Micro 71: Lucid Dreamers - Night 4

[ProHawk]

You missed the second paragraph. Please respond.

[Empking]

You missed the second paragraph. Please respond.

I am not lynching based on the actions someone has made. I'm voting you and I've just said that I don't know your actual actions.

[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

[qwints]

For the record, the cop investigations are not guaranteed to be false - they just produce the unlikely scum team of empking and mit.

My number 1 target is still epmking.

[ProHawk]

qwints, whats your read on Mit?

[Mitillos]

@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

[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.

[Mitillos]

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.

[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.

[Empking]

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.

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.

[Mitillos]

Well, what I suggested isn't foolproof, but it can give us an indication. One thing I'm curious about is ProHawk's first claim. Does being a bomb make you only kill someone who shoots you, or the first one who interacts with you? Because, if it's the latter, it's not a safe-claim at all, because someone could then say "I investigated him", or something and that would make it obvious he was lying.

@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.

[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.

[Empking]

Well, what I suggested isn't foolproof, but it can give us an indication. One thing I'm curious about is ProHawk's first claim. Does being a bomb make you only kill someone who shoots you, or the first one who interacts with you? Because, if it's the latter, it's not a safe-claim at all, because someone could then say "I investigated him", or something and that would make it obvious he was lying.

Only on kills.

[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.

[Empking]

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.

1. They were verifiable they simply weren't verified because by some shock no town player targeted me. That's different from Pro's bomb claim that couldn't be falsified because his survival meant he wasn't targeted by a kill, and Pro's claimed redirection of Mit's action from qwints to, eh, qwints.
2. If someone claims first should they get townie points? Not a huge amount and I never said otherwise. You're the one trying to get us to ignore Pro's claiming of the one redirect action that he knew wouldn't be falsified; more importantly, you're the one trying to do that while not confronting it directly.

PEdit: Yeah, Zoid is scum faking illiteracy.

[ProHawk]

You are all cracking me up with this discussion about "unconfirmable/safe" claims being scum. Mostly because the majority of you voted to lynch Mist what had the MOST confirm able claim last game day. Emp, you are the biggest hypocrite in the room at the moment regarding this issue. I also think you are the lesser of the three people we should be lynching today (between Mit, qwints, and Emp). Also, my claim number from how I rank claims being the safest (the last people to claim have the greatest chance of making a safe claim) does not make me obv scum as I was no where near one of the last people to claim. Your logic is faulty, and really needs to be backed up in facts Emp.

Bomb should only kill someone who kills me, not targets.

[Mitillos]

So let's see where we are with potential lies being safe. Remember that scum could also have told the truth about their action.

First set of claims:

Siv siteflaked: Not completely safe. If someone tracked him or made his action public (is that allowed? it was in 56, not sure if it is here), he'd be outed. I think the probability of that is low, however, and Siv (if he were scum) may have thought the same.

Emp made himself untargetable: Very unsafe. If anyone targeted him with anything (e.g. an investigation), the lie would be obvious. It is still possible that Emp did exactly what he said, even as scum.

I investigated Siv: Very safe. Unless someone claimed to roleblock me or something, I'd be in the clear throughout. The only other weakness would be if someone else had also investigated Siv and got a result of nightmare instead.

qwints made mist reflective: Very safe. The only possibilities I can thing for, to show this claim as a lie would be someone successfully neighbourising Mist.

Pro turned himself into a bomb: Not sure about this one, it depends on my question in my previous post.

scream investigated Zoid: Very safe, unless scream is scum, Zoidberg is town AND Zoidberg made himself untargetable.

Zoid investigated scream: The safest so far, for obvious reasons.

Second set of claims:

I investigated qwints: Very safe, with the exception of qwints not being targetable, or me being roleblocked.

qwints made people who target him bulletproof: Very safe. In fact, this may be the second safest claim overall, given the lack of deaths.

Pro redirected my action to target qwints (ironically): Very safe. Anything that proves his action is a lie, does the same to mine (like someone else investigating qwints).

Zoid investigated Pro: As with all investigations, safe.

Siv made himself a dayvig: Completely safe. I don't even want to test the claim, in case we get two townie deaths today and put ourselves in LyLo or even lose, without scum even needing to do absolutely anything up to tonight.

Emp made himself untargettable: Safer than last time, since more people have made their claims by this point and only scream remains.

scream made himself bulletproof: Completely safe, again for obvious reasons.

p-edit: That's a lot of posts. Responses to those coming shortly.

[Mitillos]

@Zoidberg: No, being first doesn't make you town. I claimed first today, but my claim was completely safe. I am not cleared. Being last is not scummy, but it is definitely safe and can no longer be countered. Again, it is a possible scum tactic, but not proof of scumminess. I think you are upset because it seems like I'm trying to make a case against you based solely on the fact that you didn't your claims early. This is not true. I know that not everyone is equally active and would not make such a spurious case. Also, if someone claims ascetic they can be easily countered by someone who investigates them. For example, if Pro had said he made himself ascetic, the fact that you investigated him successfully would make it obvious he was lying. And he didn't know at that point if anyone would claim that they investigated him. So, claiming ascetic early is hardly safe.
Also, please don't call me a retard. You may be smarter than me, but I'm not a complete idiot. I never said that claiming first makes you town. I never said that claiming last makes you scum. I said that scum are more likely to make safe claims (not necessarily last, just safe).

@Pro: Mist's action being confirmable was less important than it being anti-town. We don't quite have that sort of action claimed today. And again, order of claims is not equivalent to safety of claims. My claim was first today and yet very safe.

Also, now that I know how the bomb works, Pro's first claim was also safe, since no one died.

Unvote

I think Zoid's response to all this is townish.

[Siveure DtTrikyp]

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?

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

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

Hangon, just realized the most BS thing about pro's action. It only works if both mit and qwints are scum. If he's convinced they're both scum, or even that just mit is scum, why not make mit target himself?

VOTE: Prohawk

[Zoidberg]

Also, please don't call me a retard

Sorry. Uncalled-for.

[qwints]

Siv, I buy that prohawk went into last night thinking mit and I are scum.

Pro, I see Mit as more likely town. I don't buy scum clearing people two nights into a rown

[T-Bone]

Chill out with the language guys.

[Mitillos]

It's cool.

[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.