned twice now that while I'm really not sure who your target is, my best guess is Dust. But again, it could be any number of people... perhaps people you have yet to mention.

[zoraster]

Latter--the last option.
So, you'd rather have a 5% chance at victory, rather than a 100%?

Not quite. I'd rather have a 5% chance at WINNING rather than a 100% chance at second place.

The discussion isn't whether to lynch me d1, or d2.
It isn't whether to lynch me, or not.

It's about WHEN to lynch me, IF at all.

I'll agree with this statement. But my point is that I find the numbers to be helpful when considering the WHEN TO LYNCH part but not particularly in the the IF AT ALL part.

Quote:
Not to defeat scum

If scum live, you lose.
So, yes, it's to defeat scum.

UNLESS you yourself are scum.

This seemed like you don't want scum dead.
Scumslip?
Sounds like one to me.

You're really stretching here. My point is that my goal is not to defeat scum. It's to win. Of course, in order to win, you have to defeat scum. But that is not the ONLY criterion of winning in this setup. The other is to avoid lynching the lyncher target.

Quote:
I'll continue to push your lynch.

So, while I'm busily away, typing up the math, you'll continue to attack a then-helpless target?

Not helping your case.

You're the one who is insisting on doing dozens upon dozens of scenarios. No one has asked for this. To me, it feels like the reason you insist on doing all of the scenarios you can think of is because (1) it can help you delay being lynched and (2) it can prove that you're working hard... perhaps garnering some sympathy support. Or, if I'm particularly cynical, perhaps so that you can win some sort of scummy award later on.

So, call yourself helpless if you like, but you've chosen this course of action.

[zoraster]

VC?

[zoraster]

He plans to do the math on every conceivable setup, I believe.

[zoraster]

I've been as pro-town as possible. I dare say it, but I've been more pro-town than any other player alive. My post length, and post number, and post content, make this very hard to debate with. (If I'm not the most pro-town player for all my theories, scum hunting, and DARN SOLID POINTS, then who is?)
I've been the honorary townie that I promised I would be.

Length and post number, as I assume you'd admit, is not a sign of being pro-town at all. I assume when you were scum, your posts were both lengthy and numerous. My point isn't that you're mafia/sk now. It's that your post-count and post-number cannot be viewed as an indication of pro-townness.

I have a suspicion that THIS is why you're insistent on doing the math. Not the "99%" that you think will prove you right (as I think it will only reinforce my point). But that you'll have poured a lot of effort into the game and you're hoping people will equate effort with pro- town.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe you hope to become a town member. It's possible you hope to lead us to scum today as well. But the first is merely a hope... not something that you've already decided is something you're going to count on. The second would be self-serving (though obviously beneficial to town).

Let me clarify, though, that I have no idea whether you're trying to lynch scum or simply setting up tomorrow's hopeful lynch.

But just because you hope to be pro-town later doesn't mean you will be, and this is the type of calculation the rest of us have to make.

Quote:
However, also consider the dangers here that I've mentioned. D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

Fake claiming mason would get me lynched.
Period.

I wouldn't do it.

I'd claim what happened.
If I wasn't masoned, so be it. I'd die.

If I was, I'd claim it.

Again, why lie if I have all the reason in the world to tell the truth?
For the wifom involved?
Yea, right.

This is outright

false

. You fake claim mason, and you increase your chances of survival and this is exactly why you'd do it. If you're not masoned, then you take a chance on whether or not there are masons.

You say you have all the reason in the world to tell the truth, but that's false too. You have all the reason in the world to keep yourself alive.

Wrong.
We ALL should know.
I've given, several times, the proof of why Red is my target.
-The TWO breadcrumbs,
-Staying in my cop meta,
-Breadcrumbing cop,
-Assessing the threat level of other players, and finding only three serious threats,
-Being truthful when I could've lied before,
-Being pro-town, proving why I'm right, etc., and have shown legitimate scum hunting interest.

More than any of your other arguments, it is this that galls me most: your assertion you have proved your target is RC. You haven't. People may buy this or not, but it's not proof whatsoever.

Claiming that we ALL should know is insulting.

[q]Dust discussion[/b]

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion over my guess because, as I've said, I have no idea who your real target is. All I'll say is that the day had a long way to go before lynching Dust who wasn't even really the forerunner to a lynch.

By the way...with what I've seen as scumslips, inconsistencies/hypocrisy, ignoring many of my points "conveniently", tunneling on me, turning an eye away from my own logic, etc., Zoraster has moved from misguided townie into my scum category. I just don't see how any pro-town player could do such terrible courses of actions.

This type of talk, even though it is not remotely true, is fine from someone who is close to being lynched.

One flaw:
It's called a vig.

I wouldn't live to day two.
It's really as simple as that.

Are you suggesting that if there is a vigil, from town's perspective we should have him shoot you?

Statistics are a supporting element of an argument.

Not the driving force.

Those who bandwagoned me off of statistics are extremely scummy, especially when it was only one scenario. (Also, keep in mind that in a setup of this size, we probably have at least seven scum and likely a serial killer--Zor's stats were for only five TOTAL, meaning four scum and a serial killer, along with the vig. Which tips the scales VERY heavily against me, as I was going to show in my math)

Statistics are a supporting element. But what you've failed to consider is that for those on the fence, they could be the deciding element.

That said, I do have some suspicions of people who jumped on after seeing statistics. It could be laziness (this is a ton of text to read after all) or it could be scumminess or it could be that they just finally made their mind over it.

Quote:
3. Lynching Mastin today is superior to tomorrow, in no small part because of point 1 but also for a host of reasons discussed ad naseum in this post and others before.

I've given all my reasons, besides the math, as to why this is not the case. I can have the math well within our deadline, too.

The non-math reasons, as I've pointed out, are usually only assertions such as "RC is obviously my target" and "fake claiming mason would get me killed" which are flawed as discussed above.

Anyway, I'd spend more time on this post to edit, etc. but I have to run my girlfriend to the airport.

[zoraster]

People shouldn't be voting him because his posts are long, no.

Although if you really believe his posts don't have relevant information (which i disagree with), then that's actually a fairly good reason to vote him.

To boil the arguments down as far as I can without being totally unfair to either side:

People are voting him because he's a lyncher who will serve to complicate matters tremendously in subsequent days in ways that hinder town. In addition, he can lead to a town loss directly by getting his target lynched.

His counterargument is that he'll be really pro-town, he's claimed his real lyncher target, and there's a chance he'll be masoned/cured of being a lyncher.

---
Of course, I think one of those arguments is far more compelling than the other, not the least of which is that we don't have to rely on the honesty of someone who has another motive not in line with town goals. Relying on honesty in mafia, after all, is pretty foolish.

[zoraster]

BOLD STATEMENT:

If ANY of the people on my wagon claim ANY of these roles after I'm lynched, lynch them:

Vigilante,
Psychiatrist,
Mason.

For they'd just target me during the night, hence, wouldn't have pushed for my lynch.

Bold and unfortunate. You can see fairly clearly how Mastin seeks to equate anyone in favor of lynching him with scum. Of course, he can't say all 11 people currently voting are scum, but he can make statements such as this.

The only one of these I might agree with is the Psychiatrist IF AND ONLY IF he can cure Lynchers (which the wiki suggests is not their traditional role). The other two, vigils and Masons, have other purposes in the game than to deal with Mastin. As such, they have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to lynch now and use their powers for other things.

And for the vigil, what's to say their power isn't limited (one or two shots, for example)?

Quote:
Even more so, though, I'm worried about him simply throwing town off in multiple ways by his mere existence.
1: You referred to the town in the third person. Implying you are not part of it. Scumslip?

