Mini #643: Time Capsule Mafia, Game Over

[Yosarian2]

5th post is the 4th vote on someone? Really?

vote:Ythill

[Yosarian2]

Not lynch -1, iceman, it's 7 votes to lynch in this game. But still, yeah, it's a really odd move.

[Yosarian2]

Marvelous.

unvote

My bandwagoning was meant to accomplish two things: end the random phase and provide information. It's done both.

@ Yos & Batt: Your votes jump to a conclusion. Please explain why my vote L-3 would have been more likely to come from scum.

(shrug) I'm not interested in WIFOMing it, Ythill, or getting into a "would scum do something so obveously scummy" debate. Doing that with no explination, pushing a wagon that far with absolutly no reason, seems to me to be an anti-town move, and one that could theoretically have ended quite badly; if one more person followed your lead, he would have been at lynch -2, and might felt forced to clain or something. Page 1, day 1, I see someone act in an apparently anti-town way, I'm going to vote for them.

TheSweatpantsNinja: Was that a random vote, or do you really have a problem with my ythill vote here?

[Yosarian2]

...if one more person followed your lead, he would have been at lynch -2, and might felt forced to clain or something.

Nonsense. By voting, you suggest that you believe I am scum which, in a 12 person game, means there are probably only 2 more. Would they vote to L-1 and then hammer? Would it hurt the town if they did, to get one mislynch? Darox was

never

in danger, especially if I am the play.

Your fear-mongering is scummy. You know this game well enough to know how uncommon page 1 mislynches are. Besides, what makes you think it would have been a mislynch?

...what the hell are you talking about?

I'm voting for you because you did something anti-town, which made a vote for you better then a random vote would be. I'm not saying I "believe you're scum", although it is more likely then random (and just got a lot MORE likely after this post, FYI). I AM saying that you did something that hurt the town. I am also saying that if I HADN'T voted you, someone else (possibly a newbie, or possibly a scum, or who knows) might have thought "hey, this is the thing to do" and done the same exact thing you and the other three people had done; and that if that had happened we would be in a dangerous situation.

And this defense post of yours is bizzare and scummy; it seems like you're defending yourself against things I never said. I didn't say that "three scum were suddenly going to come out of nowhere and vote him and lynch him" at all. I said that your vote was anti-town, because it was dangerous, it increased the chances of something going very badly wrong, possibly very quickly. It seems like your defense here is trying to say that your vote was no danger because only a scum would vote for someone on page 1 with already had several votes on him; but since that is exactally what you just did, that dosn't make any sense at all, unless you are scum.

What the hell do you mean "fear-mongering"? You did an anti-town action, which basically means an action that's more likely to hurt the town then to help the town. Was it *very likely* to hurt the town? The odds probably weren't all that high. But, nonetheless, I think your action was anti-town, and I vote for people who act in anti-town ways.

Yes, for Darox to be in significant danger, it would mean several people would have to do something dangerous and anti-town. But, considering several people just HAD done something dangerous and anti-town, that hardly seems unlikely.

Also, I don't really like your explination for your actions in your other post either. Yes, you ended the random phase; you did it by acting really, really scummy. And yes, when you act really, really scummy, people will vote for you. How does that "provide information", exactally? And if you were doing that delibratly, then why are you so up in arms about people voting you? Shouldn't you have expected that?

[Yosarian2]

Fear mongering = stating that putting someone at L-3 on page one is dangerous and, now, continuing that ridiculous argument. People don't usually even claim at L-3, even when there are cases and arguments against them and it's late enough in the day that townies might hammer. But you expect us to believe that my action was "anti-town" because it risked the life of someone who's alignment you supposedly don't know?

Claiming that my move was dangerous is baseless, and it falsely paints me as someone who would pose a serious risk to the town for... what?

I already explained this, you know.

It seems like your defense here is trying to say that your vote was no danger because only a scum would vote for someone on page 1 with already had several votes on him; but since that is exactally what you just did, that dosn't make any sense at all, unless you are scum.

Yos (and others) keep saying that my action was

anti-town

, that it was

scummy

. These are buzzwords, not cases. Can one of these accusers reasonably explain how scum would benefit?

And this.

Doing that with no explination, pushing a wagon that far with absolutly no reason, seems to me to be an anti-town move, and one that could theoretically have ended quite badly; if one more person followed your lead, he would have been at lynch -2, and might felt forced to clain or something.

So, yes, your action was anti-town. That's not just a "buzzword", I explained that as well:

You did an anti-town action, which basically means an action that's more likely to hurt the town then to help the town.

You keep talking about how there was absolutly no risk of putting the 4th vote on someone, but you fail to explain why you're so sure that someone else wouldn't have come along and put the 5th vote on them. You also haven't explained exactally how your action was supposed to help the town. And you certanly haven't explained why you're lashing out at people voting for you now.

If you want to defend yourself, you could respond to my actual posts, not repeat things I've already explained. I was considering unvoting you after your second post, which seemed more pro-town, but since then your defensive posts have seemed increasingly scummy; I just don't trust the way you seem to be acting like you can't understand why anyone would be voting for you here, especally if your goal was to get reactions out of people like you're implying.

[Yosarian2]

(nods) Yup, and the obligatory OMGUS vote.

