Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[implosion]

The fact that Nobody Special capitalized the words "so disappointed" makes me think that he's scum.

VOTE: goodmorning

[implosion]

Why was it unexpected?

[implosion]

@implosion, if NS's captialising makes him scum, why the vote for goodmorning?

Why not?

[implosion]

@implosion, if NS's captialising makes him scum, why the vote for goodmorning?

Why not?

You announced a feeling someone is scum, but you voted randomly instead. It's keeping us in RVS longer which makes it a problem.

Au contraire - my vote on goodmorning was anything

but

random.

[implosion]

@implosion, if NS's captialising makes him scum, why the vote for goodmorning?

Why not?

You announced a feeling someone is scum, but you voted randomly instead. It's keeping us in RVS longer which makes it a problem.

Au contraire - my vote on goodmorning was anything

but

random.

So accidental, arbitrary, by chance or haphazardly?

None of the above. In fact, it contained intent.

[implosion]

Unvote

VOTE: Nobody Special

[implosion]

That vote happened in the past.
Why are you so concerned with the past?

[implosion]

I could, but what fun would that be?

[implosion]

That depends on your definition of "fun".

This is true.

Would you like to vote for Nobody Special with me?

[implosion]

Unvote

VOTE: Cub Daigoro
His awkward prodding in 34 and 41 hints at scum wanting to look like they're doing things without doing things. It also slightly reeks of post-ex-facto justification of an RVS vote, which I find slightly scummy as it implies (to a small extent) that Cub is, rather than looking for people who have done scummy things, looking for reasons to vote for a particular person.

[implosion]

Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here - my point isn't solely that you're voting the same person that you voted in RVS. It's that your reasons, rather than feeling like genuine attempts to scumhunt, feel like extensions of your RVS vote - that is,

excuses

to keep your vote on NS without having to look elsewhere.

Are you satisfied with NS's responses?

Not really, but two things. First of all, I've found NS historically difficult to read. Second of all, I found a better reason to vote for someone (namely, you).

Seems to me we left RVS around post 20 or so.
I'd say we left RVS at 47

No. "Leaving RVS" is not a concrete post. It's a fluid transition, and trying to find a single post that ends RVS is absolutely useless with respect to... y'know, finding scum?

Nope. I have only weak townreads (on you and implosion, for trying to end RVS) at this stage.

This is a really bad reason to townread me (and people in general, but

especially

me). I actually used to (I don't anymore) make a point as scum to look helpful in getting out of RVS. Wanting to get out of RVS isn't exclusive to town.

[implosion]

That said, I do have something of a weak townread myself on implosion mostly for the early reaction test.

That wasn't a reaction test. It was more me being bored.

Although it is a better reason to townread me.

[implosion]

...Wut? What could possibly be more relevant?

Your motivation behind the vote. I'm arguing about

your

alignment, not NS's.

Why should I move my vote if I think it's a good wagon just because it was an RVS vote? Do you think people should just reflexively move off their RVS votes? If so, what's the purpose of RVS?

I am absolutely not saying "anyone who keeps their RVS vote after RVS is scum." In fact, I'm trying to make it as clear as day that this is

not

my point, although feel free to use it as a straw man.

My point is that

in this specific situation

, I believe that your prodding at NS is a product of you not wanting to do genuine scumhunting on other people, so that you can keep your vote passively on him.

I came to this conclusion by looking at your prodding and deciding that it didn't look genuine, or that it looked like excuses to not move your vote rather than questions that you sincerely want to know the answers to.

It's as simple as that.

[implosion]

It's as simple as that.

Okay, I understand your case now. I would simplify it further as "gut". Fair?

Insofar as every case ever made by anyone in the history of the game of mafia can be simplified to "gut," fair.

[implosion]

Your content/post count ratio pings my scumdar.

Bullshit, good sir.

You didn't find me scummy after post 32.

[implosion]

Eh. Implosion's case does seem to be based on a gut feeling, though. His 'explanation' is that he has a seemingly arbitrary feeling that (on this particular occasion) Cub's behaviour is scummy (although it isn't something that he generally considers scummy). So, yea, that is pretty much entirely gut.

If this is your definition of gut, then I'd challenge you to find a single argument in any mafia game ever played anywhere that was not based on gut.

Sure, I may not have elaborated in-depth: however, my argument still stands. In fact, I'm in the mood, I might as well attempt to quantify what I felt about those two posts.

@NS

, Why no vote in play?

Every action contains some kind of motivation. The town motivation for asking a question is to glean information that is determinative of alignment; the non-town motivation is to look like you're doing things. Which does this look like? What information from this question could be gleaned that is indicative of NS's alignment? NS probably doesn't have any particularly amazing reason for not having voted. But the more important point here is Cub's focus on NS, rather than paying attention to anyone else. Cub's first four posts are all either about or directed at NS. They effectively ignore everything else in the game. And here, we find a mafia motivation for Cub's question: that it allowed him to ignore everything for the first two pages of the game. This means fewer things that Cub has to directly respond to without getting to see others' responses, which lowers his odds of being "caught" from a psychological perspective.

Yes, this is kind of abstract, but really, if you're expecting a more concrete response to why I find this post scummy, then lol.

Vote: Cub Daigoro

Happy now?

I'd be happier if a reason accompanied it.

Reading this again I actually see another reason beyond my original that this pings my scumdar: its phrasing. He doesn't try to find out the reason. He doesn't imply that NS is scum, or town. He doesn't imply that NS's lack of reason is relevant to anything. Effectively he does nothing. This passive phrasing is scummy because townies are attempting to, again, glean alignment information - rather than phrase the question in a way that implies that he wants to know what NS's reason is, he's just kind of whining at NS for a reason. This whining is scummy because it indicates that Cub is more concerned with defending himself than he is with determining others'- most notably, NS's, since NS is the only person Cub had talked about - alignments.

But going back to my original point, his obsession with only talking about NS allows him to ignore everything else. See the above point. Et ceterum.

tl;dr

Cub's actions in the above two posts are more easily explained by him being scum who wanted an excuse to not talk about the thread than they are explained by him being town who genuinely wanted to scumhunt.

[implosion]

allowed him to ignore everything for the first two page

What makes you think I'm ignoring everything that I'm not focusing on?

Your post is a bit odd. It uses the present tense, whereas I was using the past tense.

Are you saying your posts lacked content at that point?

Absolutely.

[implosion]

What makes you think I was ignoring everything I wasn't focusing on?

Because you didn't say a single word about anything that wasn't NS.

All of your posts have contained more than the equivalent of "Hi, I am here." Content.

I basically trolled for my first 9 posts.

[implosion]

Your content/post count ratio pings my scumdar.

I don't consider trolling content. I consider content to mean things that are productive.

[implosion]

It seemed productive to me, or at least potentially so, so it didn't ping my scumdar. In any case, you've clearly been posting content since. You're making a huge stretch implying that my response to NS is fake because I didn't respond to you the same way.

Fair enough.

I'm going to withhold an actual read on NS in light of me misreading him in the past. He has a meta which certain people are very, very good at cracking. I am not one of those people (although I've only played with him once or twice).

[implosion]

Are you both herp and derp?

Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there?

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I've played with NS before, so firstly I'd say his posting is consistent to his meta so less suspicious than most who present that style. Secondly, I don't vote willy nilly (my meta), so I said what I said. I had pages to read more closely and catch up on.

Did you just jump off NS faster than a rutting bull with 99 unmounted heifers in a yard of 100?

Overreaction much?

[implosion]

Okay implosion, explain how it makes sense. Since I've overreacted to SafetyDance then you must be with him all the way on his logic

Absolutely not. You can overreact to a completely terrible case. Me saying you overreacted has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of the case in question. I haven't actually read safetydance and i'm busy at the moment but i'll read him later.

