Mini 1405: The Simpsons Mafia (Game Over)

[Ser Arthur Dayne]

Vote Count 1.03

• guille2015 (3) -
  Plessiez, sword_of_omens, Lord Mhork
  
• D3f3nd3r (3) -
  Baby Spice, The Rufflig, qwints
  
• Lord Mhork (2) -
  DoubleJD, guille2015
  
• DoubleJD (2) -
  D3f3nd3r, Klick
  
• Plessiez (1) -
  saulres
  
• havingfitz (1) -
  Ztife
  
• Baby Spice (0) -
  
  
• Klick (0) -
  
  
• saulres (0) -
  
  
• qwints (0) -
  
  
• sword_of_omens (0) -
  
  
• The Rufflig (0) -
  
  
• Ztife (0) -
  
  
  
  
• Not Voting (1) – havingfitz

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline is ~11am EST Jan 13

[/i][/area]

[The Rufflig]

@Ruffling: post 41, I dont get this. The other guy can either say "not uh", or has to admit it basically. You dont have to read jack so long as you're aware of the meta's age. I read this as a defense of mhork, do you think hes town or something?

Really? I thought it was quite clear myself. Oh well. Let me break it down some more. 1) I don't know most of you. 2) I don't know how well you guys are at identifying and applying meta. 3) Therefore, the meta arguments you guys make are unlikely to sway me one way or another.

If you want to call that a defense of mhork, you may do so - I don't care.

[The Rufflig]

(1) If posts 10, 18 and 26 are why you were voting for D3f3nd3r, why did you not vote for him at the time?

(2) What happen between your post 27 and your post 53 that made you decide it was necessary to comment on the value of a name-claiming plan. Was somebody other than D3f3nd3r pushing this plan? Who?

(3) What do you think about the wagon on guille? Or should I read your 41 as saying you won't be reading over the linked games to check whether guille was misprepresenting the events of Open 455?

Also, your 58 rings some alarms. D3f3nd3r (correctly) asks why disagreeing with him means you have to vote for him, and you shrug the question off with a joking non-answer. Do you always assume that somebody pushing an idea you disagree with is scum?

1) It was just post 26. The others weren't unambiguous enough for me to conclude that D3f3nd3r was testing the waters for a mass name claim.

2) Nothing really. Other than the game appeared to have shifted out of RVS, so it seemed like a good time to get rid of my random vote.

3) Not much. It mostly seems to be based about events in a different game. My personal feeling is "I don't give a damn about what happened in another game" followed by a healthy disbelief that scum would brazenly try and discredit someone with a faulty meta case right off the bat as the predictable backlash would make the scum look really bad. Which doesn't mean Guile can't be scum, I just doubt he was trying to pull a fast one.

(4) I'm sorry you didn't like the joke. I could also have said that I had just came out of a game where scum floated the idea of a mass claim early day 1 and therefore I was voting for D3f3nd3r, but it didn't seem worth the effort. I thought my vote coupled with my stated disagreement of a mass name claim was sufficient grounds to justify my vote.

[Baby Spice]

The mod's post in the queue gives the following (my bold):

In post 1516, Ser Arthur Dayne wrote:Notes:

This is a bastard game setup! I will repeat, this is a bastard game setup! Sign up at your own discretion.
The setup is partly based on different agendas. So a player might have a secret agenda in addition to their factional win condition.
Expect... strange... things to happen. Or not!
The only thing I will guarantee is there is NO Cult faction or Jester faction.


So ... what is the bastard element of this game?

Different agenda's is the main one I spotted. Probably because I played one a few years back. Chances are that there will be roles who have an agenda to target other roles in some way. The second element I spoted was to do with factional win con's. Again I played in a game a few years ago where some of the players had two win cons. (Iirc, mine was get a certain player dead by my hand or vote, and win with the town. Ah fun times) With the guarentee of no jesters or cults, I'm expecting something to do with the above.
A possible lesser chance is random item drop but that doesn't seem to fit the theme. (Random item drop is swingy as hell, so slightly bastard)

Your post was a classic example of why people should use more context. ie: You didn't know what it was about. Neither did I. It was a good lead in to the rant.