Never mind that lots of people think what you did was scummy, Yahill. Never mind that even a fairly minor scum tell, which your initial vote certanly was, is certanly worth a vote on page 2. Do you really think that me voting you, for an actual and logical reason, is somehow worse then a random vote would have been at that point?

My initial vote, I made pretty clear, was only slightly better then random, and, like I also made clear, was more designed to deter the anti-town behavior then because I thought it was all that likely Yahill was scum. But since he OMGUS voted me for doing what any pro-town person would have done in that situation, I'm now completly confident in my vote. Let's get the wagon rolling.

[Yosarian2]

Eh, I guess I'l actually respond to Yahill's post, even though he's scummily refusing to actually respond to any of the logical points I've carefully explained so far:

@ Yos: You've already explained... a bunch of BS.

If my arguments are "BS", then why have you refused to actually respond to the logical points I made?

Nobody worth their role was going to claim in that spot.

Not unless someone else voted for him. And I think the odds are disturbingly high that if I hadn't come in and screwed up your wagon at the moment I did, that the next person coming into the game might have done the exact same thing you did. And a lot of people have a policy of always claiming at lynch -2.

I said that scum wouldn't vote late

and

hammer and only eluded that town wouldn't lynch someone so quickly, so you are misrepresenting my argument.

Well, I was never talking primarly about what the scum would do, so your whole "argument" completly ignored the point I made in a scummy way.

When you talk of others following onto the wagon, you state, as evidence, a hypothetical situation and completely neglect the fact that, if a wagon were to get too close to lynch that early, townies would have started unvoting.

Dosn't matter. One more vote, and it's lynch -2, probably followed by a claim. It's too late to unvote at that point.

You are looking at the idea of wagoning in a vacuum, neglecting to consider when and how it occured.

Day 1. 5 posts into day 1. That IS wagoning in a vaccum. Waggoning is fine, so long as there's a reason behind it.

Look. All I've wanted you to do was to try to convince me your vote was not as anti-town as it looked. OR, failing that, at least try to convince me that there's some way YOU might have THOUGHT your vote was not anti-town. Instead, your reactions to a few votes have been INCREDIBLY OMGUSy and scummy, to the point where now I'd be perfectly happy to see you get lynched.

Stating that an action is anti-town because it's more likely to hurt town than help them is not an explanation. You can't give a realistic reason why that statement is true or valid. So you

are

just repeating yourself.

I explained 3 times!

Your arguments lack any basis in reality yet you have opted to stick to them stubbornly.

Um...my arguments are 100% based in simple, clear, mafia theory, and based on your actions.

You've played some slippery tricks, like the I-never-said-you-were-scum-I-said-you-did-something-scummy tactic.

Well, it was a minor scumtell, so no, I didn't really think you were all that likely to be scum. If a random lynch is, say, 25% likely to hit scum, then a minor scumtell like that might bump it up to, say, 35%. Worth a vote this early in the game, but not really a big deal in the big picture.

Your massive over-reaction to a perfectly logical and thought-out vote, however, is a much larger scumtell. I've now moved to the point where I'd be perfectly happy seeing you hang today.

You posted bombast unsupported by evidence. You held your unvote in front of me like a carrot, as if I will ignore evidence against you for fear of your non-case. And now you've fallen into the you-did-it-to-get-reactions-so-me-reacting-isn't-scummy line.

...

Um...wasn't that your defense?

And yes, when I attack someone

with reason

on day 1, I am always interested to see their reaction.

I don't honestly understand how me, putting the FIRST vote on you, with good reason, is supposed to be more scummy then you putting the FOURTH vote on someone else, with ZERO reason.

Also, when I first voted for you, you started with the "Yos looks town" stance; when I then logically answered your question and explained why your vote was scummy and anti-town, you suddenly turned and started calling me scum. Why? Because, from my point of view, it looks like you're attacking me in order to try to defend yourself, and that's usually a sign of a scum in trouble.

I'm not defending, I'm fishing for mafia. And it seems like I've found one.
Vote: Yosarian2

(nods) And this, my friend, is by far the scummiest thing you, or anyone else, have done this game. You have completly failed to explain how any of my attacks against you have been scummy; or why my vote for you is any worse then any of the other votes for you; or why it's scummy that I don't like your vote when clearly lots of other people also don't like your vote. Because from where I'm sitting, considering the 180 degree turn you've made over the last two pages, it looks like you're attacking me simply because you are desperatly trying to undermine my case against you. Which is odd, since my initial case against you wasn't that strong, and I always SAID it wasn't that strong; this kind of desperate, OMGUSy over-reaction from your part looks like a pretty clear scum tell to me.

[Yosarian2]

@ Yos:

I set a trap, questioned each of the people who fell into it, and voted for the one that dropped the most scumtells. That isn't OMGUS. That's me trying to make a good decision.

Sigh...it's possible you are actually being honest here, since I've seen newbies try this before, so let me lay it out for you.

If you act scummy, then pro-town people will vote for you. It's that simple. Trying to get people to vote for you and then attacking them when they do is not a "trap" that makes any sense. You seem to think that your move somehow magically would only get scum to attack you and not get town to attack you, but that dosn't make any sense at all; townies are usually the agreesive, scum-hunting ones; scum are more likely to sit back and wait. Your claim of a "trap" makes even less sense in a no-reveal game, where we won't even find out your alignment after we lynch you.


"How I've acted since then" was to logically explain my actions.