[implosion]

I find the swift backpedal nonsensical and slightly troubling. You've had plenty of time to consider the risks on whether to continue your overreaction stance

If by "plenty of time" you mean six hours, then I guess so? But see, the thing is, I do things in my life

other

than spend every waking hour thinking about mafia. So, yeah. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of my waking hours are *NOT* spent thinking about mafia! Really, criticizing me for not spending those particular six hours thinking about this game when I've been one of the most active posters is patently absurd.

And when I said "I haven't read Safetydance," by "read" i meant "formed a read on." I read his post that you reacted to, and you overreacted kind of ridiculously. Yes, he was wrong. No, that doesn't mean you didn't overreact. Someone could form a case on me based on how they looked at the moon last night and saw angels chiseling my name into it then blanketing the moon with dark maroon ink, and I could still overreact to it.

I'd say you've done just that and decided it isn't worth backing up Safety in this one.

That's a mighty large assumption considering that you weren't stalking me for the six hours between 109 and 119 (I hope?)

Everyone if safety flips scum I'd look to implosion as a partner.

I'm actually slightly amused at the fact that you think me not doing things within a span of six hours (and yes, I'm beating a dead horse because it's hilarious) is scummy.

I'll also get to why we shouldn't be partner hunting right now later (I saw someone else claiming someone was NS's scumbuddy too) but alas, I have to head to class.

[implosion]

Sorry. These have been busy days, and I'll try to post something comprehensive but not wall-ish today.

[implosion]

Well my memory failed miserably.

I will GET TO THIS TOMORROW. If I don't please give me negative reinforcement of some kind.

[implosion]

So sadly, today is very busy.
Sadly, tomorrow is also going to be very busy.
If I can find free time, I will put

something

relevant together before tuesday. I will make a post with an actual significant amount of content on tuesday.

[implosion]

Alright. Devoting the next hour (before class) to this game, and hopefully some more later today. And posting this as self-motivation to not get sidetracked.

[implosion]

This is what I have from reading up through page 6, basically. But it's a lot. So I'm going to break this into several posts.

Spoiler: Regarding SafetyDance

SafetyDance is town.

First off, his tone: he's very confident in certain things in a way that I think is indicative of town. Notably, 54, 55, 63, 124, 126, 128, and many others (I can list more if asked but really shouldn't need to) all have a tone of voice that seems... i'd say it's accusatory in the right ways. His accusations in those posts feel genuine, and i really like his response to popc in 124. This whole section:

It matter how many times you increase the size. You suggested NS was looking scummy but said you hadn't bothered to read the thread yet. Clearly you have been reading otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to write a couple of paragraphs about him and how he may be scummy so clearly you have been paying attention enough to respond to my post. So no, I don't find the 'need to catch up' excuse as valid, when the evidence points to the contrary.

Did you just react to being voted like someone's shoved a hot iron poker up your ass? Yes you did.

I don't know you so I don't know if counting is your strong suit or if you have troubles with it but in this game, we're given ONE Vote. That's means having two votes, isn't an option.

Do you think I've suddenly grown less suspicious of NS now? Or don't want him him answering the question I asked of him?

Is exactly how I would expect town with his attitude to react to popc's post. He makes good points, and makes them with the same kind of consistent tone that his other posts have. And before someone says "lol, implosion has a gut read on safetydance," no, I don't. I have a read based on looking at what he's done, considering it from different perspectives, and deciding that town is more likely than scum. I don't see 124 (the response to popc) as coming from scum. I don't think he would have been able to make the points as well, I don't think he would be able to pull off the same consistent tone of voice, and the specific arguments that he made are exactly what I think he would come up with as town.

Spoiler: pieceofpecanpie

I think popc might be scum based on page 6 (which is all i've read as of this writing but etc). Specifically, he's playing very,

very

reactively rather than proactively. SafetyDance is doing things, and popc is "copying" them, which may indicate a vague desire to want to look like others (i.e. scum). In particular, interactions like post 132/133 make me think popc scum, safety town.

I think his overreaction is also a legitimate reason to fos him, actually. But we'll see as I read more.

Spoiler: zaicon's questions toward me

To see how Nobody Special responds and if there's a good reason for it?

Well yes, this is obviously possible, but my point is that that particular kind of question looks like it accomplishes much more than it actually does.

This is one possible interpretation... why do you think this is the correct one, as opposed to anything else (such as Cub actually trying to find out NS's reason for not having a vote yet)?

This goes back to the fact that the question doesn't accomplish as much as it looks like it does. Essentially, the argument is that Cub, if he were genuinely looking for scum, would ask more useful questions (questions that actually do accomplish things) rather than just ask questions like "why no vote?" In a way, the other problem is that "why no vote" is a very easy 'gotcha' question - it's something that pushes focus on to someone else more than it actually gets useful information, imo.

I disagree. He answered NS's question by stating the he would rather have a reason with the vote. I don't see why that (or why his passive vs active response) is scummy or why that means he is whining.

This one is a more subtle argument, and if you disagree with it then you disagree with it and I can't really argue.

[implosion]

Sorry if I severely multipost. I'm only going to be here for a little over a half hour more (it's 12:28 as i write this sentence) so it shouldn't be too bad~

@implosion Your read on Safety? It was Safety who asserted I was NS' scumbuddy, what do you think of that and why shouldn't we be partner hunting now? I'm also wondering what you think of CheeryDog.

I think safety is town (right now). See the above post. And actually, I'm feeling a little lazy, so I'm just going to quote myself from a previous game:

Bad. Connection hunting is

never

the way to go day one, for a few reasons...
1) you'll never be able to call the scumteam day one. Vi's guide sums this up nicely. Essentially, a connection tell inherently involves 2 peoples' alignments. If you're going to try to guess the scumteam right now, your odds are one in 72. If you're just going to try to guess one scum member, your odds are 2/9. You shouldn't assume one person's alignment in trying to find another's

on day one.

After day one, there are flips to work with, but unless there's a scumflip, they may or may not be useful. Scumflips are almost always useful in connection hunting. If you're going to assume someone's alignment in trying to find out someone else's alignment, then the connection read is only valid if your logic for that read happens to be right

and

you're right about the person whose alignment you're assuming. Normal individual tells are much easier to work with day one.
2) having connections doesn't make someone scum. Good example from the last newbie game I was in. The person making this post is town. Pay attention to the list they have of information gained from lynches. The two people at the bottom of that list were scum. What does this tell us? It tells us that connections can actually be indicative of town, because scum will try to avoid making connections that could either incriminate or help to clear someone after their death. Sure, it isn't a completely identical situation, but the point remains that just because someone has connections, it doesn't make them scum.

(I was town). Obviously the math's a bit different, but the points still apply. Partner hunting on day one is, I'd say, nearly categorically unproductive. The only situation I can think of where it'd be acceptable is if someone makes a bona fide scumslip, and I've only ever seen one scumslip that would qualify as that, and no one ever even caught it (it was made by my scumbuddy in an old game).

[implosion]

You're one to talk. Remember your second post in Mini 1394? It was your overreaction to MM suggesting that you had forehand knowledge of my alignment.

but... but... that was made by me, and i was town .

In seriousness: that actually is my justification. I, as a person, enjoy overanalyzing things. It isn't even always that productive; I just enjoy doing it. That vote on MM (which, i ought to point out for my own edification, was right) was a product of me trying to glean as much information as I could out of what had been done. There's also an element of sarcasm in my overanalyzing at times. Sarcasm and overreaction are different things. A reaction to something with an excessive amount of sarcasm says things about the personality of the person reacting. An overreaction without sarcasm (which, I think, is the category that popc's reaction falls under) says things about the alignment of the person reacting.

This is wrong. From your way of thought, NS is scum. Then you suggest that pecan is scum because he was too cautious to actually vote NS, his partner.
That assertion is a stretch, and you unvoted who you believe is scum in both scenarios to do it.

