Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos Reboot - Game Over, Good wins

[BBmolla]

VOTE: FoxAce

[Tammy]

Tammy
(Her questioning hints to slight defenses #115, #119, #418, #457. While her OMGUssy tunnel of Zdenek for mischaracterization seems genuine, it looks like she's looking to divert the attention, and there's something that rubs me the wrong way about her acknowlegdment of avoiding to bring/use META into games, while she is using META to point out the consistency of her playstyle seems out of character).

Hmmm...it looks like I was wrong and we are cursed to not be on team innocent together once again, huh? So, Zar, how is my question in #457 a slight defense? Considering that 457 isn't a question at all but a response to why I ask questions, you're going to have to do better than that. How are any of them?

Considering there are two team innocents, the odds of both of us being in the same one are rather low, perhaps?

By the way this is my note on your #457. Tell me how my logic is faulty here, please.

#457 Weak Defense against Zdenek (more a reactive counter-accusation), based on "excessive questioning". Tammy's soft attack is based on being possibly halted.

In 115, I'd like for you to point out who I'm slightly defending and why. How is me responding to Greenknight's vote on Avox and asking for his opinion on the debate of the other thread in light of the person he was originally in agreement with who ended up changing his mind a defense of...anyone? I was having a conversation with Greenknight to help me determine what I thought about Greenknight.

#115. You are bringing up a point about AV which I interpret as asking greeknight to reevaluate his position on AV.

In 119, I'd like for you to point out who I'm slightly defending and why. In that post I state that I don't like policy lynches, or comments like the one being presented. If you read you'll notice that Foxace changed Norman's words and suggested a policy lynch. So who am I defending there? I would have said the same thing no matter who had done it.

You are diminishing Foxace's vote on Norman by emphasizing it's policy lynch nature.

In 418, I'd like for you to point out who I'm slightly defending and why. I'm asking your predecessor if that's the only thing he found suspicious about Shadow1 as I was trying to evaluate your predecessor.

Point clarified.

You're stretching, Zar. The sad thing is you know I know you're stretching, and you're still actually trying to do it. So, either you're testing me to see if I'm innocent or you're throwing undeserved crap at me to cast suspicion my way.

Same goes to you, I hope you will be doing better than defending against people find you suspicious by accusing them of "throwing undeserved crap your way."

You are using faulty information concerning meta as well. I told LMP that I try to avoid meta as much as I can when I asked him about how often he uses word choice to catch killers - which if you look at it is me asking him about his playstyle, which is a type of meta that I've always thought was perfectly acceptable. He linked me to a previous game he played to show me an example...that is the type of meta I said I try to avoid. But, Zar, how does me explaining my play style in order to explain myself seem out of character to you?

Struck me as rather awkward you chose to rely on it while you were putting META off in previous posts here. But I guess it seems you find using playstyle META agreeable. Will keep that as a mental note.

I await your response as it should tell me everything I need to know about your alignment.

Do let me know.

Bullshit Zar! You know what you've just spewed is bullshit and you know I know it.

I cannot believe you are saying that I was getting greenknight to reevaluate his position on AV with the question. You know for a fact that I don't ask underhanded questions like that. You know for a fact that I ask exactly the questions I want to know. (BTW: Greenknight himself doesn't even think that I was doing that.) You know I don't play that way.

You know for a fact how I feel about policy lynches. You know for a fact that I think it's rude to change someone's quotes in a post, and say something rude about them. You know for a fact that I wasn't diminishing someone's vote. You know I don't play that way.

You know for a fact that I think it's fine to discuss your play style in order to come to an understanding with someone else.

Why you lying Zar? Why you parroting?

Seriously guys, if I do not make it through the night do not take your eyes off of him.

This is a good counter-wagon.

unvote

vote Zar

[Moneybags]

Guys. We have little time. Just vote Zde please. We can lynch Fox tomorrow if he isn't lynched.

[Tammy]

@Mod - You have Zar voting for Zdenek and Foxace.

Recognised. I can't fix it right now, but will do so within the hour.

[Foxace36]

@Mod

Well fuck....
I didnt know that youve been rplacing people this whole game. I guess I'll stay but I cant be as active. Ill be able to make a few posts every 24 hours but not that much.

[Tammy]

Feysal - I think I saw you post this before and Mastin's not answering me. Is this Zdenek's town play? I really want to know this.