Again, if most of the rest of the people in the game agree with what I'm saying, then I'm pretty clearly making good logical sense, even if it dosn't feel like it to you (which it wouldn't, since you're the one being wagoned here.)

I explained all of my reasons for voting you, and you even quoted some of them. Now we can add to that list: claiming that something is true because a number of people believe it (scum can falsely inflate a majority); citing a supposed trend (a lot of people have a policy of claiming at L-2) out of context (do those people claim @ L-2 half way down page 1? please link to "a lot" of evidence); etc.

The fact that most of the people in the town agree with me, and that the clearly can't ALL be scum, shows that I am making sense here to basically everyone except for you. If you don't think I'm making sense, it might mean that you're a scum who's delibrartly refusing to understand logical arguments, or it might mean that you're just not seeing it clearly since you're the person being wagoned here. In this case, "a number of people believe it" don't make what I'm saying

true

, but the fact that basically everyone agrees with me does indicate that I am making logical sense, and making logical sense is not a scumtell.

And nice try with that "please link to a lot of evidence" line, considering that you created a situation day 1 that basically almost never happens. It really dosn't happen that someone gets wagoned so fast on day 1 for absolutly no reason without even posting. So, no, I can't link to "a lot of evidence" that they would claim, and you can't link to any evidence that they wouldn't claim, because the situation just dosn't come up; I've played a lot of games, and I can't think of any analagous situations.

I feel these things are scummy because you made that reasoned vote for a single null-tell

You can't just declare your action a "null tell" and expect everyone to believe it, you know.

and, when I pointed that out, you went to great lengths, stretching logic, to argue your point. To your credit, it may just be that you can't stand losing an argument, but I'm keeping that in mind before I push you too hard.

Well, I'm not going to stop arguing when I'm right, and I clearly am here. If you keep asking and trying to attack me for it, I'll keep explaining. Your action was completly worthy of my day 1, post 6 vote, and I would do the exact same thing in basically any situation on that stage of day 1 when I was town. How do you not understand that?

Did you really not think that your action there would cause pro-town people to vote you?

I thought you were too experienced to fall into that trap as scum, which is a problematic argument but could have been a valid one. Since then, your stance has proven that one of two things is true: (1) you've not had extensive experience with the tactic I used [null-tell, but cancels my initial argument for finding you more pro-town]; (2) you are scum who felt that you could argue your way through the trap and turn the tables on me; or (3) you are town/neutral motivated by ego, and have trouble admitting when you are wrong [something to consider before lynch, but not before putting pressure on you].

Lol...that's funny, becuase I'm trying to figure out if you are scum who's trying to fight his way out of a paper bag here, or if you're town you are motivated by ego and are having trouble admitting when you're wrong. I'm leaning towards the first, but the second is certanly possible.

I really hate the whole "I acted scummy on purpose because then people would vote for me and that would mean they were scum" defense you're trying to make here in any case.

Seriously Yos, I know you've been playing this game a long time. Take a deep breath and look at the situation. My vote was a null-tell. I questioned the people that attacked me for it. You took a very questionable stance to prove that you were right. I voted you for that stance. Does that really indicate my alignment, regardless of your own?

Your vote was anti-town (which, btw, is somewhat distint from scummy; scummy means that scum are more likely to do it then town; anti-town just means it hurts the town). You asked me why I voted you, and I explained that you did an anti-town action day 1, so I voted for you, because this early in the game I'll certanly vote someone who does an anti-town action; at that point in the game, anything that's better then a random vote is good (unlike your vote, which was significantly worse then a random vote, IMHO), and because it would deter other people from doing the same thing. At which point you completly flipped out, accused me of "fear-mongering", tried to strawman me and make it sound like I said things I never said, and started desperatly and illogically trying to attack me from that point on. I don't understand why a pro-town person would react like that to my simple, and logical, explination; I do understand why a scum might try to undermine the person who was leading a wagon against him. So, your reaction to my vote is the main reason I think you're scum here.

[Yosarian2]

If you act scummy, then pro-town people will vote for you.

Still repeating nonsense. For my action to be "scummy," you have to demonstrate, with evidence, how it serves the purposes of scum. None of you have yet to explain, reasonably, how it would do so. All you've done is made up highly improbable situations (like forcing a claim).

Heh. Oh, so I'm supposed to have a detailed graph and reams of evidence before I put *one* vote on you on page 1 of day 1, even though you had *just* put someone at lynch -3 for absolutly *no* reason at all?

If you knew people were going to vote for you (and it sounds like you did), then that means you KNEW your action would LOOK scummy. So why are you trying to quibble about semantics here?

You seem to think that your move somehow magically would only get scum to attack you and not get town to attack you...

Quote where I said anything like that, liar. I knew it would get a mix, and I've explained that fact, and acted on it. Hence my questions, and then my attacks.

Well, I'm trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about. If you knew that pro-town people would vote for you, then why are you attacking me for voting for you?

Way to turn it around. It was you who pretended to have knowledge about what "a lot" of players would have done there, and that was your main argument for the red herring about forcing a claim. Now that I call on you to share evidence of what you said to be true, you make it look like it's my fault the evidence doesn't exist.

No, you didn't ask me to share evidence on the general principle that some people will claim at lynch -2. You asked me to "prove" using "multiple links" that someone will claim if put at lynch -2 on page 1, which is a pretty absurd thing to expect me to be able to do.

