Micro 71: Lucid Dreamers - Night 4

[Zoidberg]

\confirm

[Zoidberg]

Derp. /bows to T-bone

[Zoidberg]

Whoa, this game is moving quick.

VOTE: empking[/quote]

Also:

The zoidberg vote is for his stupidity in not submitting an action in the last game.

Yep, that was really bad and we totally won in spite of me, not because of me. I'll make sure that I don't fuck up again.

[Zoidberg]

WOW. Fucking it up already.

VOTE: empking

[Zoidberg]

Wagon ho!

VOTE: Empking

Hey bro, why the quick switch from me to empking?

[Zoidberg]

You think?

7 posts, one of which is /confirm, and the other one is a doublepost.

So... 5 posts?

[Zoidberg]

Either our plans will be good and disallowed by the mod, or they will be bad and mafia will take advantage of them.

Yep, sadly this looks like the case, but oh well. I just want to point out that I was right in 56. There was a broken strategy and we found it

Discussing possible actions, without plans may sound like a good idea at first, but remember that mafia gets more information that way too. It's best to think of your own actions and act on them in secret, in this situation. Then on D2, we can discuss what we all did and try to find any liars. At least that's what I think, in this case. Also, good comments and questions. Keep it up.

I'm on the fence about this. Fundamentally, the game is still about informed minority vs uninformed majority, so information and discussion is going to benefit town and scum, but

in theory it will benefit town more than it will benefit scum.

However, I do agree with you that

on D1

it doesn't make sense. Whether or not that's the case for subsequent days remains to be seen.

Currently not really liking qwits and prohawk.

Need more from Siveure dtTryasasdfadf.

[Zoidberg]

Um, I can't really tell much.

Piggy has a eensy weensy townread from me, so can't take that wagon.

Don't really support the whole empking wagon.

VOTE: Mist7676

For trying to derail a wagon that could have gotten us information. Sure it will crash and burn, but it's already going so maybe stop trying to crash it?

I think I'm developing a dislike for catchup posts...

But if you are voting me, aren't you already derailing the wagon?

You're suggesting he should put Empking at L-1 on the 4th page?

[Zoidberg]

Don't really like the piggy wagon, especially L-1 so early. Definitely don't want a lynch without much more content from Siveure and some others.

But more than that I don't like Prohawk's reasoning:

Today we No Lynch.

And

Well that sucks plan wise :/
Therefore I will say, DON'T BE A HERO AND TRY TO VIG SOMEONE TONIGHT.

I'm serious here, RC got LUCKY last game. I doubt we'll get that lucky again.

Hmmm... All the role ideas I had are now unusable, which is saddening...

Here.

No-Lynch... and RC got Lucky? I would have vigged/lynched Klick myself if I would have been playing.

Both of these points are bad. Had a no-lynch occurred, Klick would not have hammered town (his most scummy post IMO). Had Klick not been vigged, he wouldn't have been lynched D2 because he would have faked his death. It was not a random vig target from what I saw.

My read on you - scummy. I see someone posting pro-town ideas with ulterior motives. Discuss/explain.

Calling for no-lynch while also calling for no hero-vigilantism is logically consistent and doesn't show any cognitive dissonance.

[Zoidberg]

Did I say he had to vote Empking?

Who were you suggesting he vote for, then? Piggy?

[Zoidberg]

Piggy has a eensy weensy townread from me, so can't take that wagon.

Whoa there, nugget. Why can't you vote someone who says they have a town read on you?

VOTE: Siveure Dtsomething

[Zoidberg]

Did I say he had to vote Empking?

Who were you suggesting he vote for, then? Piggy?

Seriously? I am not telling him to vote anyone, he can vote for whoever he wants for I just pointed out a quirk in his statement. Stop trying to throw mud at my by stretching the truth.

Well, when you say that voting for you would de-rail the wagon that implies that voting for you is bad.

Therefore you are saying there is a better candidate.

Maybe that was just an "anyone but me"-response? I don't know.

[Zoidberg]

I get it. You don't like me. You have said it twice.

Oh hey... listen I didn't mean that I personally dislike you.