2: How?

How on earth would me just being alive throw the town off?
By casting doubt for whoever I'm pushing a lynch for?

I've proven multiple times why that's a load of BS.

First, be more precise with your language. You have PROVEN nothing. You may consider your explanation satisfactory and convincing, but you have not proved it. I don't mean to quibble with minor differences in language, but you continually use this term, and I think it's doing a disservice to how we understand each other.

Second, to answer your questions:
1. It is not a scumslip. I find it useful to discuss these types of hypotheticals in detached language. Besides, I find people who force the phrase "us" when referring to town to certain situations to be slightly scummy. It's not quite a natural thing to say in many circumstances to my ears, so it comes across as an overemphasis on one's town status.

2. The doubt is not who you are pushing for. The likely situation as I see it is that you'll casually influence the vote without voting yourself. As you know, your vote might be poison to a lynch. This concern (even more than the reality) is negative for town. Which brings me to the second way you negatively influence town. You can take good lynches by the town, vote for them, and kill them.

I claimed my target.
This won't change.
Why, when I've told the truth, would I change my claim to be a lie?

As I had done before, as I have been doing, as I will always do until I die this game, I'll continue to tell the truth.

For those of you paying attention, I ask you this: does his mere assertion he's telling the truth make it more likely? And does it sound to you like he's desperate to convince us of its truth, irrespective of whether it is true or not?

(By the way, anyone who applies lynch all liars to their arguments, please do remember to apply the opposite as well--DON'T lynch the people WHO TELL THE TRUTH! Like flat-out claiming to be the lyncher. <_<)

The converse is absolutely not true of Lynch All Liars, even if you subscribe to that policy. Besides, we don't know what the truth is here, though we do suspect you've told the truth about the lyncher part.

Quote:
1.

If we lynch Mastin today

, tomorrow we can lynch without worrying about lyncher. Moreover, we can do so with additional information: the nightkills. If there are cop reports or whatever, all the better.

But this is not necessary.

1: The bolded and the underlined.

If it's not necessary to lynch me today, why do it, Zoraster, in the first place?

I'm calling inconsistency, right there.

I don't know whether it's my own failure in trying to relay information or yours for accidentally (benefit of the doubt) misinterpreting a fairly clear statement.

The "but this is not necessary" clause refers to the "If there are cop reports or whatever, all the better."

Why you'd assume the FIRST If/then statement referred to the But statement rather than the immediately preceding statement is beyond me.

So to clarify: It is not necessary that there be cop reports.

2: We get MORE information from leaving me alive---
A: The alignment of the lynched,
B: The interaction of the lynched to others,
C: Other people's reactions to the lynched,
D: The night-killed players,
E: The reactions of the night-killed players to others,
F: The reactions of others to the night-killed players,
G: Testing the setup on me, who wasn't lynched day one.

If you lynch me day one, only D, E, and F remain.

A: It is not completely out of the question that you are not a Lyncher. While I do believe this to be the case as it would be a simple and satisfying solution to your conduct as well as Dev's claim, it is not impossible you are scum. Again, I find it very likely you will turn Lyncher upon lynch, but I just want to point out that it is not completely clear cut.

B: We do get the interaction of the lynched to others and others to the lynched. There's a great deal of interaction between you and me. But there's also a great deal of interaction in the interaction between you and others. Just because your flip isn't surprising (assuming it's Lyncher), doesn't mean there's nothing to analyze. In fact, given your prolific nature, we have more interaction between you and any other player.

G: I'm not excited about the prospect of testing the setup on you just because you have a lot to gain by obscuring the truth of the matter from us. See discussion of whether you'll fake claim mason.

Also,
If a cop got a guilty n1, wouldn't it be safe to assume that said guilty isn't my lyncher target?

That would mean the day two lynch would be safe as well, leaving--if I somehow survived n1--me to be shot at n2 and lynched d3 instead.

Pretty safe. Though miller, insane cop, framer are possibilities. Anyway, this would mean that the cop would have to claim. Even with a guilty, this is not necessarily the wisest move.

No, that's MY lynch day ONE.
We GAIN a whole LOT of information by leaving me alive, and lose ABSOLUTELY NONE. Tell me, what do we lose information-wise if I'm left alive?

Again, this argument is between lynching you day 1 and day 2. I understand these subtleties are confusing and not always adequately explained by me, but sometimes I believe things to be obvious (as they're what makes the explanation logically sound versus not), so I don't fully explicate.

If we lynch day 2, we are not lynching on that additional information. Even if there is somewhat more of it, we've wasted that information because we're not able to act on it.

No, it is not.

If someone claims backup cop d1, the scum aren't going to nk them--they're going to kill the real cop, and THEN kill the backup cop.

These are not analogous situations. You make it sound like scum know both roles in your hypothetical. We do not know who the scum are. Second, you kill the cop in this situation because that night's investigation will go unreported, and then you can kill the backup. Even if we got a mafia member, their team would still shoot. Of course, there could be an SK (or SKs), but the chances of hitting them are even lower than hitting mafia (or so I assume).

Quote:
In fact, it seems logical that we should want to eliminate Mastin BEFORE his power activates.

Logical my *censored*. Lynching an anti-town force when their power activates is good, for that means they don't get the chance to use it. Lynching them BEFORE then, though--while it prevents them from using it--it also eliminates the possibility of catching OTHER anti-town forces.

Well, first you've said it's a good idea to lynch you when your power activates tomorrow. Second, if that's true then we face a choice. Lynch you today and not lynch scum today or lynch you tomorrow and don't lynch scum tomorrow.

The choice to lynch you today is optimal for the reasons I've stated repeatedly.

Mastin's request for me to do math on hundreds of scenarios

I will not do this. I do not have the time or desire. And I don't think the town gains much from it either. I think it will simply alienate the more casual players more. However, I will do one (my comment was "give me ANOTHER potential setup, and I'll do the statistics..." It was not "give me all potential setups."). Lest you accuse me of handpicking the scenario, I will pick by random.org. I've assigned your scenario blocks 1-8. Then for each number of each, I've assigned the numbers you've listed.

The block chosen was:
2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,

The numbers of each chosen were:
#1 scum faction: 4
#2 scum faction: 5
1 SK
2 Vigils

Scenario 1: Lynch Mastin D1

D1:
Probability of Lynching Scum D1: 0%
N1:
Probability of Vigil 1 hitting scum: 10/26: 38.5%
Probability of Vigil 2 hitting scum: 10/26: 38.5%
Probability of Scum faction #1 hitting scum: 6/26: 23.1%
Probability of Scum faction #2 hitting scum: 5/26: 19.2%
Probability of SK hitting scum: 9/26: 34.6%
D2:
Probability of Lynching scum if none die: 10/21: 47.6%

Probability of one scum getting lynched or killed: 91.9%
Probability of two scum getting lynched or killed: 83.1%

Scenario 2: Lynch Mastin D2
D1: Probability of Lynching Scum: 10/26: 38.5%
N1:
Probability of Vigil 1 hitting scum: 10/25: 40%
Probability of Vigil 2 hitting scum: 10/25: 40%
Probability of Scum faction #1 hitting scum: 6/25: 24%
Probability of Scum faction #2 hitting scum: 5/25: 20%
Probability of SK hitting scum: 9/25: 36%
D2:
Probability of Lynching Scum: 0%

Probability of one scum getting lynched or killed: 91.4%
Probability of two scum getting lynched or killed: 82.2%

Presumably the distance gets larger for getting three scum lynched or killed as the distance grew between 1 and 2 (from .5% to .9%), but this requires more time than I'm willing to put into it (I don't really know how to automate this type of thing).