Decent point. Safety is still town, though.

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

Worse point. Calling that an overreaction is like calling the evacuation of a city an overreaction to a hurricane that's about to hit that city. Sure, it's a big reaction, but it's

called for.

When I say a big reaction, I mean that Safety was reacting to several things - like he said, he had to, because there were several things to react to. He did not, however, overreact to any thing in particular. pieceofpecanpie, on the other hand, very definitely DID overreact to one very specific thing.


Note to self: ac and probably apozzle are town for page 7.

Frankly, I'd say criticism of my cub case as grasping at straws is absolutely justified, and quite possibly right (I'm going to spend some time reevaluating cub too).

implosion: Seems like you're throwing around suspicion at anything that sticks. or you're just really eager. I don't know. I don't like the smell of what you're cooking though (some of it smells OK I guess)

Nah, just at cub. Again, I overanalyze a lot.

But unlike your comment to someone else, I don't think this was foolish. I thought implosion's response in #122 was particularly delicious, taking the bait and putting his own uppity defensive attitude on display. He's a contradictory mix of "Yeah, I'm just hanging around here mostly giving troll responses" to "I don't spend every waking moment here! Have some patience." I've made a note of his flippancy for later.

Once again, you are being patently absurd here. For several reasons.

Firstly, I am in no way giving an attitude of "i'm hanging around here giving troll responses." You're literally pulling that out of the ether. I was giving trollish responses, but saying that i was "just hanging around here" or portraying that attitude is ridiculous.

Secondly, EVEN if i was giving that kind of attitude, those are in no way contradictory. One can both be sarcastic and have a life.

Unvote

VOTE: pieceofpecanpie
For a combination of several things. First, for a tone that is reactive rather than proactive (explained in 317). Second, his overreaction, and subsequent reaction to being called out for overreaction. Third, his actions towards me (in particular, misrepresentation as a basis for criticism). Fourth, for generally grasping at straws (specifically, attacking me and others for the amount of time between our posts. Yes, this point may be slightly hypocritical, but again, I grasp at straws for fun).

[implosion]

Wonderful, then.

I expect 3-4 new pages responding to my above posts by the next time i look at this game.

[implosion]

Pretty high opinion of yourself, huh?

Remember the part where i said i was a sarcastic person?

i would respond to the rest of post 328 if it even began to touch on points that i actually *made*, but thankfully you didn't actually talk about any of those ^_^. You seem to have a tendency to ignore points that people actually make, and instead take a few words from their posts, pretend they used those words in different context and then create elaborate responses to those other contextualized uses of those words.

More content should come tonight as i continue to read, potentially soon~

[implosion]

I'd call it reading between the lines.

I'd call it making shit up because that's what it is.

I did address several of your points by the by, perhaps you could readdress your original argument through them?

...through them.
you mean you want me to defend the warped version of my argument that you attacked? fuck no. I'm in a generous mood, so i'll even *explain* why your response to me bears absolutely no link to reality.

By your logic both Safety and I would be town, given our reactive responses to each other carry a similar tone. The rest is a sham.

This legitimately addresses the point I made, although it does not in any way refute it beyond you saying "lol, you're wrong." I'd argue that no, you two carried very, very different tones.

Secondly, your entire reactive and proactive spin, while hilarious, is also completely irrelevant. The only thing it actually means is that you didn't like my #107 as it was "overreacting".

Exhibit a: you taking two points i made that had absolutely nothing to do with each other and claiming they are one point.

Take note of your one word there. You haven't changed or improved on your argument against me since. An argument that was catalysed by your blind assessment on the given situation.

Exhibit b: you ignoring anything that I actually said by saying it "hasn't changed" when you're responding to points for the first time.

1. I made an opening post, within it I FoS'd NS, but also stated I needed to catch up before voting.
2. Safety reacted to this - for whatever reason he considered it a scum-partner tell - and switches his vote off NS to me.
3. I react to Safety's vote, finding it scummy. Or perhaps I was proactive to consider it scummy. However I can't have proactively reacted because he wouldn't have fucking made a scummy post by that stage.
4. You reacted to my reaction considering it an overreaction, but since you're reacting to reactions aren't you doubly scummy by your logic?
5. And now you want 3-4 pages of accolades and discussion on your recent acts of genius, when it in reality it's a bunch of ham-fisted tripe.

Exhibit c: you summarizing precisely the parts of the game that i did *NOT* talk about in my point that you're attempting to refute.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to be proactive and pursue a relevant lynch for today. If you want to retroactively switch your vote to Apozzle that'd be great.

Exhibit d: the end of the post. You'll note that the following did *NOT* appear at any point in the post:

-you responding to my arguments that you were copying safety's tone
-you mentioning any of the specific parts of the game that i used in my argument
-you quoting any part of my argument and responding to specific points of my argument
-you responding to anything that is actually *from* my argument.

Insofar as you respond to an argument against you by straight-up throwing up a strawman and attacking it, really, it's not just that you're scummy, i actually feel obligated to vote for you because you refuse to partake in discourse over things that have actually happened.

[implosion]

Like, really. People. The fact that ppp has to justify his counterargument by saying he's "reading between the lines" in and of itself should make it obvious that he's BSing.

[implosion]

Also I got bored of rereading so I'm just gonna tunnel ppp now~~~

[implosion]

pieceofpecanpie. When you quote the first line from my post several times, pretending that i said it more than once, then yes, you are refusing to partake in actual discourse about what has been said.

I find arguments about things like "tone" highly subjective, easy to misinterpret, and poorly representative of one's alignment.

Agree, agree, disagree. They're usually subtle, but they can be some of the most telling things. If someone is inconsistent in tone, that can often reflect scumminess because they're trying too hard.

[implosion]

if by "fallacy" you mean "thing that wasn't said" then you're right.

And I'm absolutely fine with having my reasoning, logic or judgment called into question. I am markedly NOT okay with having reasoning, logic and judgment that is not mine called into question under my name.

[implosion]

I copy-pasted. You said it.

now you're just asking me to rage at you

i said it once. in 347 you copy-pasted it in three separate locations as if i responded to all of your points with it.

i'm not even going to continue this discussion if you're just going to be like this

i'm not trolling, you're just literally pulling shit out of the ether and pretending that it's legitimate, and it's beginning to piss me off a little

[implosion]

*sigh*.

Dropping that argument.

What's your read on me?

[implosion]

This is a really busy week. I have a lab report due today that's going to take up a fair amount of time, and I have a paper due friday evening that i'm going to have to work on a lot tomorrow. Long story short, I may have time to give a lot more substance but probably not a

lot

. When I next have the energy/mood to focus on this game (ideally and i'd say probably later tonight, definitely tomorrow if not tonight), i'm going to iso goodmorning and appozzle. I will probably be here for several hours immediately before the deadline if necessary, if it comes to that.

[implosion]

Well i never got to this. I will tomorrow if the day isn't over, but from the cursory read i've done so far, i'd probably vote apozzle over goodmorning.

[implosion]

so, i'm here. sorry. I don't think GM will flip scum (although I'm going to look a bit more at cases on him right now) but i don't think any other wagon will be able to get enough steam by a couple hours from now, so i'll hammer at ~30 minutes before deadline if no one else has.

[implosion]

So cub and zaicon's votes are both terrible, and edo's is decent but not great.

Now for the second half of the wagon~

[implosion]

Yeah. The majority of points against goodmorning (at least when people initially voted for him) were "i disagree with you on X." That is not scummy. That is disagreement. It in no way implies scum. Some of the points are okay, but they don't sway me at all. GM's general mood and his claim both feel somewhat town (more the claim than the mood) so yeah, i think this is a mislynch.

[implosion]

*sigh*.

unvote

VOTE: goodmorning

[implosion]

The mason claims are town and if they aren't it'll become relatively obvious over time anyway so time spent arguing about them is time wasted.