Again, it seems like you're trying to *sound* reasonable while making what are clearly and obviously impossible demands.

The fact that you can't link to a single example doesn't prove that I am right, but it proves, definatively, that you are full of shit.

Oh, I can give you examples. Armlx, for example, has stated in the past that he feels someone should always claim when they get to lynch -2 and are facing what he calls a "moving bandwagon", and he will personally vote anyone who dosn't do that. I don't agree with that logic, personally, I will often refuse to claim if I think it's the right thing to do, but a lot of people don't feel that way.

Which only demonstrates that you are good at mafia, a fact that most of us already know. Convincing others makes you neither correct nor honest. Claiming that it does is another of your subtle lies.

Hint: If everyone agrees with me, and NO ONE agrees with you, and you alone don't understand why everyone's agreeing with me, it probably means you're looking at the situation with a pretty strong bias. That's understandable, no matter what your alignment, but it's not helpful to you in this situation.

I really hate the whole "I acted scummy on purpose because then people would vote for me and that would mean they were scum" defense...

What defense? You haven't posted a single scumtell. You've even said, explicitly, that you believe scum are most likely to sit back on D1. So you've posted a towntell on me. As I've said 6783151823875123 times, I'm on offense against you right now.

I certanly have. The biggest one being the one you mention in your very next paragraph:

At which point you completly flipped out, accused me of "fear-mongering", tried to strawman me and make it sound like I said things I never said, and started desperatly and illogically trying to attack me from that point on. I don't understand why a pro-town person would react like that to my simple, and logical, explination; I do understand why a scum might try to undermine the person who was leading a wagon against him.

Speak of the devil... See... this is reasonable, and I do argue pretty fiercely when I'm applying pressure, so I understand the "flipped out" part. But I never straw-manned you, and I didn't misrepresent you that I know of. My attack against you has been neither desperate nor illogical, and I challenge you to quote where it has.

Ok. You asked if me to

Please explain why my vote L-3 would have been more likely to come from scum.

In your second post. Which was a more reasonable post, by the way, and that right there was the beginnings of a reasonable defense for your initial vote.

So, I responded to you like this:

(shrug) I'm not interested in WIFOMing it, Ythill, or getting into a "would scum do something so obveously scummy" debate. Doing that with no explination, pushing a wagon that far with absolutly no reason, seems to me to be an anti-town move, and one that could theoretically have ended quite badly; if one more person followed your lead, he would have been at lynch -2, and might felt forced to clain or something. Page 1, day 1, I see someone act in an apparently anti-town way, I'm going to vote for them.

TheSweatpantsNinja: Was that a random vote, or do you really have a problem with my ythill vote here?

Some things you should note about this post:

1. Considering your first response sounded reasonable, I was actually thinking about unvoting you and voting TheSweatPantsNinja at this point, depending on how you responded and how he answered the question.

2. It looked to me like you were setting up for a "Scum wouldn't actually put someone at -3 during day 1" defense in your previous post (which is, again, a somewhat reasonable defense, although it's not one I'm persoanlly fond of that kind of situation), so I decided to cut that off by mentioning I wasn't that interested in hearing that kind of WIFOM defense, that I voted you because your action was an anti-town one that could "theoretically have ended quite badly". It wasn't that big of a deal, though, and I was responding in what seemed to me a calm, measured, and rational way, about a fairly minor early game action of yours; just explaining my vote, like you asked me to, and maintaining a little pressure on your for a little while longer, while also looking in other directions.

This was the point where you did what looked like a massive and scummy over-reaction and strawman response, here:

...if one more person followed your lead, he would have been at lynch -2, and might felt forced to clain or something.

Nonsense. By voting, you suggest that you believe I am scum which, in a 12 person game, means there are probably only 2 more. Would they vote to L-1 and then hammer? Would it hurt the town if they did, to get one mislynch? Darox was never in danger, especially if I am the play.

Your fear-mongering is scummy. You know this game well enough to know how uncommon page 1 mislynches are. Besides, what makes you think it would have been a mislynch?

This was the point when you strawman me, and this was your first REALLY scummy post. First, that whole first paragraph seems to be responding to something I never said; I never said that I thought the scum would suddenly come out of nowhere and quick-hammer on page 1. You also seem to basing your arguments on an assumption that you're scum, or that I think you're scum, or something, which is...well, it's weird, at least.

And the second paragraph is even worse. Again, you're strawmanning me. It looks like you're responding to someone who said "you almost caused a page 1 mislynch!"; but I never said that. Basically, it looks like you're responding to an argument no one made because it would be an easier thing for you to respond to, and that's what strawmanning is. You accuse me of "fear mongering", which is really bizzare considering how mild my previous post was, and how about the worst thing I said was that you created a situation where something might theoretically have gone wrong. And you said it was "scummy", which already signaled to me that you were going on the attack against me, apparently just because I voted for you and then logically explained my vote when you asked me to.

A third point you are strawmanning me on here is that last sentance, where again it sounds like you're responding to someone who accused you of "almost causing a mislynch". I never used the word mislynch, and I wouldn't since I don't know his alignment; all I said was that something bad could have theoretically happened; I would consider a random bandwagon that goes all the way to a claim (or even farther) early on day 1 to be a bad thing, on average, especally in a no-reveal game; sure, you might randomally nail a scum, but it's not a good bet. Basically, it seems like you're pretending I used the word "mislynch" because if I had it might have been a scumtell; so, again, strawmanning.

