Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[dejkha]

I wouldn't call it "overreacting," more like "reacting to something." As I just posted above, obviously the "obvscum" thing was a joke, which is why that part of my reasoning was labeled with an OMGUS.

My mistake. I thought you meant Geoff's reasoning was OMGUS.

Yes, I did think the same for her, but I also think there was enough of a discussion in the thread that the time for "joke votes" was past... but none of that was really enough to convince me, which is why I only gave her a FoS instead of moving my vote. Does that make sense?

I see. To me, even if it is past random voting, I think "just because" is an obvious joke vote. I would understand if you thought she should've been serious about the game at this point, since that could be a minor scumtell (more so depending on how serious she is or isn't for the rest of the game).

I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (who

still

has my vote). Besides, aren't we supposed to be eager to find scum? Or is it now considered better play to be passive in the thread and watch instead of actively hunting scum?

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

[Goatrevolt]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

[Dourgrim]

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.

[dejkha]

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.

[GIEFF]

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

I agree that lynching a SK is better than lynching a mafia. But why do you think Panzer is the most likely to be SK?

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.


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

Actually, it's because you posted and hadn't voted yet. It made you look like you were trying to avoid being accused of lurking without actually doing anything, and the posts you did make had no useful content in them. That made you a better candidate for a bandwagon than anyone else at the time, since I hadn't spotted anything else all that suspicious when I made that post.

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS based on my obviously-joking "obvscum," but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Let's go over them.

• I hadn't voted yet.
  I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.
  
  None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?
  
  I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

• I already had two votes on me.
  How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting."

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke? It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

Vote: Dourgrim

[mykonian]

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.

yeah, yeah, I know. Craplogic and such.

unvote

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

[GIEFF]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

So I take it your above post is a "yes" to Goatrevolt's question, mykonian?

[Goatrevolt]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

So I take it your above post is a "yes" to Goatrevolt's question, mykonian?

I'm a little confused in that regard myself.

[mykonian]

it is a no, of course. It was a random vote, and it is a random vote. It had the nice thing that it was the second vote on a person, maybe someone was so nice to put a third one on. (yes, you are a nice person dourgrim )

[Dourgrim]

(

bolding

mine for emphasis)

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS

based on my obviously-joking "obvscum,"

but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Yes. I agreed that the "obvscum" comment was a joke, and I intended the "OMGUS" I used in my original vote post to indicate as much. However, this seems to be in doubt now, see the other bolded text below.

I hadn't voted yet. I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.

I didn't know anything about the script you're talking about, and since I've never played a game with you before, I have no way of knowing that you don't like random voting on Day One. I will, however, accept responsibility for not doing my research and reading up on the games you've played in the past to find voting patterns (or lack thereof). I used to do that quite a bit when playing with people for the first time, but I don't have that sort of free time anymore.

None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?

I've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for vote

and

lurker analysis later.

I already had two votes on me. How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

These are not separate ideas, they're one and the same. The two votes on you doesn't make you more likely to be scum, but they do make you slightly easier to bandwagon than someone with only one vote, and bandwagons on Day One can be a useful tool to provoke conversation... which, by the way, it did.

I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke?

I would have thought this would be obvious by now: I was comfortable with my vote because of the first two bulleted points, and I had agreed that the "obvscum" thing was a joke... which you seem to deny and confirm in the same breath.

It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

I didn't lie about it... matter of fact, I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke... or was it, GIEFF? You can't seem to decide.

I'm happy with my vote.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count I

Panzerjager

(3): Goatrevolt, ting=), MacavityLock

GIEFF

(2): mykonian, Dourgrim

mykonian

(2): Beyond_Birthday, Panzerjager

Dourgrim

(1): GIEFF

militant

(1): subgenius

subgenius

(1): springlullaby

ting=)

(1): militant

Not Voting:

dejkha

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Please notify me if there is a discrepancy in the list above

[GIEFF]

I will, however, accept responsibility for not doing my research and reading up on the games you've played in the past to find voting patterns (or lack thereof).

That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

I've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for vote and lurker analysis later.

What additional knowledge would be gained if you looked back a few days down the road and saw that I had random-voted for, say, springlullaby? Do you still think that I am just posting to avoid accusations of lurking?

Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.

It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.

I would have thought this would be obvious by now: I was comfortable with my vote because of the first two bulleted points, and I had agreed that the "obvscum" thing was a joke... which you seem to deny and confirm in the same breath.

And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.

I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke

You have done so ONCE before your latest post, and you did not do so until you were questioned about it by Goatrevolt.

• Post 33: You don't say you think it's a joke.

  And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

• post 37: You say that there are other explanations; you don't say that you think they are true. In fact, you call mykonian's logic, which if serious would assume my post was NOT a joke, "valid."

  Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...

• post 45: The first time you say you think it was a joke

  Goatrevolt wrote:
  Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

  Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.

Did I miss something? You gave three reasons originally. When called out on the third of them, you claimed it was a joke, and that we should have realized it was a joke, and you obviously were just using your other two reasons. Now that your second reason (convenient band-wagon) no longer applies (I don't have two other votes on me anymore, and another player has MORE votes than I do), you say you are still happy with your vote.

And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.


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

it is a no, of course. It was a random vote, and it is a random vote. It had the nice thing that it was the second vote on a person, maybe someone was so nice to put a third one on. (yes, you are a nice person dourgrim Smile)

If you think Dourgrim is a "nice person," why don't you think MacavityLock is? He put the third vote on Panzer, for reasons I don't find satisfactory.

[PJ.]

@MacavityLock: It is inherently scummy to be mentioning SK before Day 2 unless the setup is open. We have no clue that an SK even exist so townies shouldn't be hunting for them.