Also, i think edosurist is scum. Gut for now, will try to substantiate tomorrow depending on etcetera.

[implosion]

Hello. Today is basically the last day that I have any work until spring break next week. I'll try to say something about Edosurist in the near future.

[implosion]

also implosion's acting weird I agree

If you can connect "weird" to "scummy," then I"ll be impressed.

This post happened in the past.
Why are you so concerned with dodging the question?

This question will be answered as you continue to read the game.

wat? you mean he's doing something over...that exact same thing?

needs more votes

Maybe read the sentence in question :s. I was saying that, rather than searching for

which people

were scummy, he was searching for reasons for a particular, arbitrary person. It's possible to justify a scumread on anyone in the game in pretty much any given game of mafia, and part of finding scum is finding the difference between those who genuinely read people and those who arbitrarily do so.

oh yeah having a vote on someone and pressuring them is totally not scumhunting

ill let you guys take that in for a while

It absolutely isn't.
Scumhunting is hunting for scum.
Scumhunting is, thus, the process of

looking

for scum.
Neither "having a vote" nor "pressuring" implies a genuine attempt to

look

for scum.

also wrt townreading you i dont understand why anyone does

you need rope

I can't tell how strongly you're saying this, or if you're being sarcastic, or if you expect this read on me to continue as you read more pages.

"so hey

i looked at your scumhunting

and its obviously not genuine becuz ur just puttin' pressure on one person

so you must be scum

right?????????"

If you were to take my words, reduce them to the basic idea, and then remove any of the words that were actually said, then yeah i said this. Actually, this doesn't even capture the idea of what I said, but you don't appear to be interested in the actual idea, you appear to just be enjoying reading the game, so i'll let you do that.

[implosion]

Let's start talking about Edosurist.

Quick reads:
implosion looks town, and his play also looks very similar to Mini 1394, in which he was also town. By the way, I don't imagine him wearing a monocle.
Cub is weak scum for the tunneling on NS.
I'm not liking NS and Belisarius's active lurking. They make posts, but there's very little content to them. I'm hesitant to give a read beyond that, at least for NS, because I always think he's scum when I read/play with him for exactly for that reason, and I'm sure he's not scum in ever game he plays...

These are his first reads of the game. The reads on me and Cub are okay, but the read on Beli is a bit awkward - he conflates NS's and Beli's active lurkings, which are very, very different. Beli's posts 50, 57, 62, 76, 117, 148, and 153 all contained content. NS's first post that I can construe as content is 65, and beyond that 81, 140 and

maybe

84. Point is, Beli had posted much more content than NS, so lumping them together as "active lurking" is ignoring the fact that they active lurked very differently. Sure, he does differentiate the reads on the two, but not based on their content. Again, the key word here is conflation - he's conflating NS with Beli, which ignores any specific content of their posts (which is fine since they were quick reads) but also ultimately misrepresents what they'd done.

So you unvote your sure scumpick to vote someone you believe is scum by association to him?
wtf?
This is wrong. From your way of thought, NS is scum. Then you suggest that pecan is scum because he was too cautious to actually vote NS, his partner.
That assertion is a stretch, and you unvoted who you believe is scum in both scenarios to do it.

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

See my post 320 for what I think of this part of the post. The second part feels really exaggerated, to the point where I don't think the content is genuine.

More will come post-dinner.

[implosion]

they're not hard to read

As a person who has had historical problems with too many walls of text, it's harder than you think.

[implosion]

Flying home today in ~8 hours for spring break. Won't be active today, hanging out with friends who i won't see for a week.

[implosion]

Belisarius. Cheery dog did not scumslip. I don't care if he

is

scum. He did not scumslip. There is no psychological reason that typing "town" instead of "scum" would be more likely to come from scum than it would be to come from town, and CD's explanation is perfectly legitimate. I'd be hard-pressed to find an MS player who's played a significant number of games and hasn't accidentally typed town instead of scum (or vice versa) at some point.

In fact, for some players (including me in some cases but not all), typos can be indicative of town. Typos indicate that the player isn't paying close attention to what they post, and some players (myself included much of the time) check or analyze their own posts before posting more as scum than as town because they have more to worry about once its posted.

[implosion]

The language used shows a mindset of wanting to kill town, coming right out of a night phase where the most recent discussion scum had was with other scum.

Oh

brother

. This argument is ridiculous. People do things other than play mafia. Scum are not constantly in the same mindset just because they talk to other scum. Learn basic psychology :\. When you talk with your scumbuddies as scum, are those thoughts just permeating your mind when you post as scum? Either the answer is no or you aren't playing right as scum - one of the most important things for scum to do is separate their 'town-personas' and 'scum-personas' so to speak.

Safety's 603 is bad. Safety's 604 is good. I really like his analysis of 509 - it reads as town who's genuinely irritated that popc's thinking seems somewhat contradictory. Safety is still town.

[implosion]

Let's start talking about Edosurist.

Quick reads:
implosion looks town, and his play also looks very similar to Mini 1394, in which he was also town. By the way, I don't imagine him wearing a monocle.
Cub is weak scum for the tunneling on NS.
I'm not liking NS and Belisarius's active lurking. They make posts, but there's very little content to them. I'm hesitant to give a read beyond that, at least for NS, because I always think he's scum when I read/play with him for exactly for that reason, and I'm sure he's not scum in ever game he plays...

These are his first reads of the game. The reads on me and Cub are okay, but the read on Beli is a bit awkward - he conflates NS's and Beli's active lurkings, which are very, very different. Beli's posts 50, 57, 62, 76, 117, 148, and 153 all contained content. NS's first post that I can construe as content is 65, and beyond that 81, 140 and

maybe

84. Point is, Beli had posted much more content than NS, so lumping them together as "active lurking" is ignoring the fact that they active lurked very differently. Sure, he does differentiate the reads on the two, but not based on their content. Again, the key word here is conflation - he's conflating NS with Beli, which ignores any specific content of their posts (which is fine since they were quick reads) but also ultimately misrepresents what they'd done.

How is "conflating" them by grouping them into a generic group that they both fit show anything about my alignment?

Because it shows that you're half-assing the analysis (sort of). It shows that you care more about calling people things than about being right - if you cared about being right, you'd distinguish the two more clearly. But it's much easier as scum to just say "all of these people are X" because it makes you look like you're doing things, it puts you on a higher level than them, and it makes it so that you don't have to give as many specifics.

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

See my post 320 for what I think of this part of the post. The second part feels really exaggerated, to the point where I don't think the content is genuine.

OK, here it is:

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

Worse point. Calling that an overreaction is like calling the evacuation of a city an overreaction to a hurricane that's about to hit that city. Sure, it's a big reaction, but it's

called for.

When I say a big reaction, I mean that Safety was reacting to several things - like he said, he had to, because there were several things to react to. He did not, however, overreact to any thing in particular. pieceofpecanpie, on the other hand, very definitely DID overreact to one very specific thing.

And I've explained myself on this already. The string of posts made it look like he got really excited about the game all of a sudden for whatever reason, but I now realize that's just his playstyle.

The fact that you've explained what happened after you posted this doesn't change how I see it. I still think your point was exaggerated. I still think you were jumping on something as a "gotcha" because you could. And I still don't think that your reasoning was genuine

at the time

, whether or not you've rescinded it.

[implosion]

Right now I'm willing to vote Edos, NS and probably popc. I have townreads on ac and safety, and weakly on belisarius - this is mostly because many of the points on belisarius feel like they're criticizing him for bad reasoning/misunderstanding things, rather than scummy reasoning/misrepresenting things.