So this was the point where, from my point of view, it looks like you started to "flip out", to strawman and misrepresent me, and it totally came out of nowhere; it looks to me like your reaction probably had more to do with the fact you had a few votes on you then with anything I said. And from here on, your posts only got worse, scummier, and more agressive; it seemed like the more people suspected you, the more you wanted to go after me, and with less and less logic but more and more emotion behind your attacks.

[Yosarian2]

Damnit...is that a lynch?

Yihill, why would you do that?

[Yosarian2]

hmm, very helpful paper. Anyone got any ideas?

...how is that a "very helpful paper", exactally?

[Yosarian2]

It suggests there is either a cult or a group of third party roles, I would assume serial killers and survivors.

Thats my interpretation of it anyway.

Actually, it probably just suggests scum screwing with us. No reason scum can't start with paper, right?

[Yosarian2]

Eh...not so much that scum would hope to achieve much by it, other then a little confusion and doubt, more just that I could see scum being more likely to waste their paper like that then town. It's not like scum really need to communicate much, after all...

[Yosarian2]

more just that I could see scum being more likely to waste their paper like that then town.

That's what i'm getting at with the Masons thing, if two masons each have a piece of paper....?

I would think any masons with paper would use it in such a way that it would either clear them late in the game or let the town know they were both town after they were dead, depending.

(shrug) It could also be the mod set up a few messages to go off at pre-determined times before the game even started, just to ensure we'd get some kind of note every day.

Either way, it dosn't matter.

[Yosarian2]

Eh, I totally buy the simulposting excuse. You've never taken 10 minutes to write a post, writing, deleating, and then re-writing it before, Darox? Besides, once Ythill voted himself, he was probably doomed anyway, that usually seems to be how it goes. Which is a shame; I suspected him a lot, but I certanly did not want or expect him to be lynched on page 4.

[Yosarian2]

vote:Roffman

Scummy as heck for you to join a wagon like that and go after mike for hammering on a wagon you were also on and seemed completly in favor of yesterday. At least, I'm assuming that's why you're voting him; all you said was "lets see how you can handle the pressure", but never said why you thought he should be under pressure..

[Yosarian2]

All Roff did was vote the most suspicious and mistake the mod rules.

So, you think Mikelikesfood is "the most suspicious" then? Could you explain why you think that?

As far as I'm concerned, Ythill basically doomed himself when he voted himself. Once a person gives up, stops trying to defend himself, and self votes, he's almost always lynched immedeatly. Which is kind of a shame, I think; I definatly did not want the day to end that early, and I think Yahill actually might not have been lynched there if he just hadn't done that.

[Yosarian2]

Also, mike, I'd suggest you stop talking about what roles might or might not exist, or what townies might or might not have. I will note that just because the vanillia townie role in the opening post shows a townie with 0 paper, it does not at all mean that NO townies have paper. But besides that, we should let the subject drop; to talk about stuff like that is likely to just give hints about pro-town people's roles inadvertantly.

[Yosarian2]

no, not really. I'm more than happy with a MLF lynch

Really scummy for you to be still pushing that when you still haven't given a good reason why you think he's scum.

I'm just not buying you here, that you both thought that Yhill was the most scummy person and yet think that somehow putting him at lynch -1 is incredibly anti-town. There's really nothing scummy about voting for someone who looks scummy, even if they're at lynch -2. Town dosn't really NEED to take 25 pages for each day, even if that seems to be the trend lately...

[Yosarian2]

So, you're saying you still think it's likely that Ythill is scum, and yet you also think mike is scummy for hammering him? That dosn't make any sense at all.

[Yosarian2]

Why the hell are people still voting for MLF?

[Yosarian2]

I've been rereading and so far the case made against me is that I voted MLF for pressure to get him to answer questions that darox asked, and the fact that I think both Ythill and MLF are both scum. If I missed anything, can someone please tell me.

Your case against MLF dosn't make any sense, and contradicts the other things you've been saying. If you think Ythill was scum, then it's just insane to want to lynch MBF just becuase he voted Ythill. The fact that you're still persuing this at this point makes me thing you're probably scum.

[Yosarian2]

The entire point of my argument was that MLF did have reasons for voting Ythill even if he was scum. The fact that you say it is insane is just proof that there are benefits to hammering your scum buddy.

(shakes head)

Look. You are right that scum will sometimes hammer their buddy. But "X is scum BECAUSE he hammered Y, and Y is scum" is terrible logic. Lynching a scum is always a point in your favor, not a point against you.

It's not insane to suspect MLF inherently, but your argument "MLF is scum BECAUSE he hammered someone I think was scum" is insane. Now, if you had some other argument against him, and ALSO said that you think it's possible it was bussing, then that would make sense.

Besides which, why would a scum bus his buddy in a no reveal game where we would never even find out that the other guy was scum?

The fact that you refuse to accept the possibility that MLF intentionally created a WIFOM situation just makes me think you are misguided.

No, I'm not ignoring the possibilty, but "It's possible for scum to hammer their buddy, therefore MLF is scum" is not logic.

Also, could you please clarify where my case against MLF doesn't make sense?

Um...what do you think I've been doing?