[Lord Mhork]

And for whatever dude commented on me not moving my vote, why should I have? It wasn't doing any harm and I didn't really have a better home for it, yeah?

That would have been me. I'm lazy, can you point me to recent games of yours so I can what you normally do with your RVS votes. Games where you've discussed them at length would be ideal. Thanks.

I don't really have a theme for RVSing. Usually I make them, stuff happens, and I move them accordingly.

[Ztife]

Its notable that Klick hasn't been commenting much on his self-vote other than letting us know that he has done this before. I agree with qwints in post 66 that it creates a vacuum and is a more scummy move than a pro-town one, if not for flavour restrictions.

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars. It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim. However I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

Vote: Defender

[Lord Mhork]

I can agree that the name claim would prolly have merit, but have you given thought to the possibility that some roles might be stronger if they know flavor? Or if knowing flavor would help private win conditions? 'Course we may have a flavor cop, so that could help... I'm torn.

[DoubleJD]

Im against it. There are "famous" cops and doctors on the show, name claiming outs them. I dont see how this is close or why its such a big discussion.

@Ztife, have you played a theme before? If you answer yes, how many? This is important.

[saulres]

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars. It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim.

Or, it gives scum an idea on who to target, while they hide behind fakeclaims which I've seen mods give before. I can still see no town value in revealing names.

My personal feeling is "I don't give a damn about what happened in another game"

<snip>

I could also have said that I had just came out of a game where scum floated the idea of a mass claim early day 1 and therefore I was voting for D3f3nd3r

Reconcile those two for me please?

pedit: DoubleJD gets it.

[DoubleJD]

Secrets out. Ztife, i think you're scum unless this is like your 1st or 2nd theme. Its fairly common for scum to have fake claims from my understanding, so i dont see how your point about finding liars helps at all.

[Baby Spice]

Im against it. There are "famous" cops and doctors on the show, name claiming outs them. I dont see how this is close or why its such a big discussion.

I doubt that the names will equate to roles. I doubt that the mod failed to provide good fake claims to the scum, though it has happened.
I also worry that there are roles that target specific names.

Too early for a name claim.

[Plessiez]

Trying to get a mass name claim without a good reason and while trying to avoid responsibility is a sure fire scum tell.

Interesting theory. Except now D3f3nd3r, Mhork and Ztife have

all

tried to do just this. Do you believe all three are scum?

I was semi-serious about name claiming:

if we do, it's a double-edged sword, both sides benefit

.

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim

. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars.

It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim

. However I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

I can agree that the name claim would prolly have merit, but

have you given thought to the possibility that some roles might be stronger if they know flavor? Or if knowing flavor would help private win conditions? 'Course we may have a flavor cop, so that could help...

I'm torn

.

All three have suggested a mass name-claim, and all three have been sure while doing so to point out that a mass name-claim might not actually help the town. Do you still trust your "sure-fire scum tell"?

Or do you believe (as I do) that this is actually a sign that all three are inexperienced in this sort of theme game? (By "this sort of game" I mean: "theme games in which a mass name-claim is possible", since obviously there are theme games where people aren't given uniquely named roles at all). Personally, I don't believe in any "sure-fire" scum-tells, and I'm always a bit dubious when people claim to use such a thing.

[Plessiez]

Baby Spice

-- you seem to have missed a question I asked:

Since you've read 48 though, do you mind sharing your thoughts on Mhork/guille2015? Or ... well, anybody but D3f3nd3r, really.

Add Rufflig to the list of people I'd like to hear your opinion on.

[The Rufflig]

Reconcile those two for me please?

Seriously? You're trying to tie together a universal scum read that does not require reading a specific game which can apply to anyone who makes it and a meta read that requires you to have read a specific game and only applies to a single solitary person in that game? Good luck with that, scum.