There are plenty more people that I still need to read, though~

VOTE: Edosurist]/vote]

[implosion]

VOTE: Edosurist

[implosion]

Safety's #604 is really bad

Of course you think it's bad, he's refuting points that you made :\. Look at it neutrally.

implosion and SafetyDance are scum together. I can almost guarantee it.

Have you heard of Bayes' theorem?

[implosion]

HD's analysis of my posts on page four is a bit silly - I'm fairly sure he's reading with confirmation bias (that is, he's looking for reasons for every one of my posts to be scummy, when even if i AM scum it doesn't guarantee that all of my posts will be scummy). In other words, he's assuming that i'm scum (possibly unconsciously) based on some of my earlier posts, and with that assumption in mind, he's attempting to find scummy motivation in all of my posts rather than reading them neutrally and trying to figure out if they are scummy.

Anyway, let's talk a bit about safetydance.

Hey everyone, Safety is yelling any sort of opportunistic bullshit about anyone and calling it scum-play.

eg. No 2 kills last night = edo instant scum for even mentioning the possibility of SK

Nowhere did he say "instant scum"; nowhere did he imply anywhere NEAR the level of confidence that you imply he did. You're also totally ignoring the reason that he called that scummy.

Cheery says something about something = call it a slip and vote him

Firstly, he's not the only one who called it a slip. Secondly, bad reasoning isn't necessarily scummy, and you need to show specifically that it is more likely to come from scum than from town.

No vote on NS, FoS instead = PoPP NS' scumbuddy, easy tell, scum caught

I'm not even sure what this is referring to. Enlighten me.

My comments in red. I don't want to defend safety for safety but dear god, you're being so ridiculous.

[implosion]

implosion and SafetyDance are scum together. I can almost guarantee it.

Have you heard of Bayes' theorem?

I'm not sure how P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B) is relevant to this situation.

This might illuminate it a bit.
Let's say A represents the statement "implosion and safety are both scum" and B represents the statement "implosion and safetydance will say all of the things that they've said."

Then p(B|A) may be decently large, but P(A) is very small.

In other words, if you're going to make the bold statement "i'm confident that implosion and safety are scum together," you need a hell of a lot more evidence than you do to make either claim on its own, and not only has HD only read about 1/5 of the game, but he hasn't even made that much in-depth analysis of stuff - he's more just said "this is scummy" or laughed at things.

Think about it with respect to the comic. If I'm going to say "the sun has exploded," I'm going to need a lot more evidence than simply a 1/36 chance.

[implosion]

Additionally, the denominator becomes (P(B|A)P(A) + P(B|!A)P(!A)). P(!A) is large (probably around 95%). So HD also needs to show that P(B|!A) is small. That is, he needs to show that safety and I

wouldn't

say the things we've said as town. And given that a lot of his analysis has just been criticizing playstyles, he has not shown that.

[implosion]

Also, I just realized that I accidentally attributed the "safety and implosion are scum together" quote to safety instead of human destroyer.

Let this be a lesson to those who are still pushing the scumslip that

typos happen

.

alternatively you can call that a scumslip and i'll just laugh at you.

[implosion]

implosion why are you acting as Safety's drawbridge?

Whenever an argumentative knight comes galloping towards Safety's castle you're all like

"raise the bridge!"

and Safety can cower safely in his self-constructed ivory tower.

But really, why?

Because when people give bad attacks on people that I think are town, I defend them.

I can give you meta of me doing this (as town, and probably as scum but I can't think of any specific games) if you want.

Oh, cast it from thy sieve-like books of comprehension, sir, you're out of your element

[implosion]

Really, I'd be fine with pretty much anything from apozzle right now >_>

[implosion]

lmfao popc you're asking the clear NOT to contribute. That's completely rdiiculous.

First off, nowhere has anyone indicated that they're going to sheep apozzle.

Second off, if anyone did, then it would obviously be scummy.

Third off, you could, you know, not be a dick about it and *ask*, popc. You could *ASK* me if i plan to sheep apozzle. As a matter of fact, I don't. I plan to read his opinions as a valuable source of town-motivated information and take them into account in my wholistic evaluation of this game.

Odds are, they won't change my opinions unless he gives damn good arguments for why my townreads are scum or why my scumreads are town.

[implosion]

you realize that everyone (barring NS and maybe one or two others, but almost everyone at least) has already given plenty of stances - at this point apozzle giving his own stances is perfectly acceptable, EVEN by your "he should wait until near the end of the day" reasoning.

Like, if apozzle doesn't give stances until shortly before the end of the day, he may as well not exist. We have a clear. We should take advantage of the information that having a clear gives us. I'm trying to think of a good analogy but failing.

[implosion]

also, yeah, did you even fucking read beli's post? He's asking apozzle to make a case on *HIM*. lol, i guess beli's totally gonna sheep that case that he's asking apozzle to make on him~

[implosion]

How is that not scummy of him?

I'm not saying it's not scummy of him.

I'm saying you were preemptively criticizing him for sheeping apozzle when he was asking apozzle to make a case on him.

Looking back, i may have misinterpreted 634 to be referring to both 633 an 632 (rather than just 633). If so, then apologies.

[implosion]

I'm going to go ahead and declare a townread on Belisarius.

It's not that I understand his motivation for doing what he's doing; it's that i believe that the motivation exists, and I don't think he'd be doing what he's doing as scum.

[implosion]

Like, i don't think the "i'm going to show that even the CLEAR can't make a case on me" motivation is likely. I just don't think he'd be that ballsy as scum, in a way.

[implosion]

I find it interesting that both Belisarius and SafetyDance had their votes off this lynch, but not Apozzle.

This looks like they want to avoid being on two town wagons.

Think about this for a second - yes, that is one possible motivation: that they didn't want to be on two town wagons. Another possible motivation is simply that they thought Apozzle was scum and didn't think that goodmorning was scum.

Do you have good reason, other than

pre-existing

reads on belisarius and safetydance, to attribute the second motivation rather than the first?

[implosion]

I've already explained why; I think there was one (probably only one) scum on the Apozzle wagon, and those two both happened to be on the lynch.

Why was there one scum on the Apozzle wagon?

Vote: ac1983fan

[implosion]

I think the best position here is "I don't know." Just because there was a significant wagon on town, does not necessitate there being scum on that wagon, nor does it necessitate there being only one.

[implosion]

If you don't have a townread on ac, you're not reading the game. I'll explain it when I have more time if I really still have to baby you through it.

This quote makes me want to punch a barrel full of kittens.

He isn't saying that he doesn't have a townread on ac. He's asking for

your specific reasoning

for that townread which you've failed to give. He is not disputing the read, nor is he affirming it.

Please actually

read

what people are saying... it makes me sad, because i don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting what was said... but you aren't responding to what safety asked. You're wholly sidestepping the question. It infuriates me when you completely ignore the questions that are being asked and then take a high ground with your tone in posts like 681. For the record, it doesn't infuriate me that safety is taking a similar tone, because he's actually addressing points that are being made towards him as they are.

If I want your reasoning for a townread on ac, i might have two reasons for that. I might want to read ac better,

or i might want to read YOU better.

Asking people to explain reads allows us to read not only those people whose reads they explain, but also the person explaining.

"I think ac is self-evidently town" is not reasoning. It's balogna. Saying ac is self-evidently town does not make it true, just like saying that the sun self-evidently rotates around the earth does not make it true. In fact he didn't have ac on his list of people he'd like to lynch today, so i'd wager at worst he has ac as a nullread.

[implosion]

Also, HD, note that the above is not me calling you scum. I'm unsure of your alignment right now.

[implosion]

See, I really,

really

dislike a lot of HD's play. But my gut still says he's being genuine. I don't think his misdirection is intentional (if I understand how you're using that word), I don't think his self-meta is a scumtell (frankly, self-meta is almost never a scumtell, i do it all the time). I think he's wrong on a lot of things but the more i look at him the less i think he's doing it because he's scum. The way he said he was "hard-resetting", the way he's responding to the sk talk, etc... i think (weakly) that he's town the more that i look at him. I would be happy if he was scum, but I don't think he is.