I've only seen him as town once, and I was wrong in my read of him, but his play here has much in common with that game. For instance, in that game Zdenek was making a case against me despite the fact that I had been appointed as Consul and I was therefore immune to execution for the day. On the contrary, I had the power to order executions. I guess that says something about Zdenek as town, and it is unlike anything I have seen in his scum games.

I do agree that this argument is getting out of hand, and having Zdenek calling you names is bad form, even if you were scum.

On the other hand, there is something I wanted to say about your case on him. You have accused Zdenek of misrepresenting you, but I don't think what he has done matches with what the word means. He may have misinterpreted you or mischaracterized you, which indicates a difference of opinion. Misrepresentation would indicate twisting of verifiable facts, and there are none here - we have your word against his opinion. Before I get called out for arguing pointless semantics, misrep is an often used accusation and it carries some weight, and I would not want to see Zdenek mislynched because the case against him used too strong a word.

Thank you. The thing is that there are several times that his posts seem genuine, like he really believes what he's saying, which is why I really would like to know this. I really do try to keep myself out of confirmation bias by others opinions, and if I'm going to ask Zdenek to believe that what I'm telling him is true then I have to accept the possibility that what some others are saying about him is true as well or I'd be a terrible hypocrite. (And yes, waiting patiently for the inevitable even-handed criticism I'm about to receive. Can't help this either; it's just how I am.)

I don't think it's pointless semantics, and if he believes it then he believes it. I ask about his play style because it is important to me. I am not interested in lynching townies if I can help it. The thing is that he is mischaracterizing me, and I am town. I see it as being deliberate, but since I know that he's mischaracterizing me after I've explained my side of things because I know my own intentions and motivations it's going to affect how I see it.

The thing is I know I'm town, and he's gotten some support from some people that he is town and this is how he acts. If that's true then we are in a townvtown battle, and this bothers me. I think that if he takes a breath that he'll see the failings he sees in me in day one start to largely dissipate once I hit day two and have more information to work with.

I've also been thinking about something else that's been bothering me. I've been thinking about the game setup and the fact that it's multi-faction. Because it's multi-faction the killers would have a different sort of profile than in a normal set up game. In a normal setup the way the scum hunt and participate is in a very large way rather mechanical and fabricated, some are better than others at it, but because we're multi-faction the killers get to look rather genuine, as they really don't know who the other scum team are.

However, they want to be careful about how they do it. I've been thinking about this in the context of my own experience as the first game I ever played was multi-faction and I was scum. On day one my partner zeroed in on a member of the opposing team and tried to get him lynched. We lynched someone else, but they killed him on night one. On day two, I figured out who was most likely to have killed my partner and being new and stupid and pissed pushed for his lynch and then accidentally killed his partner night two. On day 3, I was the only killer, and we ended up losing due to the cross killing and cross lynching.

This is what the killers want to avoid. Yes, people have said that because they can win without the other scum team being eliminated so they have less incentive to actually do it. This does actually raise a bit of a point, but it doesn't matter because it's still the same type of motivation that the killers have in any other multifactional game. And the fact is that they need the other scum team to survive for at least a little while if they expect to last for a time at all. This means that they would behave in ways that would make it less likely for them to draw the night kill and avoid the factional kill.

Therefore, they are less likely to be asking lots of questions, less likely to be aggressive and less likely to make several attacks. They might possibly decide to make attacks on those who they believe look like town to get overlooked due to bad reads, but this is still a danger. I've only played in a multifactional game twice before this, so I admit that I'm not an expert, but I'm trying to figure out how Zdenek would really fit the profile of scum in a multifactional game.

[Seacore]

@Mod

Well fuck....
I didnt know that youve been rplacing people this whole game. I guess I'll stay but I cant be as active. Ill be able to make a few posts every 24 hours but not that much.

Thank you, that's more than adequate as far as activity goes.

Also, the last vote count has been fixed (I think, please review your vote to make sure it's accurate)

[greenknight]

I've got a problem. I don't think either of our wagons is on scum, and time is running out. At this point, if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather vote Foxace. I am more confident in my Zdenek town read, I am unfamiliar with Foxace and there is more potential for surprise in his play, and Zdenek is in fact contributing something useful while Foxace has gone into defeatist mode. I would rather lynch someone other than these two. MoI is a given, as should be obvious from my vote. AV is another, due in part to his drunk posting and the absurdity of suggesting sheeping Mastin before he even knew which slot he replaced in. Then there is Jackal, whose recent posts have rung alarm bells.