[Plessiez]

After reading 59 and 82, I think DoubleJD is my strongest town read at the moment. Like him, I am bemused that mass name-claiming suddenly became such a talked about option -- it's obviously not a good idea, and I think it's a waste of time to discuss it today.

Ztife, i think you're scum unless this is like your 1st or 2nd theme.

Since I have too much time on my hands today, I can tell you it's not Ztife's first theme game. It's not D3f3nd3r or Mhork's first theme game either, in fact. But only one of them has played in a game where an early mass name-claim was an option. More on this below.

Ztife has, as far as I can tell by the site's search function, played in two completed theme games: The Werewolves of Millers Hollow and Mini 808. But if you look at these games, players did not get uniquely-named roles, so they aren't really relevant -- a mass name-claim was never on the table, so playing in these games wouldn't have taught Ztife that early mass name-claims are a bad idea.

Similarly, D3f3nd3r seems to have played in three theme games (recall that I asked him about this in 29). But (consistent with what he said in his reply, 30), a mass-claim was never an option in those games either. In both Mini 1344 and Judge, Jury and Executioner players did not have uniquely named characters as role name. And in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, although every player

did

have a unique character-name, in this game the character names were revealed in the starting post by the mod. So, again, not a relevant example - there was no option for a "mass name claim".

Finally, Lord Mhork seems to have played in two theme games. These were Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos and the (just finished) Mini 1396. The first game didn't have uniquely-named characters for roles, but the second one did. (It doesn't seem that Mhork - who was town in Mini 1396-- was tempted to suggest a mass name-claim in that game, either, for whatever that's worth).

In summary

- all three people talking about a mass name-claim are obviously inexperienced. Although they have all played in theme games before, only one of them (Mhork) has played in even one theme game where everybody has a uniquely named role.

That said, I really think this whole discussion is a waste of time, and that calls for a mass name-claim are signs that a player is inexperienced in this sort of game, not indications of alignment. If I had to pick a suspect from the three, I'd pick Ztife (who is calling for a name-claim

and

voting D3f3nd3r, which seems weird given the reason most people are voting D3f3nd3r). But I really have no solid read on any of them, yet. Guille2015 and TheRufflig are much more suspicious, in my opinion. Would prefer to see pressure put on either one of them.

[havingfitz]

Read of page one...saulres has my attention.

I like Pless' comments wrt to guille and SoO's subsequent comments on it.

I think the guille thing is good D1 suspicion fodder.

VOTE: guille

I also do not like the name claim discussion from D3f3nd3r but I swear...every game I have ever been in with him I have wanted to see him lynched. IMO his playstyle just seems to make him easy mislynch (no I do not know if he is town in this game) material so I think I would avoid his wagon today unless he does something really telling (moreso than suggesting a name claim).

Annnnd so we have another name claim fan plus a vote on D3f....

FoS

Ztife.

@Rufflig...do you really think saulres is scum?

[Klick]

So

Klick

-- what do

you

think about the people who joined your wagon? Any read on either yet?

(Also, Klick, you're an alt of kondi, right? Otherwise Open 434 doesn't really give any meta for your scum play... assuming the answer to that question is 'yes', I'll read that game later.)

Neither of them seemed to be seriously voting IMO. In that aspect, it was a failure.

And yes, I am kondi.

@Klick, why does guile's 28 make him look town?

First of all, your post is too big for Page 3.

Second, for one, it's getting us further from RVS, which is always a good thing. Other than that, I'd call it a gut read. His attack on Mhork doesn't feel faked.


There are way too many mini-walls in this game, especially for it being Page 4.

[sword_of_omens]

@Omens post 55, what do you make of this "wouldnt be so careless" argument?

Not sure i understand your question, here? To clarify my statement, Guille’s wording to Morkh was this:

But then you confirmed as a sure thing. Saying you

vaguely

remember him do it seems like a cop out for when or if he flips town.

But I do remember

. He did that as Town in Open 455 and you said nothing about it. Actually you went after the player who voted for Klick because of that. I remember you were town in that game.