[implosion]

704 says pretty much everything I could say about popc right now very well, and the tone feels exactly the same as the way i feel (and also feels genuine).

Also, brief point on the sk speculation: although nothing suggests the existence of an sk as more likely than the non-existence of an sk per se, the fact that there was one kill last night does not preclude the existence of an sk, especially in light of the fact that there were mason claims, and the sk may have decided "hey, i don't like clears, i'll shoot a mason" and wound up shooting the same one as the mafia team.

Note that the above is not an argument for there being an SK, nor does it say anything about speculating particular people as being an sk, it just says "it's possible."

[implosion]

Normal wagon trends. I subscribe to the newsletter of "on most wagons, there is at least one scum, but not all of them"

The problem is that this isn't really the case because of scum behaviors; it's the case because of math (specifically, combinatorics). It's also the case because someone at some point created this theory then looked for data to fit it. Scum do not, generally speaking, have it as a primary motivation when voting that they try to make it so that one scum is on each wagon. Mathematically, it gives you no benefit to assume that there's one scum on the wagon and go from there.

[implosion]

@Edosurist, are you still going to be able to post during then, because otherwise we've lost you until after deadline and I think this game needs more contributes from everybody.

This. Plus i'd still really like to lynch you .

[implosion]

That's why I don't name publications.

What he's saying is that it's a bad theory to subscribe to.

[implosion]

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

See, this is why i keep saying that you're misrepping people :\. Cheery Dog made it, I thought, very clear that he wasn't advocating for any wagon analysis method in particular, just that HD's was wrong. And when he corrected your misinterpretation in 730, you didn't kindly apologize for misrepresenting what he had said, you just went off on another tangent and made him look like he was in the wrong by asking him a question that sounds like it should have been answered a long time ago, when in fact it was.

I have used wagon analysis before, but i absolutely agree with popc that generalizations are useless. Wagon analysis needs to be tailored to the wagons and game in which it's being used. If you see a flipped scum, for instance, who you think is personality-wise likely to vote with their scumbuddies, you can use that to your advantage.

[implosion]

I disagree, I certainly interpreted Cheery as forming the beginnings of his own wagon theories to contrast HD's generalisations. You see if he'd said the first bit, then yeah he's refuting HD's statement and not advocating any wagon analysis. But instead he follows it up with, what to me, reads like a broad statement with no backing and is perfectly open to wagon analysis (see how that's exactly the same as what HD did?) which I've put in bold.

The bolded quote was "The site's meta really doesn't support it currently."

...so you're interpreting "the site's meta doesn't support this" as "the site's meta does support other things." Right, right. That's about as legitimate as interpreting "we do not want to nuke china" as "we want to nuke every country other than china."

Saying "the site's meta does not support this currently" in

no way whatsoever

implies that current site meta supports any given wagon analysis theory, and to imply it does is an exercise in fantasy. In fact you *AGREED* that HD's theory was not supportable, which is the ONLY thing that the bolded sentence was saying. Please, explain to me how the bolded sentence in any way implies that cheery dog was advocating for using his own brand of wagon analysis.

...is that Cheery didn't correct my misinterpretation at all. He just completely ignored a section of what he had said and what I had addressed with the following line of questioning.

To make this ABSOLUTELY clear.

your 729 implies that you think CD is proposing his own wagon analysis theory.
I don't want to speak for him but i'm not speaking for him when i say

he's never said anything like that

and has in fact explicitly said that he is not proposing his own wagon analysis theory. That's what he said in 730. 730 replies to 729 in its entirety by explaining that it was a bad interpretation of what CD had previously said. Post 729 was, in fact, swept aside

because that was the appropriate response to you talking about something he never said

.

Since you're nit-picking me so much, implosion, do you feel like sharing your thoughts on myself? And it'd also be nice to hear if there are alternative wagons that you consider viable.

I still find you scummy, and i have serious problems believing that you have genuinely misinterpreted the number of things that i see you as having severely misinterpreted or misrepresented. At this point, I'm not sure whether or not i'm suspicious of you because of actual scumminess or just because you see things that were never said (i'm ambivalent on your alignment), but if a wagon formed on you i would not hesitate to jump on it.

I see NS as a possible alternative, in that enough people have expressed willingness to vote him (even if no one is) that a wagon could pop out of thin air. You'll note that i've actually already answered this to an extent as well, seeing as i listed people i'd be willing to lynch in 610. I haven't gained any significant scumreads since then. I would say at this point that Edosurist is the only person for whom i have some semblance of confidence in a scumflip.

[implosion]

*sigh*

Unvote

VOTE: NS

[implosion]

So people are unvoting based on a roleblocker claim because...

[implosion]

goddammit apozzle.

having interactions is not a reason to lynch someone.

Look at this list. Then look at who the scum were in this game.

Funny story - that post was made by a townie, and in it, he decided to list everyone by how much info we'd learn from their flips. He managed to successfully, perhaps by accident, pin both scum in that post as the two people whose flips provided the least information. Information is not a reason to lynch, ever. Thinking that someone is scum is. A roleblocker claim does NOT justify NS's behavior - in fact, if anything it makes him much more likely to be scum.

Given that two of the letters were masons, the five unknown letters could be anything (except, we can assume, more masons, or at least I will). That's five letters, each with an effective 5/90 = 1/18 chance to be a roleblocker letter, for a base 25% chance of there being a roleblocker

at all.

The odds of a scum roleblocker are higher although i'm too lazy to carry out the calculation. "benefit of the doubt" is not a valid reason to delay his lynch. Granted those odds alone aren't enough to justify lynching him but come

on.

Those odds combined with NS's play is enough.

[implosion]

Yes. This is a different situation. I agree.

But the last line from Apozzle implied that information gained from a lynch should be a significant factor in deciding the lynchee. And i'm showing that it shouldn't.

[implosion]

I am not saying no to lynching NS today because of only information. I am weighing the various factors to determine whether I believe he is the best lynch. Information is one of those factors.

It should not be a factor whatsoever.

Furthermore, you are not showing that it should be discounted as a factor in decision making. You are displaying a singular case in which using it as a factor lead to the wrong conclusion. If you show me 100 cases in which using information gain as a factor lead to defeat or serious damage to town, then I will consider the evidence significantly overwhelming to discount it and support an NS lynch today.

I'm showing enough evidence to discount the automatic supposition that it is important as a factor. You have the burden of proof to show that it is a useful factor, i.e. you, if you wanted to show that it should be an important factor, need to show ME 100 cases where, in the majority of cases, it has led to enough information to overcome the negative effects of not focusing entirely on aiming for scum, or that no such negative effects exist.

[implosion]

If we mislynch a PR now that's a huge set back for us and one that we shouldn't be risking.

or
or
we lynch scum

[implosion]

Are you trying desperately hard to mislynch him? Because I'm starting to believe his claim due to your weird logic, which I can only read as anti-town.

That logic wasn't even in favor of lynching NS; it was just trying to debunk what apozzle said. Here's some logic in favor of lynching NS:

Implosion, if he's not lying then we lose a PR that could be used during the night to positive effect to TOWN. It's not like he's sole scum.

three things.

Number one. If he IS lying then we KILL a pr that could be used during the night to NEGATIVE effect to TOWN.
Number two. We can't just go around being afraid to lynch people because we're afraid they're going to be a power role.
Number three. NS provides very, very little benefit to the town at all - sure, he could roleblock, but we're in odds (odd number of players alive during the day) - scum can, if they so desire, simply no-kill and his roleblock would be made essentially useless, and he'd likely be lynched the next day.

I don't understand either, how Implosion is definitely pushing a mislynch or deserves a vote just for wanting one of his top scum reads lynched. Trying to create another wagon now IS scummy, imo, it's not really helping getting a consensus.