[Yosarian2]

Ok, i misunderstood what you were saying. My case against MLF consists of hammering Ythill when it was clear he was going to be the lynch for that day, the way he phrased it so it seemed like he knew it was a hammer, then claimed simul-post and his subsequent play today.

Eh? If "it was clear" that Ythill was going to be the lynch for the day, then hammering him was basically irrelevent.

The fact that I still suspect Ythill was scum and I put forward the scum hammering scum possibility was because people were saying that MLF was town for hammering. My point was that the action is scummy either way, because either he hammered early to shut down discussion, or to stop his scum body digging a further hole, or to generate WIFOM.

So, your case against him now isn't that he hammered, but that he hammered "early"? Early by who's standard? It's not like Ythill didn't have a chance to claim, or like he was speedlynched with some people not gettign a chance to weigh in, or anything like that; pretty much everyone agreed with the Ythill wagon, including you, and apparently even including Ythill. So, what, exactally, would be gained by drawing it out forever?

And if you didn't want Ythill to be lynched "early", then why didn't you unvote when he got to -2?

[Yosarian2]

"There are two scum left" sounds incredibly specific; I wonder who would know that? Would that mean we've lynched a scum, or something?

[Yosarian2]

Woah, slow down here guys.

Why, exactally, are people going after MLF all of a sudden? Darox, what the heck? You "like the case from yesterday"? What case is that, the "he hammered so he must be scum" case that like a million holes were shot in yesterday?

[Yosarian2]

All right then; could you explain your suspicions again?

[Yosarian2]

Bah...I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this today, but I don't think I have a choice at this point...

I am a cop.

Night 1, I investigated mikelikesfood, and got a result of not mafia. Which was why I defended him so much yesterday.

Night 2, I investigated Clammy, and he is also not mafia.

I was hoping to go for one more day without claiming, then claim tommorow with 3 innocent investigations for the guarenteed town win, but it's not going to happen, and this wagon is moving way too fast for me to risk trying break it down logically again the way I did yesterady.

[Yosarian2]

We have papers claiming Ythill is town and we have Yos claiming Clammy and MLF are not mafia. Can we believe the paper? What reason would scum have for telling the town we lynched a townie? Also what reason would scum have for trying to cover up Ythill with a town read when we do not know the setup and it's no reveal?

I wouldn't necessarally "trust" the papers, but I will say that, in a no reveal game, it's fairly common for there to be a "Coroner" role that can find out the alignment of dead people.

[Yosarian2]

Well, we can either massclaim today, or wait one more day. Might be better to wait one more day; probably better if the scum don't know tonight if there's a doctor alive who can protect me or not.

[Yosarian2]

Can we confirm Yos' saneness? Or, as I increasingly wonder, lack thereof?

Uh, what?

You really think the mod would put an insane cop into a *no reveal* game? That would be, well, insane. The cop'd never have a chance to figure out his sanity.

[Yosarian2]

Damnit...didn't we just agree that we weren't going to mass claim today? What the hell?

Anyway, I believe Darox. I'm glad to hear we lynched a scum yesterday.

[Yosarian2]

Yos, would you like to own up to that "two scum left" paper?
I have to admit, in the circumstances, it makes sense, given the game size.

Nope. I have one piece of paper, which I have not yet used. I had intended to use it tonight to leave my results behind in case I got nightkilled, back when I was hoping I wouldn't have to claim today.

[Yosarian2]

However... Yos' cop claim... now that I think about it, why would we have a mortician

and

a cop in a no-reveal... a mortician makes much more sense, and actually a cop doesn't make much sense at all for a game where we aren't allowed to reveal our roles even after death. Shucks, now I've got to rethink everything.

...are you serious?

A morticion, in a no reveal game, is still much weaker for the town then just having a normal game with reveals. What if the mortician dies night one?

In a no reveal game especally, the town really needs information roles. The game just isn't balnced without them.

[Yosarian2]

If we're beliving our mortician claim, then what we should be doing is going back and trying to see who is linked to the scum Roffman, and especally to go back and read the day 2 lynch. That's what I'm about to do, and other people shoud do it as well. I'm hoping that in a no-reveal game, the scum would have been less likely to distance themselves from a partner/more likely to defend a partner, since the town won't find otu his alignment anyway.

[Yosarian2]

Re-reading day 2 now:

I don't like this post by Rotten Snitch; page 7, not long after me and Clammy start the Roffman wagon:

Clammy is that your reasoning for voting Roff? He just admitted he missed the self revealing bit.
The rules are a tiny bit confusing where it states you are allowed to claim yourself but no fake claims and no quoting the pm. (would result in badness)

You were on the original Darox wagon of day 1.

You believe the simul posting without any questions. You do not think anything of the hammer.

Please explain why the hammer wasn't a little fishy.
Explain why forgetting some of the rules while posting is more fishy than hammering with-out checking the posts? Or saying it takes 12 minutes to write down 21 words, thats's like 2 words per minute.

Vote: Clammy

He really seems to be defending roffman here.

He then continues to defend roffman while saying he's not defending roffman.

Iceman and Battousai (now jayfin) both join the Clammy wagon for weak reasons.

TheSweatPantsNinja joins the roffman wagon, post 205. I like the post, ++ protown points for him.

Rotton Snitch unvotes Clammy, post 210, critizes Iceman and Batty, but dosn't vote either of them.

KOC reluctently joins the wagon, after Darox demands they people committ to a position on it.

icemanE reverses earlier position, joins roffman wagon.