It was a pretty strong statement.... he says whereas Morkh “vaguely” remembers, Guille “remembers”... he was also using this reasoning as a striking point in his vote (“Actually, you went after the player who voted for Klick

because of that

. I remember you were town in that game”) So he remembered the game, he remembered all of the people involved AND their votes on each other, but he doesn’t remember the why?

Sure, memory is fallible like he says, but if he’s using it as ammunition, why wouldn’t he double-check? It doesn’t seem right.



Ztife’s #80 is extremely bad..not sure how you could go from in favor of a mass name-claim to voting the person who initially asked for one?And i’m also throwing it out there that yes, mass claim is a bad idea ..there is no benefits to town whatsoever for this..Scum will most likely have fake-claims, and not to mention it’s bastard...
All it would end up doing is help scum

Also in agreement with Fit'z #90 in regards to D3f

[Ztife]

@Plessiez and DoubleJD

I have 2 completed theme games on this site with no name claims and they are played 3 years ago (or so). If that helps with anything.

As pointed out, name-claim does not equate to role-claim, and if the name-claim reveals the players alignment/power im pretty sure they will fake-claim anyway, protown or not.

[sword_of_omens]

As pointed out, name-claim does not equate to role-claim, and if the name-claim reveals the players alignment/power im pretty sure they will fake-claim anyway, protown or not.

huh? are you saying that if town thinks that their name is an alignment/power tell, they are going to fake-claim?
this scenario doesn't even make any sense...town, does not get, nor would they give fake-claims.

@MOD: please note i will be on V/LA for the weekend up through Jan 2nd for the Holidays. I will have very limitted access, but i do hope to at least pop in and post when i can get a signal.

[guille2015]

I'm sorry, I haven't had the chance to get to dedicate to this game. I will get to it tomorrow when I get back to the office. End of year wrap up work and coming vacation has me in overtime. I'll get to this game tomorrow.

[saulres]

a universal scum read that does not require reading a specific game which can apply to anyone who makes it and a meta read that requires you to have read a specific game and only applies to a single solitary person in that game

Which one is which? I honestly can't tell.

---

saulres has my attention.

In a good way, or a bad way?

---

There are way too many mini-walls in this game, especially for it being Page 4.

When is it okay to start making mini-walls?

---

memory is fallible like he says, but if he’s using it as ammunition, why wouldn’t he double-check? It doesn’t seem right.

Do you think town or scum is more likely to not check it?

---

im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars.

im pretty sure they will fake-claim anyway, protown or not.

Please reconcile those two statements.

Also:

I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

Vote: Defender

Wouldn't you describe your own play as fitting the criteria you voted D3f3nd3r for?

[The Rufflig]

@Rufflig...do you really think saulres is scum?

Yep. He took a player that was under scrutiny and made a lousy question taken out of context to try and make him look scummier. It's one of the most blatant "me too" things I've seen to spread some mud around.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: saulres

Those who expressed an opinion in favor of a mass name claim - I've got my eye on you. No, you can't all be scum, but I'll bet at least one of you has a secret agenda that you are pursuing - possibly a variant of a lyncher role that requires you to find someone specific.

[Klick]

There are way too many mini-walls in this game, especially for it being Page 4.

When is it okay to start making mini-walls?

Preferably never, unless you just HAVE to use so many words to get your points across.

[sword_of_omens]

Do you think town or scum is more likely to not check it?

ahhh...i missed playing with you Saulres...
but to answer your question, it can go both ways...
in this case though, i think it's more of the context in which it was given...
it wasn't just a pressure vote ...there was intent....he specifically used it as ammunition to try and fuel a wagon on Morkh...
and he specifically said he remembered the reason...not “vaguely remembered” either. It was clear he wanted to differentiate the two meanings.
I think town would double-check in this instance, (they would want to be sure they are not leading a mislynch) where as scum could use this as an opportunistic vote thinking that most people probably won’t read the full details.