It's not like I'm trying to create a wagon out of thin air. I'm trying to explain why people were stupid for jumping off of it in the first place. Any benefit to the town is nominal, especially if we're just going to wind up saying "we'll lynch him later anyway."

but at least we - along with others - have stopped being on the wagon despite previous judgement, because the PR claim is telling us it's best to lynch elsewhere.

Apozzle is clear. That does not mean apozzle is right.

I would be HAPPY to vote edosurist if a wagon formed more. I just don't predict that happening, and he and NS are the only lynches that I think have any good chance of happening (yes, i may be delusional, but i think i can still convince people on NS more easily than i can on edos) that i think will wind up being on scum.

incidentally i typed this up in ten minutes before going to a lecture so if it sounds crazy then oh well but seriously.

[implosion]

1) To-may-to, to-mah-to. Most of us are saying one, you are saying the other.

No, I'd agree with both.

We're playing cautiously, you'd prefer to be reckless. Yes, he could be a scum RB, it was mentioned a couple of times but why take the chance IF he's town?

You're using this word, cautiously. I do not think it means what you think it means.

How's this.

Yes, he could be a town RB, it was mentioned a couple of times but why take the chance IF he's scum? We could wind up letting him as a scum RB live another day.

both ways of doing it are risky.

I'm not advocating that we throw caution to the wind, i'm advocating that we lynch someone who i think is scum.

It leaves us on a wing and a prayer with the other side holding all the chips.

*sigh*.
see my third point. It denies us of a nearly-useless power role.

If we lynch town

at all

it leaves us on a wing and a prayer with the other side holding all the chips. Hence, i'm advocating that we try to lynch

scum

.

2) It's not being afraid, it's postponing till tomorrow at worst case scenario.

I haven't seen any valid justification. Again, my third point defeats the justification of "but we get a day of use of the roleblocker" because the roleblocker is nearly as bad as useless, and can in fact have negative utility if it hits another town PR.

I'm certainly not afraid to lynch him. The fact he claimed RB makes me more comfortable to lynch him over a doc/cop claim.

*sigh*.

3) I don't disagree with the start of this but the rest is just pre-nk spec. It's just as bad as pop in #789.

Okay, let's refine it a bit then. Instead of speculating, let's list out every possibility if we leave him alive and he's town, as well as if he's scum.

If he's town:
-NS blocks killing scum, no kill.
-NS blocks a vanilla townie/nonkilling scum, scum kill.
-NS blocks a vanilla townie/nonkilling scum, no kill.
-NS blocks a town power role, scum kill.
-NS blocks a town power role, no kill.

If he's scum:
-NS blocks a vanilla townie, scum kill.
-NS blocks a vanilla townie, no kill.
-NS blocks a town power role, scum kill.
-NS blocks a town power role, no kill.

You'll notice that each of the first situations is indistinguishable from at least one of the second situations, and vice versa - so letting NS block gives us little or no information about his alignment. Additionally, you'll notice that no matter what NS's alignment is, and no matter whether or not there is a kill, the blocked person may be town or scum.

I'm not saying that any particular thing

will

happen. I'm saying that since any of these could happen, we gain no info.

I think you should consider HD.

I did consider him; i gave a weak townread on him a bit back.

[implosion]

My vote is probably going to Implosion for advocating a lynch of a claimed PR

did you read the whole me explaining how he's useless thing

because yeah

[implosion]

it kind of explains why i'm advocating a lynch of a claimed PR from a town perspective

[implosion]

if you're unilaterally declaring "those who advocate the lynches of power roles are scum" then i'm sorry, but you're just objectively wrong and you should look at some completed games.

[implosion]

HD is town. *sigh*.

I've had a really busy past couple of days, and there really isn't much to say other than that.

[implosion]

I don't think he's the kind of player who would change his claim as scum.

[implosion]

How can you even purport that to be factual?

If there's one alignment that are looking to fakeclaim, it's scum. Also, if there's one alignment who shouldn't have to fakeclaim or claim twice, it's town.

If he completely derped then that's just wonderful, another valued member of the town team doing little, saying little and that clueless about this game they don't even know where they're at.

I consider the claim a WIFOM situation, so I'm not sure how you're able to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

How does the rest of HD's play read to you?

It is, in a way, a wifom situation. Wifom situations aren't unreadable, though. In essence, there are two possibilities: either town-HD forgot his role genuinely, or scum-HD deliberately fakeclaimed a role thinking that it would give him towncred. Both are very improbable situations: townies rarely forget their roles, and it is highly unlikely that scum would see it as beneficial to retract a claim they've already made. My intuition says the first is more likely.

I've said a couple of times that (aside from his claim) i have a weak townread on HD. See here for why.

[implosion]

Incidentally hd's role is possibly confirmable...

HD, did you shoot last night? Why/who or why not?

[implosion]

So yeah, so far we've had CCVBMM claimed. That's a lot of letters. Funny story,

that means there's

probably

scum in the PR claims.

Hint 1, it's NS. Hint 2, we should lynch NS. Hint 3, i'm kind of pissed because we're about to not be able to lynch my first choice because he's been absent for a week until deadline and we're not going to be able to lynch my second choice because derpy people who don't read why his RB claim means jack shit.

I'll be here before deadline as well and if there isn't a wagon on either Edos or NS when i come back then i'm going to be a sad panda.

Also, on an unrelated note, i think i had a dream where i was a town roleblocker (note: I'm saying this now only because if i was a town roleblocker, i'd cc NS) and that that was why i was pushing on NS >_>. But alas, I'm not.

[implosion]

Incidentally, two other things.

One. This is day two. There are eleven people alive. That means we can mislynch two more times, at most. We don't have TIME to just categorically ignore PR claims for being PR claims, even for a day.

Two, and a LOT of very experienced mafia players have said this (yes, i'm appealing to authority but bear with me): claiming before a lynch is not the golden egg that will save the town from impending destruction. It isn't even completely necessary. Hell, i'd almost be HAPPY to lynch Edosurist and see him flip a power role, because we have so many goddamn power roles claimed. It'd narrow the pot immensely.

In fact, if Edos claims a power role, we should be 100% lynching in PR claims. If he doesn't, then he's claiming VT and you have no grounds on which to object to his lynch based on his claim. Him lurking and being unable to claim are both terrible reasons for not lynching him.

Unvote

VOTE: Edosurist

In the hopes that momentum can be built.

[implosion]

I will say this again, for emphasis.

Claiming is not necessary in general.

Claiming is ESPECIALLY unnecessary in these particular circumstances.

Claiming a PR does not give you a free pass in and of itself, even for a day. Especially a PR like roleblocker.

We do not have

time

to give PRs free passes, even for a day.

[implosion]

Actually.

With this many letters claimed, we should probably just massclaim.

Which is sad, because we definitely don't have time to massclaim.

[implosion]

We don't do anything until (IN THIS ORDER):

1) Belisarius claims a result
2) NS claims a roleblock target

I mean, we can discuss shit and stuff, but don't speculate about who they targeted until they claim targets. I would also probably like a massclaim depending on what is claimed from massclaim.

[implosion]

...I'm sleep deprived ;_;.

[implosion]

That makes Susan confirmed Town (unless NS or Beli is lying).

Which NS probably is~

Confirmation of a Godfather means 0-2 T's; that makes 6 non-T letters a lot more plausible than some people were saying before.

Nope. not 0-2: 0 *OR* 2. 1 T requires a serial killer. Which is part of why we massclaim. Additionally, again from Bayes' theorem, 7 non-T letters is very unlikely (albeit not impossible). Note i am assuming no serial killer which i think is fair.