Once again, the question can be asked whether this result is significant or not, but the fact remains that it is still, in a vacuum, more advantageous to lynch you on day 1 versus day 2.

Quote:
That's why I'd rather get rid of Mastin today and focus on those more anti-town elements tomorrow.

Besides the statistics, Zor,

What makes you want to lynch me, instead of focusing on the anti-town elements tomorrow?

Well, I think you've actually stated it though I think perhaps you meant to say "instead of focusing on the anti-town elements today."

I want to focus on scum hunting tomorrow. And I want to do so in the way that is most optimal for town. In my opinion, this will be done best without your influence.

To not believe me when I've given lots of evidence brings in a load of fallacies, which translate to scum tells.
Burden of proficiency,
Confirmation bias...

Explain yourself. I don't understand how burden of proficiency is at all implicated here.

Confirmation bias, on the other hand, works both ways.

As a pro-town player,
MY goal is to lynch scum.
Nothing else matters.

Then you and I have a funamental disagreement about how to play this game. I believe, though I could be wrong, that most share my conception of the game.

Of COURSE it delays me being lynched. If I do the math, then it'll show how it's best not to lynch me day one, which means I wouldn't be lynched day one. That's kinda the point of doing the math.

No, I don't mean the numbers themselves will delay it. I mean your having to spend countless hours working on statistics delays it if you call anyone who votes for you in that time scummy.

1: There is no need to prove that I'm working hard--the proof is already in the fact that well over six of our 22 pages belong to solely me.
2: There is nothing wrong with working hard.

No, there's nothing wrong with working hard. But it also doesn't prove you're pro-town.

----

In any case, I apologize to everyone. I don't mean for this to get out of hand like this.

[zoraster]

By the way, I'm really worried that this game has ceased (if it ever was) to be fun for the other players involved. As such, I am now limiting any post I make to 250 of unquoted words (to compare, my last one was roughly 1500 words). I reserve the right to revoke this tomorrow, but for today, I'll limit myself.

I could blame Mastin for starting the wall of texts, but I'm complicit as well. Brevity is the soul of wit, and I can't help but feel we're saying much of the same thing to each other anyway.

[zoraster]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-22

Mastin - 11

(Caboose, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, zwetschenwasser, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman)

OrangePenguin - 4

(cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin, Azhrei)

Zwetschenwasser - 1

(zer0ph34r)

hewitt - 1

(RedCoyote)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

Not Voting - 7

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

---

I'd rather he be vigged if he's merely a neutral role.

He's not merely a neutral role. He's an anti-town role because his interests are directly opposed to those of the town's.

[zoraster]

Also, where did we first get the idea that Mastin can only win Day 2? The wiki article just states that as long as the lynchee dies before the lyncher, the lyncher wins. That's why I think Mastin should be lynched first, instead of waiting for someone to night kill him or wait Day 2 to lynch him. We only have his word, and I am not trusting him.

If Mastin is Lyncher, then I see no reason why Dev would lie about his day 2 requirement. This is true whether Dev is scum rolecop or town Jack of all Trades. I imagine that a day 2 requirement is simply a way for the mod to try and balance out the lyncher.

[zoraster]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 76#1680276 is the link to the main claim. Post 233

[zoraster]

Oh and it's hammer time

VOTE: MASTIN

He's defending himself wayyy too hard, and not really using good logic. That makes him worth a lynch because his intentions are still unclear to me.

My count could be off, but with Dev's unvote, that's actually not hammer.

[zoraster]

If I was sure who Mastin's lynchee is, I would consider a Mastin lynch COMPLETELY unacceptable: generally lyncher = Neutral =/= scum, so Mastin and his lynchee would be confirmed nonscum; it's in our best interest to keep confirmed nonscum alive as long as possible.

I agree with this in theory. But I'm really not sure it's possible to confirm his target except through having a confirmed mason recruiter mason him and clear him. While this is a possibility, it's remote enough that I don't really want to count on it.

I'll only entertain the possibility of a special role to fix the lyncher if (a) someone claims that role or (b) someone can link me to a game where this was a role.

Keep in mind that we are playing a NORMAL game. The rules for normal games are:

*A normal game should have at least one Mafia faction, and no more than two.

*A normal game does not have to have any other roles other than Mafia and Townies. If it includes other roles, they should mostly be considered standard, such as Cop, Doctor, Vigilante, Roleblocker, Mason, Traitor, Serial Killer.

*Other (new or otherwise) roles can be included. However, there should be no more than 1-2 of these, and they should be based around the usual game mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Voting.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ormal_game

I don't want to overplay this as there can be "other" roles, but when searching for the setup, keep in mind this is not a theme game.

[zoraster]

Also, you're trying to lecture me (a user with a Moderator scummy to his name and who has broken apart at least two Large Normal setups in the past) about the differences between normal and theme games WHY, exactly?

Everything I've seen here suggests that Jebus is using rarely-seen normal roles. (Note: Recruiting Mason/Masonfier is borderline normal at best; even given the unsual roles that seem to be in the setup, I doubt such a role exists, much less that it can change Mastin's alignment).

Why so touchy? This is a really bizarre response.

Anyway, that point was designed for others as much as for you (27 people playing, after all). And besides, the first paragraph's umbrage aside, the normal rules did cause a constructive second paragraph.

[zoraster]

Welcome, and I wish you luck White Castle. You've got some reading ahead of you.

[zoraster]

Beware of highlights, but right now the first nine pages or so are the usual beginning of game scum hunting with some discussion about whether walls of text are good things for town. That's not to say there isn't good stuff to get from here. It's just that if you want want "highlights" the game's first isn't really until Page 9.

Then on page 9, post 221 and more fully in page 10, post 233, Devastation claims that he is a Jack of All Trades who can use up to one of his abilities per stage (day 1, night 1, day 2, night 2, etc.). He claims he has used his rolecop ability to see what mastin is. He claims mastin is a lyncher who cannot get his target lynched until day 2.

Mastin at first denies this charge in Post 239 claiming that Dev is scum. He does this a few more times (Post 246 he votes for Dev).

Then perhaps the most significant post of the day: Post 260. Here, Mastin claims he is Lyncher. He says he does so because he has lost the game already, and therefore will try to be a "honorable townie."

At this point, a majority of posts are dedicated to how to deal with Mastin. However, I think it's also worth looking at the interaction between cateraction and OP at Post 294

Because I feel remiss not posting my vote on Mastin at Post 296. You should probably try to at least read some of the back and forth between Mastin, RedCoyote, and me (and at times OP as well), but I'd read to try and get an idea of what's being said rather than a detailed analysis. If you've got the time, though, feel free.

Anyway, that's what I'll give for highlights. Again, I don't want that to substitute for your own read on the game, but I hope I've picked a few crucial posts to stand out in your mind.

[zoraster]

I strongly believe those who absolutely refuse to believe my target claim, despite the evidence, want to set up a Red Coyote lynch in the future, for they don't want three semi-clears, and as long as I am around, I will prevent Red from being lynched.

I don't want to rehash the same arguments over and over, but every time you mention that you have proved or shown clear evidence that RC is your target I will have to post. It is not true.

To ignore them is to ignore a player who has stated his pro-town intentions, whose post count and post length accurately reflects his devotion to the game.

I think there's an assumption that everyone, other than trolls, wants to state pro-town intentions. Devotion to the game is not equal to devotion to town.

While I am pro-town in intention, I am anti-town in role. And that means that I will say whatever I wish to, in order to hopefully

get the town to listen to me.

survive.