Post 266: KOC unvotes, saying he thinks mike tried and failed to hammer...am a bit confused about this.

Final Votecount:

End of Day Two Votecount
5 roffman (Yosarian2, clammy, TheSweatpantsNinja, Knight of Cydonia, icemanE)
2 melikefood (Darox, roffman)

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

Not Voting – 3 – melikefood, pacman281292, Rotten Snitch

roffman has been lynched. It is now Night Two. Nightchoices are due to me by August 29, 9:59 pm CDT.

Only people not voting roffman were Darox, mikelikefood, pacman, and Rotten Snitch. mikelikefood is pro-town by my investigation (and pretty clearly not scum with roffman anyway, considering the origioanl tell I had on Roffman was the scummy way he went after mikelikefood), and I believe Darox's claim.

Pacman's a reasonable suspect as well, but I think today, we should lynch Rotten Snitch as being most likely to be roffman's scumbuddy.

vote:Rotten Snitch

[Yosarian2]

In case I wasn't clear, my top suspects are:
Rotten Snitch
IcemanE
pacman

I think today, Rotten Snitch needs to hang.

[Yosarian2]

Other things worthy of note:

IcemanE: questioning my cop-ness for reasons that don't make any sense to me, starting a mass claim even though I had clearly explained why it was such a bad idea for the town.

Post-massclaim conclusions:

Either pacman's seeds are false, or darox is lying.

Could you explain this to me again, please? I missed it the first time through.

[Yosarian2]

Um...pacman, we're lynching Rotten Snitch today. Unless he's your scumbuddy?

[Yosarian2]

Before we do anything I want some direction as far as what date I should use my ability on tonight.

Maybe I missed something, Yos, but when did Rotten Snitch suddenly become "the lynch"? You seem to imply that in one of your posts.

I laid it out in my analysis post just above; Based on my reread of the roffman lynch, and Darox's claim that Roffman was scum, I think Rotten Snitch looks linked to him pretty strongly; it looks like he was trying to defend Roffman without looking like he was doing that for most of the day.

Take a look yourself, re-read day 2 and the events leading up to the lynch of roffman, and tell me what you think.

As far as doubting your claim, I'm just throwing out options. Especially in a no-reveal game like this, I think it's important to never rule someone out completely based on role claims.

Yeah...but, especally in a no-reveal game when the town might never know for sure if he was telling the truth or not, it seems like scum have a lot to gain by trying to discredit the cop, and it looks to me like you've been trying to do so all day.

[Yosarian2]

I was considering this. That's why I said "either the seeds are false

or

darox is lying." Fakeclaiming would be a form of lying. I suppose its possible

you're

fakeclaiming, but seeing as how it'd be a pretty abysmal fakeclaim, I doub it.

I'm still feeling like I'm missing something key here...what did darox say that contradicts pacman's role claim about the seeds? How do the two role-claims contradict each other?

Heh? When have I doubted your claim until that post? I remember saying I don't necessarily trust the results of your investigation.

(nods) Right. First you tried to imply that I might not be sane, then when no one bought that, you tried to imply that I might be scum. If you are scum (especally if you are scum who was counting on getting mike lynched today), then either way, if you can plant enough doubt in the town's mind, you accomplish your goal, which would be to discredit my investigations.

That's why I asked why you said he was "the lynch", as if it were agreed upon by the town, when in fact it seemed you were the only one who was thinking that way.

He's "the lynch"; in other words, he is the correct lynch for today, I believe. I asked pacman about that because it seemed really odd that he would make a post right after I did all that analysis, and just not comment on any of it at all, and instead make a really weird vote on someone my analysis post had just described as probable town, and to do it for fairly weak reasoning. So, I asked him why he's not voting for Rotten Snitch, which, if he's town, is honestly what I would have expected him to do in that situation.

Speaking of that, I would like you to answer my question when you get a chance; in case you missed it:

Take a look yourself, re-read day 2 and the events leading up to the lynch of roffman, and tell me what you think.

I am curious to know if you agree with me or not about a possible connection with Rotten Snitch there.

[Yosarian2]

First you tried to imply that I might not be sane

No, someone else said that.

Ok, my mistake then.

Thanks for telling me what my goal is.

That's not my goal. My goal is to try to understand and get a grip on what's happening in this game - part of the aim of a massclaim is to find which roles you believe, and which might be fabricated. I'm still sorting through that.

Note that I prefeced that by saying "if you are scum"; that is, that is what your goul would be in doing that if you were scum.

Speaking of that, I would like you to answer my question when you get a chance; in case you missed it:

While that's not technically a question, I'll do it. Give me a day or two, busy man.

Sure, no problem.

About him being "the lynch", you seemed to assume the role of the town by saying "this is who we're lynching today" when in fact, at that point, it was really just you saying that.

(shrug) I do think that he is who we're going to lynch today, yes. And yes, it is only me saying that, at the moment; we'll see what other people think after they read the case and comment on it.

[Yosarian2]

I'm still feeling like I'm missing something key here...what did darox say that contradicts pacman's role claim about the seeds? How do the two role-claims contradict each other?

Either there are scum via darox, and therefore pacman's seed is false, or there are not "scum," and darox' result of "scum" is false.

I suppose there's some wiggle room in which darox' guilty results don't necessarily correlate with traditional scum, but the key point is: pacman's first seed was almost certainly false.