Right now, the claimed town power is MMVCCBX. The godfather flip confirms that at least three other town power roles exist. So, massclaiming is awesome right now:

-if another PR claims, we get more information, with a PR likely dying tonight anyway.
-if none claims, then we get, effectively, a counterclaim situation between Nobody Special and Human Destroyer, because there would necessarily be exactly five letters.
-either way, since so much power has been claimed, it's the point at which massclaim will be beneficial.

[implosion]

I'm going to assume (for now) that Beli and NS are telling the truth. The fact that they both targetted Susan makes me think they're thinking similarly.

VOTE: Cheery Dog

ahuepfhasiodbnaoiusdhfpgoijdls;zkjgl;kzjds;l;;;;

Beli claimed to target susan
THEN NS claimed to target susan
people are capable of lying

[implosion]

UNVOTE:

Beli is not claiming RB

I know but my point is NS could've roleblocked the Mafia RBer and it would've had no effect

There's nothing in the Roleblocker role PM which indicates this.

That makes Susan confirmed Town (unless NS or Beli is lying).

By what logic? There are almost certainly two mafiosos left...PoPC could have been the scum who didn't submit any night actions.

Nope. According to the wiki page linked in one of the mod's opening posts, the Mafia Roleblocker is not allowed to block and kill in the same night.

With that being said, I think i see your logic now...I think what we actually have is one of the following situations:
1) Beli, Nobody Special, and POPC are all town
2) Two of POPC, Beli, and Nobody Special are scum.

Now, if the case is 1, and making the assumption that HD was being truthful, that means we drew MMCCVB?. If the ? is a T, then there would be a serial killer present; but this is unlikely, seeing as we have had two consecutive nights with only one nightkill (and the claimed blocker claimed to not have used his action N1). So the ? would almost certainly be another non-T; which means that, if 1 is true and HD is being truthful, there needs to be at least one other power role out there. Alternatively, 1 could be true but HD could be scum, which would give us MMCCBTT, which is consistent with all flips so far.
On the other hand, if 2 is true, then HD must be being truthful as there are no more slots for scum. So, assuming there is not a serial killer because a preponderance of the evidence points to that conclusion) our draws would have to be either MMVTTCC (assuming Beli is the truther); MMVTTB? (assuming NS is truth-telling); or one of MMVTT?? or MMV???? (? is non-T).
Now my logic could be erroneous and the assumption that there is no SK MIGHT be unfounded...But I think 1 is fairly likely to be true; I also think that if 2 is true, then Beli is probably the truth-teller of the group.

With that being said...An easy way to check this situation is to lynch one of POPC, Beli, and NS; of the three NS is the "lynch of least resistance" because he has seemingly not really been trying at all - but I don't know that that is the "best use" of a day.

I'm not sure how to proceed, frankly.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

The night results imply

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

about popc's alignment.

If no one else claims a PR, then the possibilities are these AND ONLY THESE:
MMCCVTT (hint: this is the setup)
MMCCVBT (there's no serial killer so probably not this)
MMCCBTT (HD is town and NS is scum, so this isn't the setup, but if you read them oppositely then this is a legitimate viewpoint)

If someone else claims one letter worth of PR and is telling the truth, these are the possibilities:
MMCC*TT (which implies ns + hd)
MMVB*TT (which implies beli + ?)
MMCCVB* (again, probably not the setup)

we need to know which of these possibilities we're dealing with.

Which is why we massclaim.

If there are any downsides please list them because you're wrong.

in fact i've basically claimed VT earlier in this post so why don't i get the ball rolling: I'm a vt.

everyone just claim, it doesn't even need to be organized, scum know what they're claiming and they know what's out there.

[implosion]

That just leaves ac1983fan, SafetyDance, and pieceofpecanpie unclaimed.

[implosion]

So then claimed letters are MMCCCVB. If safety were scum, then we would be at MMVBTTT (since beli would be fake) which is impossible with the godfather flip. So yeah, popc is confscum. Awesome.

NS and HD are also town barring an SK. Which is surprising, at least a little, but there are probably 7 letters at this point. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that beli is scum. If he is, then he's completely doomed, because he'll have to claim a result every day on which there's a kill, so i'm going to ignore that possibility.

If popc flips scum roleblocker, then either NS or Beli will be alive tomorrow to clear a VT claim.

[implosion]

yeah, i want to do this and there's nothing else that needs to happen today.

VOTE: pieceofpecanpie

[implosion]

Checking in (still on V/LA) but I shot the fuck out of Safety

Why the shit did you fakeclaim a guilty that isn't cool

...this still isn't okay :\.

even though safety lied he was still confirmed town - there was no possible setup that had him as scum. if he were scum, that'd imply that belisarius was scum, in which case there would only be four claimed town letters, in which case either there would be no godfather or both nobody special and you would have to be scum which would imply that there were four scum, which is impossible.

In other words, either safetydance lied about his result or someone else lied about their roleclaim. In other words, fuck you safety.

the setup is probably mmcccbv but like, we were genuinely in a very good position yesterday and now we're in a genuinely terrible position. Kinda irritated but i'm just not in a mood that allows me to rage right now.

[implosion]

Safety could have been scum with anyone

except

Beli. So when Susan flipped Town, that made Safety confirmed Scum based on his claim. HD made the right decision.

No - if safety was scum, then beli HAD to be scum. Beli had an innocent result on safety. If beli was town, then safety was town. The contrapositive of that statement is that if safety was scum, then beli was scum.

At the moment when pecan died, safety was, formally speaking, both confirmed town and confirmed scum. This meant, with certainty, that SOMEONE (not necessarily, but probably, safety) lied about something as town.

[implosion]

we should probably nolynch but my motivation for this game exploded into tiny bits when popc flipped town since you know lying town

[implosion]

Yes, yes it will. It gives us information in who dies, and in a situation like this, just the fact of someone dying on its own is beneficial. I've played in similar endgames.

[implosion]

How?

It gives us information in who dies, and in a situation like this, just the fact of someone dying on its own is beneficial. I've played in similar endgames.

To elaborate slightly: in a situation where no one is exempt from suspicion, eliminating any potential suspect is a boon. I can tell from experience that this is probably such a situation.

[implosion]

bah

[implosion]

I want to explain this one more time because I feel like pecan isn't understanding my argument, which might be because i'm not saying it clearly enough. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I just feel like you aren't understanding the argument that I'm making.

Given the claims,

safety could not have been scum.

It was absolutely, positively impossible for safety to be scum unless either a power role was claiming VT (which I assumed wasn't happening) or Belisarius was actually a cop and was lying about his result (which I assumed wasn't happening) or a power role was lying and claiming a different power role (which I assumed wasn't happening).

The fact that SafetyDance was absolutely, positively town meant that you were absolutely, positively scum. It is

not

reckless to lynch a player who a confirmed-town cop is claiming a guilty on. I did not know that you were town (which should be obvious) - your VT claim didn't matter to me because, given everything else that had been claimed, you were scum no matter what.

When I say that I was assuming no townies were lying, I mean the following logical argument: Premise 1, if pecan is town then there is a townie lying (either safety lying about his result, or some other townie (OTHER than you) lying about their claim; premise 2, no townies are lying; conclusion, pecan is scum.

Regardless: good game.

[implosion]

pecan. premise 2 was false. i was assuming it was true. you weren't confirmed town. I didn't know you were vt. I don't know how you can't wrap your head around that.

fun fact, i'm not you. I don't have information fmpov that you have fypov. you would have been absolutely justified in quickhammering me if safety had claimed a guilty on me.

[implosion]

Then wait for me to have a chance to post and share that information

by information i mean that you're confirmed town from your point of view. It's impossible to share that information.

There is nothing you could have said at that point that would have absolved you of being lynched. The only thing that could be said at that point that would make you not the only possible lynch choice would be safety saying he lied. Even if you had responded, you still would have been the objectively best lynch choice until safety said he was lying.