Fixed

(levity!)

I am. This is how I play. (I haven't had this much fun since 735/742 when defending my cop claim. The thrill of defending oneself from attacks is the best part of the game, precisely why I do it so often.)

Which is precisely why I think your post counts and post length have little to do with your "pro-town" intention. I think you get a thrill out of defending. I don't think it has anything to do with how town you are.

You haven't played scum yet, but I can't help but feel that you'd take to this role with great vigor (nothing wrong with this!)

[zoraster]

Are you going to play this entire game off data? Because that would be very unhelpful of you. This game isn't a big math equation because you don't know the problem, so let's not even pretend like you do.

One of the reasons I've decided to impose a 250 word limit is because I think that people will just pick out a few sentences from any post anyway. This is what's happened here. My assertion with data was a pretty small part of the total reason for voting for Mastin. It became a "deal" when Mastin called my math wrong and selective.

Let me make my opinion quite clear- Mastin has got to go. Does Mastin have to go today? I think absolutely not and I don't think he should go today. If we believe he's telling the whole truth then he's absolutely nothing to worry about right???

This bothers me. If you're saying he has to go at some point, when is that point for you? When is a better day than today?

Second, I don't believe -- and nor do I think should you -- that he's telling the whole truth.

And none of you can even try to shift that on to Mastin because it isn't possible for him to be scum!

Every time someone says this with such certainty it makes me recoil. I understand that the most likely scenario is that he's Lyncher and if he's lying it's simply about his target. But the number of times I've seen it said that there's just simply no way that he could be scum makes me think that it's plausible he could be.

Again, I'm not pushing his lynch because of this at all. My more logical side thinks the simplest solution is usually the correct one (rather than a complex conspiracy between Dev and Mastin... perhaps even using the day talk ability Mastin mentioned off hand for a while).

Anyway, just want to reassert that my reason for lynching Mastin has to do with the fact he's lyncher probably lying about his target.

(240 words. just under the limit!)

[zoraster]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-24

Mastin - 11

(Caboose, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman, StevieT92)

OrangePenguin - 5

(cateraction, Maturin24, Mastin, Azhrei, Tarhalindur)

Zwetschenwasser - 1

(zer0ph34r)

hewitt - 1

(RedCoyote)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

zoraster - 1

(hewitt)

StevieT92 - 1

(zwetschenwasser)

Not Voting - 6

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

---

I don't care about the word limit, it was the probabilities that really annoyed me.

I know you don't. My point was that with those long posts, people could fixate on things that weren't my main point. Which wasn't my point at all.

I'm pretty damn convinced he's Lyncher.

And I'm pretty damn sure you think so as well.

You mean like where I say things such as "he's lyncher probably lying about his target. " to qualify my point?

I can't believe that you're being opportunistic like this and voting for someone who we pretty much know isn't scum. I'm calling opportunistic scum right here, you seem too smart to play like this as town.

The truth is that if this were a mini game, I wouldn't have pushed this. But the large game provides a very different situation.

If Mastin is lynched today I feel that we've basically wasted the day. It hasn't really been too much time (real time) for a D1 and I don't feel that much will have been accomplished in this day. We'll basically have lynched a player who wasn't even a threat that day. If anything, hold off until tomorrow when he actually IS a threat and can win the game.

See, it's this last sentence that I've fought against and used numbers. "If anything." Why would we wait if we're going to do it tomorrow anyway? The only logical explanation given has been we don't know if Mastin will be made pro-town tomorrow. But that only flies as far as you believe there's a mason recruiter. And it's coupled with the fact there's an even greater chance Mastin will claim recruited Mason tomorrow.

So I don't mind if you argue against his lynch period -- we can have an honest disagreement about what type of negative effect Mastin's existence creates -- but I'd like to see this "in the alternative" argument dropped by those advocating not lynching him.

[zoraster]

and you just messed up the entire page with that pointless post. Great job.

Mod: Can you please edit the lol to something less of a screw up?

[zoraster]

and you just messed up the entire page with that pointless post. Great job.

Mod: Can you please edit the lol to something less of a screw up?

Actually, for me it is still fine. Hewitt's point was pretty ridiculous though.

Well, for me it is not. I can try a different browser, but that seems a lot just because you decided to make your point with 60 o's.

What exactly was hewitt's point?

---

As for the setup speculation, it'll have to happen at some time. I'm not sure that today is the most productive time for it, but being against setup speculation whatsoever is counterproductive.

[zoraster]

You are defending yourself adequately. I was frustrated with the game state, and still am. My issue now is the position I am in. I have been in this situation before. Do I keep my vote on and look scummy, or do I unvote and look scummier because you think I should change it. A lot of people would find that more scummy than what you think is pro-town. I am completely willing to scumhunt by looking at other people, and have done so for the entire game. Again, please stop looking at my few sentences about your posting pattern and look at what I said in 534.

Actually, I don't think people think unvoting Mastin is scummy. There's an honest difference in opinion over whether Mastin is the correct lynch. The correct lynch, in my eyes, is obviously Mastin, but I can understand that some people are fairly narrowminded in their view of the game. It's a matter of not seeing multiple moves down the game. That said, I don't think not holding my view makes someone scummy.

What I

DO

think is scummy is this explanation... almost a whine -- about how it sucks that if you do unvote you're scummy if you don't unvote you're scummy. It's basically a plea for people not to read into your motivations. And this is pretty darn scummy.

Mastin and I seem to be in accord over this.

Also, based on what WC found on the lyncher, if the lynchee is a NK, Mastin assumes a pro-town win condition. I know NKing the lynchee , who is most likely town probably won't happen, but hey. Thus, that is another possible way to get Mastin onto the town side that people seem to be forgetting. Mastin, would you be able to confirm or refute this based on your role PM info?

I would assume that his win condition does become town's if his target is lynched. But how could we possibly confirm this? I doubt that Jebus will tell us that X was the Lyncher target. For this reason, I don't see this possibility as a good balance to the overwhelming good reasons to lynch Mastin today.

[zoraster]

I can understand that some people are fairly narrowminded in their view of the game. It's a matter of not seeing multiple moves down the game. That said, I don't think not holding my view makes someone scummy.

Let me make this clear so that people understand that I do see why some people are voting for Mastin. The town players are generally voting for Mastin because he's an anti-town role and they feel that the game would be easier without him. I fulheartedly disagree with this direction and I have to be forceful with my arguments just so that people will listen at this point. It's very close to a Mastin lynch and obviously I do not want this so I have to be vehement in my responses.

I don't think being vehement in your responses is a bad thing. You think what you think.

That said, I think you're dead wrong. It's not just easier without him, it improves town's chances of winning (and no, that's not a reference to statistics in this case).

Anyway, I think it's interesting to note that since Mastin has been busy and not able to post more than a couple of times since Saturday, we've had a ton more people contribute than normal. I'm not saying there's a perfectly inverse relationship between his activity level and other's activity level, but I do think it's not a coincidence.

[zoraster]

[It's funny, though, because no one actually knows how helpful I would be on day two, because no group has been smart enough to keep me around past day one, well except one group, but they lost because of it.]

You keep saying this, but what about Mini 743 where you made it to the end game? It's true you replaced in, but you did so on Day 1 and this is a place where town could see "how helpful you are" on Day 2.

[zoraster]

EBWOP:

It's funny, though, because no one actually knows how helpful I would be on day two, because no group has been smart enough to keep me around past day one, well except one group, but they lost because of it.

You keep saying this, but what about Mini 743 where you made it to the end game? It's true you replaced in, but you did so on Day 1 and this is a place where town could see "how helpful you are" on Day 2.