My scumread on Zdenek isn't very strong right now because there's been a surprising (to me) amount of support voiced for his "questions are scummy" position, which increases the likelihood that it's a town stance that I disagree with as opposed to aggro scum.

I would prefer to lynch AV but I'm not sure if it's possible today, as I wasn't able to get people to vote him earlier.

[Mastermind of Sin]

5 more votes to lynch Zdenek. C'mon!

[Tammy]

So based on what I think the killer profile would be in this type of game, the killers would be trying to not attract too much attention:

This would make at least one of the following likely killers:

1. trekker is probably the best contender for this. He's done nothing but jump votes all over the place and say that Norman is town. There has been no contribution whatsoever. Scum read.

2. Haze. Doesn't contribute much, has acknowledged to prod-dodging, and spends a lot of time saying that calling out people as lurkers is bad. I am fence-sitting on Haze. He fits the profile perfectly, posts largely fluff and not very often; however, I sometimes sense a genuine-ness in his posts. Don't know what to make of it, and yes, I am acknowledging that I'm fence-sitting.

3. Jackal711. His 9 posts consists of him jumping back and forth between Foxace and Norman - two extremely easy lynches. He then calls a lynch of him policy because of his heavy lurking. It wouldn't be...his jumping between two easy lynches without providing any content until someone mentioned a wagon on him is most of what he's done. He then voted Zdenek after saying his attacks on me were bad and that I looked town to him. Zdenek responded and he immediately removed his vote and said he needed to think it over. Regardless, he jumped into the Zdenek wagon just as it was picking up support - another easy lynch target. Scum read.

4. MoS. He does some sniping from the sidelines and has largely refused to join in. However, as I said before, I get a town feel from him. The things that he's said and the way he's said them tend to come from town more than scum.

5. Empking - Not much contribution, got into a weird argument earlier about being on the forum but not posting and said he can't read without motivation. Not much contribution but seems to be scumhunting or getting answers while here. Town read.

6. AurorusVox - Not much contribution, didn't join in for the first week. However, as I've said before, I liked his approach in the original thread. I hope he'll pick that back up. Town read.

I imagine the other killers are among those that are contributing more but are contributing less things of value.

Based on my understanding of the killer profile in this game it would make the strong town reads most likely to be:

MoI - Very active and aggressive. This is my strongest town read.

CooLDog - To be honest as Empking points out, if this were not multi-faction we'd be able to clear him; however, I still think he'd be less aggressive and take less stances if he were a killer.

Shadowpsc1 - Active and looks to be looking for the scum team.

Pine - Doesn't fit the really active profile, but I have a town read on him. His early claim looked like frustrated town as did his reactions to other people the day he claimed.

Feysal - He's not very active, but he's coherent and provides good thoughts when he's here. Plus, I liked his contribution to the original thread.

Brisingre - Have a weak town read on him.

I imagine that the other killers exist in the grey area: those who are posting just enough contribution not to get called out for lurking and appear active but are also not posting much of anything of value.

-------
I'm trying to determine how Zdenek would fit the profile of killer in this game, and my judgment is colored by the fact that we've argued all game. I can't be objective here.

All right that's all I can do for now. I need to find some dinner.

[Zar]

Seriously guys, if I do not make it through the night do not take your eyes off of him.

^ LOL

[Mastermind of Sin]

Out of curiousity, how does...

killers would be trying to not attract too much attention

...reconcile with...

I don't really feel like catching up. Someone tell me what's happened so far and who I should vote. Pretty content to sheep for now cuz fuck it.

...blatantly calling attention to myself?

[Tammy]

Out of curiousity, how does...

killers would be trying to not attract too much attention

...reconcile with...

I don't really feel like catching up. Someone tell me what's happened so far and who I should vote. Pretty content to sheep for now cuz fuck it.

...blatantly calling attention to myself?

That's the type of thing that I said gives me a town read on you. You're not contributing a whole lot in the thread by asking bunches of questions, but the fact that you state those very blatant things like "pretty content to sheep for now" gives me a town feeling. I wouldn't expect scum to say that type of thing and call attention to the fact that they're not participating.

I was looking at low contribution by post numbers in that first list.