When I say "I don't like XYZ" I meant "I don't find this to be pro-town".

Please don't take it as me saying "I dislike you as a person/poster/player"

[Zoidberg]

I think you're the scummiest one so far

Why aren't you voting your top scum read, then/

UNVOTE:
It wasn't really serious, I don't serious vote until later.

Please start playing the game seriously

[Zoidberg]

So even if you find both nightmares

Speaking of scum slips.... I don't see where it says there are 2 scum.

[Zoidberg]

some of us feel a little left out of your little powow

Can't this be said about any game you weren't a part of?

[Zoidberg]

My only point was that the 3 of them (or 4, I don't care how many - including you, I might add) keep making it seem like

that

game is relevant to

this

game.

That

was

that

game,

this

is

this

game. Some of us weren't in

that

game so for us it isn't fucking relevant what happened in

that

game and it won't ever be IMO.

I'm with mitillos on this one... meta is always relevant.

Stop thinking over

that

game - it distracts from

this

game.

I agree that focusing on a different game disctracts from scumhunting in this one. I think if you go back through the thread (or my posts, at least) you'll find I have been making very few references to #56 in terms of why people are or are not scum.

Yes, they are the same setup. Yes, they contain some of the same players.

But whatever hidden benefit this conversation holds for you select few, it does nothing at all for the rest of us. Explain your reads when you say shit like "oh he's Town because he was Town in that game and he's acting the same in this game" or whatever,

This goes back to meta. If someone is acting the same as they were in a known town game, then that is 100% legitimate to use as part of a read in any subsequent games.

but discussion about events or strategies that happened and could only happen in a single game should hold no place in this one. That's my point. Now stop it.

Fine, fair. On this point at least, I'll take some of the blame for wanting to gloat about being right in the other game. I'll leave it be.

AdditionBWODP:

What Mitillos just said about Micro 56 is a perfect example of something that's actually relevant between the games. Looking at 2 games of the same size and setup and assuming the number of Scum based on the similarities between the two games isn't a Scumslip, it's good reasoning. I assumed there were 2 Scum as well, because that's usually the case in all Micros. Why try and paint that assumption as a Scumslip, Zoidberg?

~Both signed M

Are you saying you know there are 2 scum and not 3?

[Zoidberg]

Huh. You're right, it doesn't say that anywhere. I assumed it'd be 2, partly because it's a 9 player game and partly because there were 2 in 56. There could be 3. Do you think that's likely, though?

I don't see any reason why 7:2 is more

or

less likely than 6:3.

It's a closed setup, and I am not going to assume there are 2 scum when there could just as easily be 3.

[Zoidberg]

Um, I think we could potentially all do useless and confirmable actions at night, to prevent scum from doing anything except one of those useless yet confirmable actions.

I veto this proposal.

Yep, I'm not going to cooperate this time. The mod has already made it clear that he will not allow any plan that would allow town to win solely by coordinating night actions, without the need to scumhunt during the day.

So it'll either backfire or it won't be allowed.

[Zoidberg]

Fair enough

[Zoidberg]

Take a stance on something Zoid.

You mean like on Siveure being scum? ok

[Zoidberg]

Whooooooops, you're right, I misread "from" as "on"

UNVOTE:

Re-reading

[Zoidberg]

Prod dodge, brother is in from out of town, I'll be back tomorrow.

[Zoidberg]

Still wishing for the promised post from Zoid and not seeing how your play could get any better post D1 Piggy...

Relax bro, I said I'd be back today and today's not over. I've been busy IRL and can't dedicate 24x7 to mafia.

[Zoidberg]

I know certain characters in this thread don't like it if we talk about the "other game" aka Micro 56

But, go read Piggy's play D1 that game and compare it to this game. She's

much

more "lah de dah" this game, and posting more light-hearted fluffy stuff. Obviously she was town in Micro 56, so the marked change in her play is interesting to me, especially given her refusal to take the game seriously.

[Zoidberg]

Mist, how come you aren't voting?

[Zoidberg]

Intent to hammer.

[Zoidberg]

Also yes, I am against discussing night plans.