[zoraster]

So explain exactly to me what the advantage of lynching him today versus tomorrow is.

I have done so in depth in other posts, but I will do so again. You are asking me for the advantage of D1 versus D2. Don't try to flip my reasons to be about Lynching versus not lynching:

1. It allows us to scum hunt on Day 2 and lynch based on it. In this day we have far more information at our hands. We definitely have night kill information, but we also may have reports, etc.

2. Statistically, we have a better chance of finding scum lynching Mastin D1 rather than D2.

3a. It frees us of the potential monopolization of Mastin. As noted, others tend to speak more, thus giving us better reads on their character, when Mastin is posting less frequently. As a pro-town his monopolization would just be a reason for chastisement. As a third-party with a goal that is not aligned with towns, he serves to allow scum to slip by for a day.

3b. Face it, even though you and some others have said "if we're going to lynch him at all, lynch him tomorrow," you are not conceding the fight tomorrow. If we get to tomorrow, we risk being at a similar impasse.

4. It gets rid of the possibility of Mastin fake claiming Masoned or Cured through some weird character, potentially necessitating Masons to counter claim him or, just as bad, no masons being there to counterclaim him and us having to choose whether or not we believe the fake claim.

(250 exactly)

[zoraster]

I don't really want to get into more long-winded point-for-point. That said,

1. Remember, you said reasons why we should lynch D1 instead of D2. If we say today that we're lynching D2 and hold to that, scum hunting D2 will be neutered. Scum hunting really requires the thread of lynchings and bandwagons.

3a. We did do that earlier in the game. To his credit, he changed his posts a little (his first posts were basically two words quoted and then a long response), but they did not really get shorter or less frequent. He tends to give huge posts when he's being attacked, and if the pseudo-compromise is that we lynch him tomorrow, then he's going to be attacked.

3b. I'd prefer not to rehash the Mastin argument tomorrow. It wastes time and doesn't get us anywhere. And it also ruins this pseudo-compromise.

4. What about if he real claims? Should we have the masons come out then to confirm him?

[zoraster]

If he's real claiming then we would be stuck in a sticky situation, it would pretty much be up to the masons discretion if they want to come out and confirm him.

But you're saying that if the Mason doesn't come out to confirm him, we have to lynch him?

[zoraster]

Mastin, I'd rather you catch up with the game in one post, massive thought it might be, than continually lag behind 4 or 5 pages. Every time you post one of these, it drags the game back and confuses everyone. It also disrupts the conversation going on currently.

Anyway, I'll resist the urge to do a PBP response, so I'll pick out a few crucial points:

Quote:
Second, if that's true then we face a choice. Lynch you today and not lynch scum today or lynch you tomorrow and don't lynch scum tomorrow.

Your continued lack of factoring in a vig is truly concerning...

I'm not factoring in a vig kill because we don't know that he exists. Our decision as a town, I think, should really be independent of whether or not we have a vigil who wants to shoot you tonight.

un fact:

Even in this setup, there are variables you're making very specific:

"Assuming none die"?!?

Of COURSE there's going to be someone dead!
All the stats add up to well over 100% n1 with d1 added to it, making scum nearly guaranteed to die.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say "assuming none die." I may have the first time because I was doing a rough statistical analysis, but in this one, I never made that assumption

Random.org != Likely setup.

And it's easy to fake random.org results.
I did it in 762 and 763 as excuses to self-vote.

No, it does not equal likely setup, but it is a randomly chosen one... free of my biases.

And yes, I could have faked the random.org results.

That happens when people try to lynch me. I fight back. HARD. REALLY hard. If people stopped trying to lynch me, I'd stop having such long posts. Without long posts, more people would have fun.

Sounds like blackmail

If I can't provide evidence, it must be false, right?

I've never said anything remotely like this. The reason it's probably false is that it prevents you from attaining your goal and winning. So either you're (a) not playing to win with the role given to you [lame but what you've claimed]; (b) you're playing serious WIFOM with the RC target claim [possible]; or (c) you're lying about the RC target.

The fact you can't provide evidence doesn't make it false. It just means you can't prove otherwise.

(250 words exactly)

[zoraster]

I don't think you have a girlfriend. Enjoy running yourself to the airport.

Lynch all Liars.

His breadcrumb ("our victories are intertwined") is hard to argue against. Some of the players have said breadcrumbing can be done for anything, but they haven't shown me any other potential lynchee breadcrumbs.

I wouldn't expect him to breadcrumb lynchees. I don't think a normal person does this. Admittedly, Mastin is not a normal person, but it's still not something I'd expect. On the other hand, I WOULD expect a lyncher to breadcrumb a cop claim heavily day 1, and I think he's done so with "duscum."

If anything, he breadcrumbed RC in order to make this gambit.

The scum don't want to make waves going against what's the popular thing to do (lynch Mastin).

...make no mistake. RC is attempting to switch the "safe" scum vote from being on Mastin (which I don't deny... it's safe because it's solid) to being off Mastin and "scum hunting." It's also an attempt to make town feel like being on Mastin is scummy and the wrong choice.

But it is the right choice.

[zoraster]

His breadcrumb ("our victories are intertwined") is hard to argue against. Some of the players have said breadcrumbing can be done for anything, but they haven't shown me any other potential lynchee breadcrumbs.

I wouldn't expect him to breadcrumb lynchees. I don't think a normal person does this.

What do you think he meant by that statement then? I can't think of any other reasonable meaning, I honestly can't. Mastin may be a little unorthodox, but he's certainly not acting deliberately nonsensical.

My point is that I don't think Mastin had to drop other lynchee breadcrumbs. He dropped the one (hell, he says outright that he's lyncher and you're his target. That doesn't mean his breadcrumb is truthful.) If anything, it's designed to get us to this point today where you believe you're honestly his target.

My point is also that I believe Mastin potentially breadcrumbing Dust as a cop is a more convincing breadcrumb than his lynchee claim. But even disregarding this, a breadcrumb leading to you does not mean he's telling the truth.

That's quite possible. Maybe we should be extremely careful when, I don't know, Mastin becomes a threat?

Again, this is one of the reasons I don't want to wait to lynch him. We have to be "very careful" about who we lynch besides the normal reasons (i.e. we don't want to hit town/we don't want to out PRs). It alters our ability to scum hunt. I think it decreases our chances of getting scum tomorrow. And even with all the caution in the world, we may hit his target anyway.

[zoraster]

As far as my "lining up" Azhrei goes:

Mastin is an almost confirmed lyncher, Caboose. (I only have the almost in there due to the possibility of a scum gambit the size of a giant)

@Whoever asked me why I wanted Mastin alive:

1. I think he's being honest.

2. We will have a nice little test of the setup, and the night actions will hopefully be somewhat revealing.

3. There is a chance he'll get recruited, and if this happens, I think we'll have a very useful pro-town player (in both role and name) helping us. Even if his posting habits hurt my eyes.

Points 2 and 3 make me extremely uncomfortable.

"Hopefully somewhat revealing"??
They will definitely reveal something. It is then that we should be speculating on stuff. Right now, it's just text walls that are annoying.

"Chance he'll get recruited"?? By whom? For what?
Why are people treating recruiting masons as gospel??
Is there something you know that I don't???

However, Tarhalindur leap frogs him for now.

I don't get your explanation about point two. Really. YOu basically agreed with me in different words?

As to 3, no, there isn't anything I know that you don't, but there is still a chance that a recruiting mason or a lyncher-psych (don't think they exist, but ya never know) or something else that can fix mastin up. Note the word 'chance'. I don't know that it will happen, but I know that it is possible. Hence, chance.