[Tammy]

I've got a problem. I don't think either of our wagons is on scum, and time is running out. At this point, if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather vote Foxace. I am more confident in my Zdenek town read, I am unfamiliar with Foxace and there is more potential for surprise in his play, and Zdenek is in fact contributing something useful while Foxace has gone into defeatist mode. I would rather lynch someone other than these two. MoI is a given, as should be obvious from my vote. AV is another, due in part to his drunk posting and the absurdity of suggesting sheeping Mastin before he even knew which slot he replaced in. Then there is Jackal, whose recent posts have rung alarm bells.

My scumread on Zdenek isn't very strong right now because there's been a surprising (to me) amount of support voiced for his "questions are scummy" position, which increases the likelihood that it's a town stance that I disagree with as opposed to aggro scum.

I would prefer to lynch AV but I'm not sure if it's possible today, as I wasn't able to get people to vote him earlier.

It's a rather surprising stance to me as well. Asking lots of questions to provoke conversation in order to evaluate people is considered a good thing where I come from.

[Zar]

But regardless, I still have scumreads on: Foxace, Haze, greenknight, Lord Mhork, Tammy, norman and trekker in that order. I'm going to put my balls on the table and say that's our scumteams plus one town who is yet to be determined.

Okay. Can you tell us why they're your scumpicks?

[Zar]

BTW Tammy, if you think I'm scum why am I not among your list? <_<

[Tammy]

I'm voting you.

[Zar]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

[Tammy]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

Because I believe you're scum. You are parroting and you are deliberately mischaracterizing my intent. You know you are; don't even pretend like you aren't.

[Zar]

Maniacal Lemon / mastin2
#4 Believes aligment claim helps scum over town. - Null Tell.
#20 defends Shadoweh.
#23 Votes CoolDog (no reason given). Responds to #22 by Norman.
#56 claims to have voted CoolDog to get a reaction. Calls Magua's "Daykill" was a rection test.
#59 Thinks Foxace is sheeping Magua.
#68 Slight defense of Norman (just a troll, not scum).
#79 Implies giving Norman a Freepass
#86 Votes Norman after Magua's #80, looks OMGUS.
#305 "Norman is scummier and scummier"
#308 "Reacts to Norman's #306"
#319 Reaction to Norman's WTF #309
#380 points at an inconsistency in Norman's #321 vs. #335
#393 Follow-Up vote agaisnt Norman
#536 Calls Norman "Confusing as fuck", keeps vote on him, but has other scum reads.
#560. Votes top suspect CoolDog
#567. "Cool Dog is Mafia", disagrees to a Shadoweh, Tammy Mobs.
#572. Response to 569, says Norman still seems scummy. (no longer Obvscum), possibility of a Jester?
-
CONCLUSION: I find the previous holder of mastin's slot to be scummy. His contribution is basically limited to reacting to Norman. He's voting CoolDoog, but never gave reasons to his kondi, Pine, MoS scumreads.

As for mastin2:
#971 Votes scumread: Foxace

The rest is: his Hard Zdenek Defense. Mastin vs. The World
#1088 - #1090 - #1091 - #1094 - #1100 - #1126 - #1160 Hard Zdenek defense
Mastin: Why are you so focused on defending a player? Why are you not more interested in finding other suspicious players?

[Zar]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

Because I believe you're scum. You are parroting and you are deliberately mischaracterizing my intent. You know you are; don't even pretend like you aren't.

So, of all the players that suspect you, how many are mischaracterizing your intent?

[Tammy]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

Because I believe you're scum. You are parroting and you are deliberately mischaracterizing my intent. You know you are; don't even pretend like you aren't.

So, of all the players that suspect you, how many are mischaracterizing your intent?

You are doing it deliberately, and you know you are. Don't try and be all slimy asking me as if I don't know what you are doing.

Zdenek is doing it, but as I acknowledged to Feysal who has argued that he's seen Zdenek play this way, he might not be doing it deliberately.

You, however, are doing it deliberately and you know that you are. You know that I know you are. I'm not going to give you the same leeway as I'm giving Zdenek.

Serious question Zar. Why did you replace into this game?

[Zar]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

Serious question Zar. Why did you replace into this game?

Karmic Debt.

Anyway. I am not scum, though. So I'm trying to understand why you think I am.

[Tammy]

Question is: is it because you think I'm scum or is it because I don't trust you?

Serious question Zar. Why did you replace into this game?

Karmic Debt.

Anyway. I am not scum, though. So I'm trying to understand why you think I am.

Because I'm not scum, and you zeroing in on me and deliberately mischaracterizing my intent when you know that's not what I'm doing makes you scum.