We already know that any plan we make will either be rejected by the mod or have a scum-friendly flaw in it, so I'm against making plans more specific than "let's all self-doc" or similar.

[Zoidberg]

Zoid, why do you have the intent to hammer Piggy?

Because deadline is looming and I am

not

going to no-lynch

Zoid, why announce intent to hammer in this sort of game?

I don't understand the question.

[Zoidberg]

Also, since I am against coordinating our night actions, and I have already seen a consensus in the voting,

Vote: Piggy

Last note: Yes, I know I just contradicted myself in one post by voting Piggy, but the reason I didn't vote before, was because I didn't know if the town was ready to go into our night/day phase

Well, that's that I guess.

[Zoidberg]

Zoid, why announce intent to hammer in this sort of game?

I don't understand the question.

I think it's basically saying that the only reason for intent to hammer is to get a claim from the about to be hammered person, not everyone else.

Oh, I see. Yes obviously I wasn't looking for a claim. I just wanted to make it known that I would hammer rather than no-lynch if deadline was about to hit.

Also, please, if anyone wants to vig mist for that, let's not make it two or three of us. Does anyone want to claim responsibility to do it?

I don't think we should be vigging N1.

[Zoidberg]

Yeah, let's claim out:
I made myself an Aesthetic.

Silv looks like he's been post-restricted.

Why not use something investigative?

[Zoidberg]

I got an innocent on scream.

I'm very put-off by Mist's choice, though. Post restrictions are not town-motivated. At best you're just lowering the signal:noise ratio in teh thread which makes it easier for scum to blend in. At worse you're going to cause a mislynch if the person reacts differently than you expected him/her to.

[Zoidberg]

Oh god. Now I have vague unformulated suspicions I can't voice.

I'm going to make sure of something with T-Bone.

Why can't you voice them?

[Zoidberg]

Can't find aesthetic in the wiki, but alright.

It's "ascetic," not "aesthetic".

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Ascetic

[Zoidberg]

Sorry guys. Super hectic weekend. I'll try to post tomorrow am.

[Zoidberg]

I'm still catching up, but just so you can see that I haven't stolen anyone's vote:

VOTE: Mitillos

[Zoidberg]

If we had at least taken a little time to plan out N1 this sortof shit could've been avoided, but NO that's just completely out of the question.

Are you serious with this post?

We already know that any concrete plan will be mod-rejected.

I don't see how that's such a tough concept.

[Zoidberg]

Here's what struck me as odd about Mist. She is showing a serious lack of internal consistency with her reasoning here. Spoiler tags to avoid a textwall:

Spoiler: She assumes he would be cautious, and caution would be a scumtell

O.o why me?

And I am the one that gave Siv he post restriction. Every third post he makes he has to claim scum.

I assumed, if he is scum, he would do it in such a cautious way it doesn't seem real, but he is outright saying he is scum, I believe he is town.

Spoiler: Siv must explicitly post "I admit I am scum"

Checking back it wasn't "claim scum" He just has to post "I admit I am scum."

Spoiler: qwints' question touches on how much leeway Mist gave Siv

So Mist, you thought that Siv might try to be "sneaky" in saying "I admit I am scum"?

Spoiler: Mist says that saying it outright is townish, when that's what she required him to do?

Well, I wanted to see how he took the PR.
He just says it outright, which makes me believe He is town.

1. Puts a post restriction on Siv
   
2. When he follows the restriction, she says he's town
   
3. Had he broken the restriction, he would I guess be scum?!?!

Of course, by that logic Siv can either be town or modkilled, so there's really no way for Siv to fail this "test."

Leaving aside the merits of giving someone a post restriction (which IMO is almost universally anti-town) for a moment, I can't decide if this is mistscum trying to throw down a smokescreen for her partner or if this is mistscum trying to gain towncred, but it's definitely one of these two scenarios.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Mist

[Zoidberg]

Well, this post:

I'm pretty sure you haven't stolen anyone's vote as there'd not be 7 votes out already, zoid.