I'd say the chance that Mastin and Dev are in some sort of scum gambit is more likely than there being a lyncher-psych.

My point isn't that they are in a scum gambit. It's just that when you start to play the game of "well, there's a small chance, so we should give them that chance" you begin to pull in a lot of unlikely but possible scenarios.

[zoraster]

Prod: killa seven

(last posted in this game May 20th)

Prod: alvinz25

(is this a real player? I search and can't find him)

Prod: Knight of Cydonia

(he should be active)

Prod: White Castle

(he should be active)

[zoraster]

rechecked and I may have been a bit hasty with the White Castle prod. He posted about 3 days ago which isn't an unreasonable amount of time, especially when replacing in a massive game like this. Still, I'd love to hear from him now that he hopefully has time to catch up.

The other three need prods though.

[zoraster]

Correction: Prod: alvinz95

(it was a typo on the vote count). He hasn't posted anywhere since May 20th.

[zoraster]

I apologize, everyone. I should have done it all in one post. One last

Prod: cateraction

He hasn't posted here since May 21st.

[zoraster]

Hewitt, I know we got interrupted in our conversation with each other. So I'd like to pick up where we left off at 636. To refresh, the conversation went in order:

: It gets rid of the possibility of Mastin fake claiming Masoned or Cured through some weird character, potentially necessitating Masons to counter claim him or, just as bad, no masons being there to counterclaim him and us having to choose whether or not we believe the fake claim.

If Mastin fake claims we should urge the Masons or whoever to not come out and talk about it and then we just lynch his ass. I see no problem with this.

What about if he real claims? Should we have the masons come out then to confirm him?

If he's real claiming then we would be stuck in a sticky situation, it would pretty much be up to the masons discretion if they want to come out and confirm him.

But you're saying that if the Mason doesn't come out to confirm him, we have to lynch him?

---
And that's where we left off.

[zoraster]

If the Mason doesn't come out to confirm him then I think the smartest thing to do would be to lynch him. This is if he claims and the Mason decides not to come out and confirm him and really it's the Mason's choice whether or not to even decide to do it. I think the Mason really has Mastin's fate in his hands (that is if the general town decides not to lynch him) and I'm totally fine with that.

In this case, is there a reason why Mason would have discretion to claim or not claim Mastin if he's masoned Mastin? Is there a good reason that a Mason would choose to mason Mastin with the knowledge that Mastin is going to get lynched the following day if he does not claim?

[zoraster]

Let's keep going with this, hewitt.

: It gets rid of the possibility of Mastin fake claiming Masoned or Cured through some weird character, potentially necessitating Masons to counter claim him or, just as bad, no masons being there to counterclaim him and us having to choose whether or not we believe the fake claim.

If Mastin fake claims we should urge the Masons or whoever to not come out and talk about it and then we just lynch his ass. I see no problem with this.

What about if he real claims? Should we have the masons come out then to confirm him?

If he's real claiming then we would be stuck in a sticky situation, it would pretty much be up to the masons discretion if they want to come out and confirm him.

But you're saying that if the Mason doesn't come out to confirm him, we have to lynch him?

If the Mason doesn't come out to confirm him then I think the smartest thing to do would be to lynch him. This is if he claims and the Mason decides not to come out and confirm him and really it's the Mason's choice whether or not to even decide to do it. I think the Mason really has Mastin's fate in his hands (that is if the general town decides not to lynch him) and I'm totally fine with that.

In this case, is there a reason why Mason would have discretion to claim or not claim Mastin if he's masoned Mastin? Is there a good reason that a Mason would choose to mason Mastin with the knowledge that Mastin is going to get lynched the following day if he does not claim?

[zoraster]

I don't think I can answer these questions. I'm sure the Mason would have good reasons to do or not do it. It really is all up to his discretion.

Why would you be unable to answer this question? Is there a logical reason a Mason would Mason Mastin if he knows he [the mason] will not claim, thus dooming Mastin?

FoS: hewitt

[zoraster]

I don't think I can answer these questions. I'm sure the Mason would have good reasons to do or not do it. It really is all up to his discretion.

Why would you be unable to answer this question? Is there a logical reason a Mason would Mason Mastin if he knows he [the mason] will not claim, thus dooming Mastin?

FoS: hewitt

Who says he won't? It's up to him if he wants to claim or not. I will be casting a vote on Mastin if he claims and the Mason does not confirm it but that doesn't mean he'll be lynched. Or perhaps the Mason will confirm it or perhaps the Mason will be like okay fuck Mastin I'm not doing this and Mastin doesn't fake claim and this is all speculation for nothing.

You're not really answering the question.

From Mason's point of view, why would he choose to Mason Mastin if Mastin is simply going to die the next day?

To clarify, in our line of questioning, we've been using the assumption you have stated that IF Mastin claims Mason AND no mason claims to confirm, THEN town should lynch Mastin. Use this as a premise to the hypothetical because this is what you have stated.

If Mason Recruiter knows this, why would he mason mastin unless he plans to claim?

There are two, and only two logical situations that I think a Mason recruiter can choose from in the situation, using YOUR standard:

1. Mason Recruiter masons Mastin and does so knowing he will have to claim, thus outing him and making him an easy PR target.

2. Mason does not mason mastin because he does not want to claim and out himself yet.

I see no other options if we use your reasoning.

[zoraster]

Has anyone considered that there may be masons in the game who can't recruit?

I can't say that I'm pro mafia theory when there isn't any evidence of the particular theory ..

Outguessing the mod = Don't hold your breath

Oh, my best guess is that if we have Masons at all, they cannot recruit. However, it's been listed as a primary reason for keeping Mastin alive today, so I'm going to talk about it some. And I want to tease out the logical consequences of hewitt's policy of If Mastin claims masoned and no one claims him, then Mastin should be lynched.

[zoraster]

I never even said it was imperative for Mason to recruit Mastin in the first place. This isn't my line of reasoning, you're using my words to construct a line of reasoning that isn't mine.

Oh, I agree with you. It's not necessary. But my NEXT point is, given this dichotomy, is it likely a Mason recruiter, even if he exists, will want to mason Mastin? A mason recruiter is a hugely powerful weapon for town (the uninformed majority becoming informed). Do you think, knowing he will have to claim if he masons mastin, that he will want to trade his PR in?

My answer is no. It is not likely.

Which also makes the following two arguments unlikely to hold water:
1. We should keep Mastin alive because he may be Masoned.
2. (stated by Mastin) we should lynch any Mason claim who is voting for Mastin.

[zoraster]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-28

Mastin - 11

(Caboose, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, Phoebus, AceMarksman, StevieT92, Zer0ph34r)

OrangePenguin - 5

(cateraction, Maturin24, Mastin, Azhrei, Tarhalindur)

Zer0ph34r - 1

(ryan2754)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

StevieT92 - 1

(zwetschenwasser)

Phoebus - 1

(RedCoyote)

Caboose - 1

(hewitt)

Not Voting - 6

(alvinz95, White Castle, Dust, killa seven, Kise, Devestation)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.
Cateraction prodded.

---

My main reason for keeping Mastin alive (as I'm pretty sure it has been this whole time) is because there are more important things to do such as scumhunting. If you want to argue the Mason argument with somebody you should be arguing it with someone who would like to keep Mastin alive for that main reason then go ahead. But that person isn't me.

To be fair, I'm not really arguing with you. I'm using you. I think your policy is reasonable. If Mastin were to claim Mason, we should lynch him unless someone claims they masoned him.*

But it's precisely because I think it's reasonable that I used you to weaken the argument that we should keep Mastin alive because he might be Masoned.