Also, I'm not saying leaving the SK alive is elite strategy, but hunting him specifically takes emphasis off mafia and him being alive takes emphasis off our power roles.

One other thing, on the mention of information(also another reason why mykonian is scummy)The only person who knows the SK exist is the SK so wouldn't mykonian calling someone SK on the first few pages hint to him having info about the SK?

[mykonian]

The only person who knows the SK exist is the SK so wouldn't mykonian calling someone SK on the first few pages hint to him having info about the SK?

this is not entirely true. Not that it matters, do you really expect me to tell you all I know in my first post? I know nothing.

[PJ.]

Hence why I called it a slip.

[PJ.]

EBWOP: Also Psychologist knows SK exist. He is a rare pro-town role. Not used in Normal minis.

[mykonian]

ok, didn't know it wasn't considered standard.

anyway, it was not a slip, although I can never prove it to you until I'm lynched. It was just an (incorrect) way of reacting on GIEFF confirmation post.

[PJ.]

I can accept this and my vote will stay on you until I find someone else scummier then you.

[Dourgrim]

I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.

But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it?

Yes, I believe it is. (See my thoughts on joke posts below.) In addition, since then the reasoning for my vote has evolved somewhat based on your reactions. I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.

Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

This I agree with 100%, although I do have to try to remember that not everyone has as much access to the boards as we seem to.

It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.

I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?

Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).

And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.

This is correct. However, your reaction to my original point makes me think that this is quite a bit bigger a deal to you than I would expect from a pro-Town player on Day One.

Regarding post 33 (and your later reference to post 45): This might be a sign of me being away from the game for too long, but doesn't "OMGUS" usually signify a joke vote? My memory of the term is that it indicates something no more serious than "bah." My intention with using the term was to indicate a lack of seriousness. *shrug*

Regarding post 37: I intentionally was noncommittal because, *gasp*, I wasn't committed! And, assuming all posts in the thread can be taken at face value, mykonian's logic could have been correct. He has since admitted it wasn't anything more than a joke vote, but the logic itself wasn't completely baseless, just its application.

And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.

Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.

As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken. Also, you are right that my goal of a bandwagon has seemingly changed directions. However, your reactions as a whole still leave me with a bad taste in my mouth... I'm going to think about this, give it a bit of time to digest, and come back to my vote tomorrow.

[dejkha]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.

As for whether it would be better with a SK dead or alive, while he could end up killing scum, I think going against the combined NK's of a SK and Scum are far worse since the town loses once they lose all members. Obviously vanilla townies being without night choices, lower the chances of survival.

But I think it would be best not to worry about a SK until we know if there's one in game.

[PJ.]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.

As for whether it would be better with a SK dead or alive, while he could end up killing scum, I think going against the combined NK's of a SK and Scum are far worse since the town loses once they lose all members. Obviously vanilla townies being without night choices, lower the chances of survival.

But I think it would be best not to worry about a SK until we know if there's one in game.

Every role as specific tells. SK play different then Mafia. Mafia hid as a group, SK plays more like a Doc.

[Beyond_Birthday]

The joke is on you; my blood-sugar is low.

Dammit! Foiled again!

You guys have just made me google "blood in coffee."

Apparently, putting menstrual blood in coffee is a hoodoo love spell.

...You bastard... *Throws knife at Ting*
*eats jelly, sitting with my knees to my chest.*

Unvotes

Note: Haven't read far, but I just got a fourth game, so I am going to come back and respond later. Sorry for the delay, but I am tired.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Aside from the SK slip (which, actually aside from Psychiatrist) I can't connect to any role that would know such, except, maybe, a day cop. But as to the timing, this makes little sense.

All and all, though I might be wrong, I think town is overreacting regardless of these people's alignments. I see no way sk could slip this way, no reason scum would say this (though there is some bizarre chance that they are connected), and no way of seeing any protown role with this information. In short, I am voiding any authenticity to that discussion, except, perhaps, immediate reaction, which are the most valuable of all.

[ting =)]

@GIEFF
It's as serious as you'd expect a vote on the second page to be.

@Panzer.
That's the thing, I didn't think it was a scum slip at all. It just seemed like a banter-y reply to GIEFF's banter at the time.

@MacavityLock.
I agree with Panzer that we should be going after mafia, not SK. More because of the fact that we

don't

know for sure we have an SK in this game than because of the point on cross kills though. I think I read an MD thread about hunting SKs before, I'm not sure if it discussed whether it's better for town to lynch mafia or SK though. I'm also not sure what the title was.

@Myko.
Post 55 and 58. If it was a random vote, why should craplogic even be an issue? Why apologize for faulty logic if it wasn't even a serious vote? Also, why'd you go back to random voting in post 55?

@Dourgrim.
OMGUS now means voting/attacking someone who's attacking you for no other reason than he's attacking you. Or at least, that's the behaviour I've seen it used to label in the games I've been in. I don't think I've ever seen it used to signify a joke vote.

[subgenius]

Well, it looks like there's quite a bit going on already. It seems to me that some of this talk about whether or not we have an SK to worry about is premature and probably counter productive to our efforts against the one threat of which we are certain, the mafia. I think we ought to wait and see what happens tonight and reopen the discussion after we have more concrete evidence to look at.

That being said, I think that this whole SK issue could very well be used by the mafia as a red herring to distract the town from pursuing our primary threat, which makes me suspicious of MacavityLock and Mykonian because it appears that they are the two players that have been most responsible for promoting the SK hunt. Mykonian broached the subject in his first post, while MacavityLock made an entirely separate SK accusation in post 47. I'd like to hear some reasoning from Macavity for this vote that explains why I should take it seriously and not consider it a mafia devised decoy.

One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?