Said to me that we weren't so concerned about that. Also a Mist vote should be just as much evidence as a whoever vote, shouldn't it? I would assume nobody made me a doublevoter, and since I know I didn't steal someone's vote my conscience is clear in this regard.

If you

really

want me to go back to Siv, then just say so.

[Zoidberg]

Your vote was on me before Mist, not Siv.

So it was. I just picked someone who was in no danger of being lynched at the time; shows you how much thought I put into it beyond that.

who would her most likely partner be?

Gut says it's Siv, but I'd prefer not to do a great deal of partner-speculation until we actually have a confirmed scum.

[Zoidberg]

Not buying it.

[Zoidberg]

@Hawk and Siv: Your biggest scumread seems to be Emp. Who would his most likely partner be?

Speaking for myself, I've hit the brick wall of no reads and no motivation. Um...

Also, I'd probably have just lurked megahard were I to I admit I am scum.

Emp, why am I the obvious scum? Based on night actions, unless I'm lying about siteflaking (which I'm not), I'm scum with mitillos if I'm scum, and mist did some weird stuff to me, or I'm scum with mist and lied about siteflaking

Also, why lie about a siteflake as scum?

(Massive WIFOM, but this WIFOM is a big and unnecessary risk for scum. Seriously).

Anyway. To get at least a little bit of a read.

VOTE: Zoidberg

Maybe I just need my mid-day coffee but I've read this post three times and still really not sure what Siv is trying to say.

[Zoidberg]

Speaking for myself, I've hit the brick wall of no reads and no motivation. Um...

If you've hit this point you should ask the mod to replace you.

[Zoidberg]

Yeah, I'm never a help to town unless it's a breakable setup.

That's three times now you've basically flat-out said you're dead weight. That is not town motivated.

[Zoidberg]

Er, yeah zoid. Is it scum-motivated either? It happens as town who isn't really taking things very seriously.

I'm sorry, are you trying to play your lack of participation as pro-town?

[Zoidberg]

Anyway, I'm sortof reading somewhat scummy on zoid.

Ah yes, that standard tactic.

[Zoidberg]

This head is V/LA, but whatever.

I just noted that Siv's last "scum-claim" was 4 posts ago in his ISO. And he didn't get modkilled. So the scumteam is Siv-Mist. Good game everyone.

~m a.k.a. Head #2

Could also be just T-bone hasn't seen it/isn't paying attention.

[Zoidberg]

Do we really think scum Mist would place a fake post restriction on Scum Siv and neither would kill somebody? The only way I see that happening is one godfathering Siv and the other shooting empking.

Why does one have to have shot empking?

[Zoidberg]

If they are scum and if they shot someone, the only possible target is Empking, as he was the only one protected from kills, according to the claims. But those are two rather huge "if"s.

Right, which is why I asked.

[Zoidberg]

Needs moar Mist votes.

[Zoidberg]

Also, delayed kill is what I was considering setting up as town... Um, when I get to the scum possibilities I shiver in dread.

What?

[Zoidberg]

Also, delayed kill is what I was considering setting up as town... Um, when I get to the scum possibilities I shiver in dread.

What?

Seriously... can you explain what you mean by this?

[Zoidberg]

Um, why should I?

Because clarity and transparency are pro-town.

Are you saying you were going to set up a delayed kill on N1, not having any investigation info available?

[Zoidberg]

@Scream and Zoid, why did you choose to investigate the other? Was there any reasoning behind the action?

I simply chose someone I felt unlikely to be the target of a kill, and also unlikely to be the target of jailkeepers/etc.

[Zoidberg]

mod, can we have a vote count please?

[Zoidberg]

[Zoidberg]

... get it?

[Zoidberg]

Qwints and Mit scumteam. The quicklynch with a delayed kill, be smart with your night actions.

I thought strategizing and shit was frowned upon in twilight

[Zoidberg]

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to jump down your throat or anything.

[Zoidberg]

Are you seriously town? What the fuck was that post restriction going to accomplish?

[Zoidberg]

She already explained herself...

Yeah, not that I believed her the first time. I refuse to believe town would think that that is a good idea.