*although my main, overarching point is that we should not put ourselves in this position to begin with.

[zoraster]

Won't mason recruiting just make Mastin a mason lyncher instead of just a lyncher? Or if he is masoned, does he drop the lyncher role completely?

I think the thought here is that a Mason Recruiter would be put in the game to provide a solution to the lyncher. Therefore, he'd probably make him switch to town.

Honestly, it's my belief that Mastin made an error when he claimed, assuming that EpicMafia's (which he cites many times in this game) use of Masons is the same as the use of Masons in mafiascum. I think it's not until later that he realized his error, and of course there was no going back at that point.

[zoraster]

Welcome to War and Peace.

[zoraster]

There's been no scumhunting so far...? What have you guys been doing for 29 pages?!

Read and find out. And I said certain players not everybody. There's been a helluva lot of tunneling on a player who is pretty confirmed not scum.

Who is pretty confirmed not town.

The reason why I am not on the wagon is because I think there are much better targets today, because Mastin cannot win until tomorrow by Dev's claim. If it's a gambit, he still gets killed tomorrow and he still can't win today.

Please refer to Post 632.

[zoraster]

If we could vote for a No Lynch, I'd be cool with that, honestly. Then we could let Dev & any other investigative roles do their thing during NP.

No Lynching is rarely a good idea in forum mafia. The only times I'd imagine it is useful is when you're down to a few in numbers and you've cracked the setup.

No Lynching isn't a viable option here. Either we lynch Mastin or we try to lynch mafia/sk.

[zoraster]

So,

Dev

. You initially unvoted because Mastin was going to post statistics. He hasn't done this yet, but do you have any thoughts as of now? are you now unconvinced this is the right vote?

I ask this because one thing that was keeping me from pontificating on a Dev+Mastin planned combo was that Dev was voting for Mastin, and if Mastin flips anything but lyncher, Dev's in real trouble.

That's not meant to blackmail you back onto the wagon, but I'd like to hear your thoughts now.

[zoraster]

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.

Thanks, King.

I'd like those on the Mastin wagon, specifically players like zora and Nanook, to comment on this. Are you happy with this? Stevie, I'd really like your opinion as well.

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'm not necessarily happy with it -- if people don't talk, this game is pretty dull and breaks the game. But I do understand some of the thought. To me -- and quite a few other people -- this is a fairly no brainer of a lynch. That said, that doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained from these discussions. Just to my mind it's not whether we're lynching Mastin tonight or not. It's about getting better reads to take into d2 with. Perhaps even to give our investigative roles (if there are any) some ideas on who to target and thus have reasons for picking 1 over the other when they eventually claim (if they do).

Is it likely there are scum on the Mastin wagon? Almost assuredly. But is it likely there will be scum on a scum lynch? Almost assuredly.

[zoraster]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-30

Mastin - 12

(Caboose, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, Phoebus, AceMarksman, StevieT92, Zer0ph34r, Kise)

OrangePenguin - 5

(cateraction, Maturin24, Mastin, Azhrei, Tarhalindur)

Zer0ph34r - 1

(ryan2754)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

StevieT92 - 1

(zwetschenwasser)

Phoebus - 1

(RedCoyote)

Caboose - 1

(hewitt)

Not Voting - 5

(alvinz95, White Castle, Dust, killa seven, Devestation)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

---

Just to my mind it's not whether we're lynching Mastin tonight or not. It's about getting better reads to take into d2 with. Perhaps even to give our investigative roles (if there are any) some ideas on who to target and thus have reasons for picking 1 over the other when they eventually claim (if they do).

I wouldn't be so confident that the Mastin lynch is going through. It is no doubt the most likely outcome, but if those who replace or have lurked weigh the decision, I feel as though this lynch will be closer than you may like it to be.
.

Obviously. It is the right decision for town to make, but that does not mean town will make that decision, even while we're at L-2.

My poorly worded point was that it has been pages and pages since I've seen a new argument against lynching Mastin. I don't think there's really anything left to say.

="Dev"]Actually, Mastin has not posted anything at all recently, for which I assume he has a good excuse for. There is no reason why I cannot wait another few days for these statistics, unless he it looks like he needs a replacement or we get a deadline.

So no thoughts at all? I'm not telling you need to vote now, I'm just asking what you've thought of the game so far. You're the only claimed town player in the game, so your insight is valuable.

[zoraster]

White Castle, did you read the highlights I sent? Dev claimed 1-shot rolecop.

I think it's pretty lazy to not try and at least follow leads and ask questions when we basically have no pressure to find a better lynch. Don't settle for Mastin because he's a good lynch, look for a better one and if we don't find it, fall back on Mastin.

And you think OP is a better lynch? You haven't done any scum hunting since Page 11, after all -- some might call that lazy since you haven't really "followed leads and asked questions" since then.

The Mastin lynch is the best lynch for today barring another claim or something really weird happening. That's why we're voting on him.

[zoraster]

The link to the highlights (and the major posts of dev, etc) is here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... t=#1688094

Read those posts linked at least.

[zoraster]

You mean the reasons you've stated and OP has responded to in Post 294, 464 posts ago? There's nothing since then that has either given you more ammunition or reason to doubt?

Or, even disregarding most of the 476 posts that have gone between your case and this post, you have no rebuttal to his responses to the charges you made twenty pages ago?

[zoraster]

If not Mastin, then who do we lynch? There needs to be 14 votes or else we'll hit deadline, and that's virtually the same as the dreaded No Lynch...

To be fair, we still have two weeks before the deadline.

[zoraster]

So why unvote?

[zoraster]

King is wise. King is right.
I may consider joining the cult of King.

Possible cult slip?

to me it sounds like he got offered to join a cult and hasnt decided yet if he wants to join, but it is day one so that is strange.

I'm pretty sure this was a joke and not a "cult slip." Regardless, I'm pretty sure you don't get a choice of whether or not to join the cult when the leader comes knocking.

[zoraster]

I'm not, he has too much useful information. I DID read it... he is correct.

I have no wish to comment on my other abilities at this time.

Did you get a report on what happens to Mastin if RC is nked?

What exactly is he correct ABOUT?

---

To everyone else:

This whole thing is starting to stink pretty badly. Mastin claiming he's in a one way lover relationship with RC? Did this claim help town at all? Do we believe he "just now noticed it"? Even if true, does this not decrease the reasons for keeping Mastin alive (I previously thought the chance that Mastin's real target getting nked and making him town was Mastin's best chance for becoming town).

Second, consider that Dev, the person who gave us this initial claim, is now claiming that all of Mastin's points are correct. This isn't to say that he HAD to lynch Mastin at all. But before, his vote on Mastin showed that he almost certainly not in cahoots with Mastin.

Now that he's not voting, and he's basically "bought" all of Mastin's arguments, one has to wonder.

---
I think Mastin is probably lyncher, but the most recent posts has made me doubt it to a much larger degree than I had before.

My guess is that Mastin's most recent claim was an attempt to lend additional validity to his lyncher target claim. But it does so at the expense of a major chance that he'll actually become town.

[zoraster]

To be fair, I'm not really arguing with you. I'm using you. I think your policy is reasonable. If Mastin were to claim Mason, we should lynch him unless someone claims they masoned him.*

But it's precisely because I think it's reasonable that I used you to weaken the argument that we should keep Mastin alive because he might be Masoned.
Explain to me how it is NOT scummy to manipulate a player, Zor. Do please tell, how is you manipulating a player NOT scummy?!?