[Tammy]

The feigned ignorance thing, however, I did see more in Peregrine V. In the original thread, his first response came AFTER CoolDog had come up with his theories that didn't coincide with the rules. Feysal responded and explained the set up to him, which prompted CoolDog to say he should have read the rules more carefully. Peregrine came in soon after with a joke vote on Skeletor after a joke vote on ManiacalLemon, then comment three was to the guy who posted the chic-pic along with agreeing with Feysal about his idea of no mass-claim, which means that he read Feysal's posts - which would indicate that he read CoolDog's confusion and Feysal's information about the setup. After LMP suggested his mass-claim, Peregrine responded and included this "But, it would actually depend on the evil wincon. Do the LE win if they wipe out the CG, or if they wipe out all good?" If he's reading the thread, then he read Feysal's explanation to CoolDog about the wincon. Why is he now confused? My role PM is quite clear on my wincon anyway, so I'm not sure how he can still be confused after Feysal explaining it. That was the last post in the first thread. This confusion coming after CoolDog's confusion and Feysal's explanation looks feigned.

I think the rule posts gave quite enough clues to figure out the setup. The most telling part is the one about winning factions and their surviving direct opponents leaving the game. To give a practical example of what this means, if chaotic evil scum ever outnumber the lawful good town, then the lawful good players are considered endgamed and leave the game. Same applies to lawful evil scum and chaotic good town. This means that there must be a roughly equal proportion of evil players among the lawful and chaotic players, otherwise the game balance would break much too easily when the first two factions leave.

What I can't be absolutely certain about is whether the lawful and chaotic players are balanced. In theory we could have something like 60% chaotic and 40% lawful, but I doubt it. My working assumption is that both factions are equal in size, and the scum teams are equal in size.

The worst danger I see in this setup stems from the towns having only one shared lynch. If we start arguing over whether to lynch suspected chaotic evil or lawful evil scum, we're headed for infighting and nothing good will come from it. Just because all lawful players can win together, as can all chaotic players, does not mean it would be a good idea to try. The scum teams will be trying to kill members of their respective town opponents whether we work with them or not. The towns are better off working together against both scum teams, and that is what I intend to do.

Rather than RVS, I want to discuss the possibility of a mass Lawful/Chaotic alignment claim. I think it would be beneficial because we can game the setup by aiming to lynch scum of the appropriate side. For instance, the first scum to die can be from either. But then we'd be better served as a joint-town to try and lynch scum from the other side. And then alternate, keeping as many townies in the game as possible. Then, when we think we're down to 1-1 scum left from each scum faction, we try to lynch the scum from the side with fewer townies still remaining, because when the final scum from that side leaves, so do all the townies from that side. This would give us the best chance at a double town win. Plus, by doing this, the scum will have their NKs targeted into a smaller pool, and we should get balanced NKs (one Lawful Good one Chaotic Good) each night, keeping either town from getting blown out by random double NKs. PLUS, the scum would have a greater chance of cross killing each other, which is important, because I think this is an interesting multiball variant where the scum are actually rewarded for NOT cross killing. And, lastly, it locks scum down on alignment from D1.

One downside I see is that it would allow the scum to never attempt an NK on the same player in the same night. But since the game is so large, that likelihood probably isn't that high anyways. Another other downside is the Druid sample PM implying that there may be non-Lawful/non-Chaotic roles, and if those roles were more likely PRs, it might cause outting PRs we don't want to out. I haven't really been able to think of any other downsides to doing this. Thoughts?

@LMP- Your idea has more town cross-purpose play involved.
CG<-->LE
LG<-->CE

But, it would actually depend on the evil wincon. Do the LE win if they wipe out the CG, or if they wipe out all good?
Logistically, if would be better for all town to work together, since good/evil play would be more apparent than lawful/chaotic/neutral play.

The posts involved. So which part am I "feigning"?

The part where I was suggesting possible feigned ignorance is the question about whether or not LE win if they wipe out the CG or if they wipe out all good. It is based on my experience that often scum will pretend they don't know these types of things. And as my wincon is quite clear in that once the evils directly opposed to me are eliminated and at least one of me is still alive, I have achieved my wincon; I imagine it would be exactly the opposite for the evil wincon. That Feysal had laid out the wincons in the one post, I was weary about your question.

However, it is a point in your favor that you're asking about the evil wincons because what Feysal lined out was the good wincons. That can be wifomed back and forth though, so...

That being said I've liked your contribution over the past week.