[Zoidberg]

Yep.

[Zoidberg]

Hi, didn't see the day had started.

I got an innocent on ProHawk.

[Zoidberg]

@Hawk: qwints' actions aside, if I were scum, why would I want to clear 2 people? Even if I were scumbuddies with qwints, what's the scum motivation for clearing Siv on D2? Particularly when he said he was admitting he was scum, repeatedly and I could have just let things go on for a bit, to see what happened. Also, why would we, as the scumteam, draw attention to ourselves, by voting in tandem, like that? Does that really look like a coordinated action, to you?

Soooo much WIFOM in this statement.

Remember that the mod confirmed yesterday that the mafia can converse whenever it wants.

IMO daytalk means they can coordinate on the fly, so super-convoluted plans will be more likely, not less.

[Zoidberg]

Unless we have a guilty, I'm not sure we should be vigging.

[Zoidberg]

Modnote: The holidays equal me working a lot. Expect votecounts sparsely.

Vote: Empking

This is not an accusatory vote. It is simply to test votecounts again. If scum planned to interfere with voting, then they may feel safer doing it for today, since we already checked yesterday.

We're not actually going to wait for a votecount, are we? Votecounts in this game were rare to begin with... we could be waiting days.

[Zoidberg]

@Emp: Do you mean Zoid? There's no Zorb. If so, Zoid, could you vote scream to get this out of the way?

VOTE: scream

[Zoidberg]

Like to do an iso on everyone. Reads incoming tomorrow.

[Zoidberg]

Reads so far:

Empking - leaning scum. Mostly because of consistent "cover his ass" behaviour (aka not really helping town at all) and IMO his scumhunting attempts seem half-hearted. Voting Mist while Fossing Prohawk also felt kinda contrived IMO, but that might just be hindsight talking.

Siveure Dtwhatever - definitely leaning scum. He basically coasted through the first two days and flat-out admitted he wasn't helping town. I see a scum motivation behind his dayvig, so that scum (having daytalk) can frame somebody for Siv to vig. When that person flips town, Siv can be like "oh, i'm totally not scummy because town decided who to kill" which is all WIFOM anyways.

Mitillos - I have a lot of trouble reading him, to be honest. I can see both town AND scum motivations behind a lot of what he does. His N1 innocent on Siv could be due to Siv godfathering (no kill), but could also be scum trying to gain townie creds by "clearing" townies.

qwints - leaning town.

VOTE: Siveure

[Zoidberg]

@Zoidberg: You claimed the exact same thing I did; two innocent investigations. The first one, I might add, quite helpfully on someone whose own investigation cleared you. Yet, you say that my actions could have scum motivation behind them. Was that a mild scumslip on your part? You also say that Siv is scum, yet I might be trying to gain towncred by "clearing" townies. Contradiction?

Unvote

Vote: Zoidberg

Maybe it's just too early in the morning but I don't see the contradiction there. You'll notice I said that I can see both town and scum motivations behind your claimed actions. If you were scum and Siv was town then what I said is perfectly logical, and please note my use of the word

could

, which implies a hypothetical.

I didn't vote you because I don't think that Siv is town.

[Zoidberg]

OK, so you're not that certain on Siv being scum. Then there is no contradiction. That's fine. But it's still true that you said that my actions could be scummy, which means that yours could be equally (if not more, what with the cross-investigation with scream) scummy.
Somehow, I doubt Siv is scum. In that case, he'd have to have Godfathered himself (or his partner did it for him, which comes to the same thing). Why would he claim to have siteflaked, when all he had to do was wait to see what everyone said they did and then make a safe claim? Incidentally, the last claim for D2 was you and the one for D3 was scream.
Actually, we should probably look at the order in which claims were made, see whose looked like a safe claim at the time they made it. Or at least safe enough. I'll do that later.

Ehh, I'm not so sure how much stock you can put in the claim order. The first night, T-Bone had to send out a PM because nobody realized the thread was open save one or two of us. Activity is not an indicator of alignment.