Because the line of questioning was about elucidating my point. It wasn't about manipulating him to change his mind or make him look bad. It was about asking him questions so that others could see why something made logical sense and why one of hewitt's points did not hold water.

I'm no Socrates, but this is the basic premise behind the Socratic Method.

[zoraster]

Prods to me? seriously? I've been busy moving apartments, but i've kept up. I'll post more fully later, but I don't think it's such a bad thing to let some other people have the floor for a while so their voices are heard.

[zoraster]

To those 6 people who aren't voting (alvinz95, White Castle, Dust, killa seven, Devestation, Kise) can you explain why you're not voting after 37 pages of content? (I realize some of you, like WC are catching up, or are V/LA, but still..)

-Because that same 37 pages of content are currently slapping me around each time I consider making an argument to vote for someone.

Also:
Do you agree with the Mastin wagon for today?

-Nope.

If you don't, are you waiting for tomorrow, or..what?

-There is no reason to waste a lynch on him, if theres a vig around he can do the job.

Do you agree with the orangepenguin wagon for today?

- I'd hardly call Orange penguin a wagon in comparison to Mastin, but I don't think he is worth my vote.

If you don't agree with either of those wagons, why? If so, who would you vote for?

-I said why under each person, but I don't see myself voting for anyone until my cold goes away and I can think straight

People have mostly given you a free ride, Dev. Don't cry about people doubting you for your vote. I haven't seen anyone except for me advance that you may not be what you say you are. And even I have done so by saying I'm just not sure.

What precisely changed your mind from when you were on the Mastin wagon to now? Don't give some vague "the points people made." Tell us what exactly those points were. If you want to argue that you don't want to "waste a lynch today," for example, tell us why that's a wasted lynch and why the arguments that it is not a wasted lynch are either wrong or do not counterbalance those arguments.

[zoraster]

@Ryan - The minimal activity posters are more than likely scum.. In fact, the ones who don't hop on bandwagons on D1 are more than likely scum as well.. I do believe some people on Mastin's wagon are scum, but only a small fraction.

I don't believe this to be true. I think their minimal activity makes it somewhat more likely they ARE scum, but I don't think that makes them more likely than not. It's an important distinction. If they were "more likely than not" scum, then I think the bandwagons maybe would make sense. But that's not the case here. We have plenty of lurkers and minimal posters in the game; I don't believe for a second that all of them are scum.

Say what you want, but if you want more activity out of players, then dragging this out is not really the way to accomplish it. Yes, you can accuse me of "wanting to end the day early." But my view is a larger one. The more interested people are in a game, the more they're going to post substantive, unique things. The more people are bored, the more they lurk. The more they lurk, the less town has to go on in scum hunting.

I do subscribe to the general idea that scum want shorter days. But scum also gain from relative inactivity of a game. We're teetering on that ledge now.

[zoraster]

Prod: alvinz95

Prod: Maturin24

I can't remember if mod said he was looking for a replacement for these two.

Prod: Dust

His Vacation leave ended June 2nd, and he's been active in another game.

Prod: Mastin

I suppose he may have just given up.

[zoraster]

Blackberry works surprisingly well with MS. Anyway, the choices are interesting as alv and killa were too lurkers. I suspect at least one was a vig kill, if not both. Which leads me to believe tar was actually offed by an opponent (possibly SK). All hypothetical at this point, I know, but I figured I'd start off with that.

I think orange may be correct on the "one mafia team" thing, but I suppose it is possible that the mod would not reveal that there are two until someone from another team dies.

That said, I don't think this makes people on the mastin wagon less scummy or people off it more scummy.

That's all for now... Tiny keys

[zoraster]

It's a personal vibe I got from the non-voters (sans k7). We all find certain people scummy depending on how we interpret what they say. The way the non-voters spoke makes me believe they have the town's interest in mind.

I mentioned laughing at the 1-man wagons to gauge reactions, plus I found it funny that possible scum would be trying to hide behind unpopular wagons. It happens most of the time on D1.

And yes, I'm looking for a group/team of scum. There's nothing wrong with seeing who's buddying up to each other or somehow working with each other. This way, you can make links, such as right now that we know Tar flipped mafia. When people lurk and make minimal posts, they usually don't say enough of anything for me to connect them with another players. That's why, if you let scum-lurkers get away with it, they will continue to be distanced from each other by continually lurking.

Mastin made quotes. It annoyed people. He got lynched. No thanks.

I'll quote if it's necessary (i.e., if the original questions are on a separate page or really far apart from my reply).

You take a high interest in my strategies, WC. Do you feel my comments are scumtells; nulltells; or anything else?

People weren't objecting to his quoting. People were objecting to his length and style of quoting. People didn't lynch him because of that. People lynched him because he was anti-town.

Are you anti-town? Superficial changes aren't going to help you.

vote: Kise

[zoraster]

Hey - Jeromus here, replacing dust, just letting everyone know that I'm here, not lurking, but catching up on 42 pages... So far, I blame Mastin.
Okay, I'll post some time in the future with my opinions on what's going on, until then, Jeromus signing out.

Anyone else is welcome to argue with me on this point, but:

I'd rather you spend your time only skimming the long posts about Mastin. There's probably stuff there, but given 42 pages, I'd rather have your insight as a newcomer to the game sooner rather than later... when you're burnt out without even having posted.

But of course that's up to you. I'm just saying I won't be the one to blame you if you only try to follow the basic gist of the arguments going on rather than any sort of close reading.

[zoraster]

So I was distancing from Tar but buddying with Amish? I have a pretty complex scum-sided playstyle, zu.

It's not that complex, and I'd say many people do this. It's just most often seen in bussing situations: you bus your scum buddy A and you do so with scum buddy B.

But it doesn't have to be that extreme.

[zoraster]

Its related to the fact that I am unsure at this time.

Zerophear is definently anti-town but I don't think lynching is the best way to remove him, due to the risk that he is jester or whatever it's called here.

RedCoyote looks faintly town. Caboose looks neutral (I was thinking the same thing as him for lynching Mastin already to be honest), Hewitt appears strongly town, everyone else thats been voted for is either weak town or unsure.

It's my understanding that his general playstyle is anti-town. I don't think anything he's done indicates jester.

oh, and

unvote

for the moment.

[zoraster]

I think the point about Mastin being the complete center of attention vs. being dead today is a fair criticism, but in a way, yesterday's kerflufle left everyone a little dead. anyway, I apologize for not posting more. Been moving, etc. but hopefully I've kept up marginally well.

Right now, my gut instinct is cateration for scum.

[zoraster]

i haven't found zu scummy. i've found caboose somewhat scummy and definitely ace. deadline is apparently in two days.

[zoraster]

vote: AceMarks

[zoraster]

I think the Zero wagon is a little misguided at this point, but the RC vote is not warranted at all. He hasn't been particularly scummy, and though I suspect he was not Mastin's target, there is of course a chance that he was. Obviously Mastin doesn't win if we lynch him today, but it still isn't to the point where taking out RC makes a whole lot of sense.

My vote on Ace I should have explained further, but it was primarily because I was entirely uncomfortable with the way he went about voting on D1. I mostly let it slide then because it wasn't worth following up on and we didn't need to be further derailed. But he's said nothing today that's made me reevaluate that position.

However, we do need to vote by Wednesday. We can't afford to no lynch.

[zoraster]

why would you FoS with one day left in the day and lots needed left to lynch? vote.

[zoraster]

not to confuse matters, but one is a mafia and the other is a club. Possibly Mafia Masons or Cult?

[zoraster]

I'm here! I'm here. Just been a busy week for me. I'll participate soon, I promise.