[Zoidberg]

Thisd is a very very bad post. As in a scum post, one only needs to look at the first three posts of today to see that. Right here, Zoid is clearly creating a false argument to knock down Mit's (absolutely correct) method of finding the scum; it is also an sly defense of Pro since it's claim order that makes Pro obvious as scum.

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone claims first you automatically grant them townie points? Your bullshit claims are just as un-verifiable and just as anti-town.

[Zoidberg]

@Zoid: It is true that people were less active, but the point is, if scum lied, they had to make their lies convincing. Part of being convincing is making your claim at a point where you know it can be taken as truthful. Again, this is not a 100% indication that someone is scum, just evidence of scum-motivation.

No, I wholly reject the premise that claiming last equals scummy.

I agree that scum CAN use it as a tactic, and yes it's easier to fakeclaim if you're going last, but let's look at the situation objectively: This is lucid, and you can claim any action. There's no need to go last because you can just claim Ascetic or Commuter or Bomb or pretty much whatever. You can claim these things and go first.

But apparently there are two retards in the thread who think that if you claim first you are automatically not scum. Am I taking crazy pills here? Seriously what the fuck?

[Zoidberg]

If you guys ACTUALLY think that claim order makes a lick of difference in a Lucid game, you're either naive or scummy.

Whatever. I need to calm down/stop slacking off at work. Be back later.

[Zoidberg]

Also, please don't call me a retard

Sorry. Uncalled-for.

[Zoidberg]

I think it's that if they claim last they're more likely to be scum.

Again, I wholly reject that premise, unless you've got some statistics to back it up.

Especially

for Lucid games.

Also, the logic behind my whole dayvig being scum looking for towncred is wrong. I'd be scum looking for nullcred, and it's easier to just shoot somebody at night than try to argue my choice of a vig.

You have daytalk, so convoluted plans are going to be easier to implement. Occam's Razor doesn't apply in mafia games.

Putting aside for a moment the mess of WIFOM you're trying to hide behind, trying to make a distinction between towncred and "nullcred" ( ) is silly. Either way it could be construed to push town opinion of you away from "scummy". Whether that's only as far as "null" or whether it passes null and reaches "townie" is irrelevant.

I assume any protective actions last until the next dream phase.

@mod, can we get confirmation on this please?

Dangerous to assume.

[Zoidberg]

I'd support a vigging of empking

I'd support it as well.

[Zoidberg]

@qwints: But not scream?

Speaking of scream... let's get them in here.

[Zoidberg]

Zoid: a) Do you disagree with post 517? b) Do you think I fakeclaimed day one?

a) I agree that your actions have not been remotely pro-town, yes.

b) I think you probably didn't fakeclaim D1, but that doesn't make you town, ESPECIALLY since there were no night kills.

[Zoidberg]

That's nice but you're suggesting I be vigged not lynched. So you think I made myself ascetic N1 and didn't N2, why do you think I changed my approach?

It depends what mod's answer is to the actions carrying over question.

[Zoidberg]

You'll have to be patient, then.

I'm skiing in Kamloops this weekend, so I'll have limited access. Unsure if the place we're staying has wifi or not. I'll try to check in at least once.

V/LA until monday evening

[Zoidberg]

All right,

unvote

while I figure out what the fuck is going on.

[Zoidberg]

I'm okay with the other two, I suppose, but I won't support a Qwints lynch. Qwints is town.

[Zoidberg]

What the fuck, I have an innocent on Scream.

VOTE: Siveure

[Zoidberg]

@Emp: Well, it used a different format than when he fake-vigged Pro. It could be true, so if it is, I'd like to hear more from scream, before he dies.
@scream: Well? No time like the present to give us your thoughts.

Technically the rules say no "last words" posts.

2. Once you die in this game you may not post any more. Not even a "Bah/Go Team" post. Please save it for the post-game thread.

[Zoidberg]

Good game guys. Scream and I totally didn't consider that there might be an SK in a game so small, which was our undoing. Funny thing was, as soon as we were dead and the game was still on, I knew it was emp

Looking for feedback on my play, constructive or otherwise.

Also: WHY DID NOBODY INVESTIGATE US NIGHT 2?!?!?!