Ah, ok...so you're now assuming that darox's seed left a random paper in the capsule? What are you basng that on? I mean, I'm sure the seed probably did something, but that wouldn't be my guess as to what.

[Yosarian2]

I'm surprised more people have not questioned the claims we have.
Horticultist / Mortician / Tally-Man / cop......

Yos what is your exact title? Cop seems out of place in a game where classic roles are not common (except for the townie but what else do you call them)

My exact title is, in fact, cop.

Horticulturist and Tally-Man are not common role-names, but as those are also two of the more suspicious people in the game, I'm not sure how much weight to put on either one of their claimes.

By the way, trying to outguess the mod here, when dealing with PJ, is a really, really bad idea. Trust me on this; he likes to fool towns who assume too much, and he does not like to be predictable or to make setups that are easy to "solve", or patterns of role-names that are easy to figure out.

Yos I will not make a huge post to argue your comments.

I have already said I was not defending Roffman but was attacking Clammy.

Yes, you did say that. Right after you pretty clearly defended Roffman, you made a post where you denied that that was what you were doing when others asked you why you were defending Roffman so strongly. The fact that you made a point of denying that you were defending Roffman actually just makes you look worse.

This, for example, was pretty clearly a defense of Roffman's actions:

Clammy is that your reasoning for voting Roff? He just admitted he missed the self revealing bit.
The rules are a tiny bit confusing where it states you are allowed to claim yourself but no fake claims and no quoting the pm. (would result in badness)

And here, you deny you are defending Roffman, then in the very next sentance you defend his actions, and specifically his mike vote:

See this is what I'm talking about. I dont think I am defending Roff as much as I just think that Clammy's play is odd at this moment.
All Roff did was vote the most suspicious and mistake the mod rules.
I don't think that is a strong case to vote him

In any case, you speak of defending Roffman and attacking Clammy for voting Roffman as if they are two different things; that is not always true. For example, yesterday, I quite delibratly defended Mike by attacking Roffman for attacking Mike (because I had an innocent on Mike and so I didn't want him lynched).

I felt as though Clammy was using hypocritical comments to vote on the Roffman wagon. I wasn't voting Roffman at the end because I was trying to get information out of IcemanE and Batty I did not like how quickly they had jumped to my cause without any reasoning behind it.

That's why you weren't voting Roffman? Becuase it looks like you never had any interest in voting him at all, for any reason, and close to the deadline you declared that

well thanks Roff if I was voting ya i'd probably unvote but I can do nothing.

Hell IcemanE just voted for Clammy and didnt even say anything. Batt admitted to skimming my argument and that was good enough for him. Being as I cant vote the both of them I had stopped attacking Clammy and had moved my attentions to them. And if you read into day 3 my attentions have still been on IcemanE and KoC who replaced Batt. I have not deviated from that since day 2. Yet because I was not voting Roffman I am scum? that is your reasoning? Because I was attacking Clammy?

Because you were defending Roffman, because you seemed to be trying quite hard all day to prevent Roffman from being lynched, and because you were trying to get someone we now know to be pro-town lynched instead, yes, I think you're most likely scum with Roffman.

If Clammy was townie (Due to the night Kill) and Roffman was scum then possibly there are two scummers left.

Clammy was pro-town. Like I said, I investigated him last night.

[Yosarian2]

By the way, trying to outguess the mod here, when dealing with PJ, is a really, really bad idea. Trust me on this; he likes to fool towns who assume too much, and he does not like to be predictable or to make setups that are easy to "solve", or patterns of role-names that are easy to figure out.

How do you get from me questioning your claim to me trying to outguess the mod?

You're trying to outguess the mod, in that you're saying "Well, the mod wouldn't put several weird role names and a normal role name like cop in the same game, would he?" And trying to outguess the mod like that is a bad idea, especally since, yes, PJ would, in order to make a mass claim less effective and more confusing to the town.

Again I was attacking Clammy for what I thought was a bad wagon jump.
If my attacks on Clammy were seen as a defense for Roffman that may be, but, I was not defending Roffman. If so I would have gone after you as well.
But I did not attack anyone on his wagon but Clammy.

You didn't just attack clammy, you also defended Roffman's behavior in several places, which I just quoted.

And if you wanted to derail the attack against Roffman, the intellegent thing to do wouldn't be to attack everyone on the wagon, it would be to attack the wagon at a weak point, like Clammy.

Are you going to accuse everyone who made a post against the Roffman wagon or just single me out for whatever ulterior motive you may have?

Do you think that people, other then you, defended Roffman? If so, who? IS there someone else who, based on yesterday, you think makes a likely scumpartner to Roffman?

You had an innocent read on MLF I have no way of knowing anyone's alignment so your example cannot even come close to comparing.

I had a hidden motive for trying to defend MLF in a subtle way, which is why I used it as an example, since if you are scum with Roffman you would also have a hidden motive for trying to defend Roffman in a sublte way.

Clammy was doing exactaly the same as me, attacking Roffman for voting MLF.

Answer one question for me:
Do you think Clammy was defending MLF or do you think he was attacking Roffman for scummy play?

No, I think Clammy was probably attacking Roffman for scummy play, but of course I know he's not linked to MLF.

(shrug) I looked through yesterday, trying to find who Roffman's scum partner was, and I think it's you. You keep denying it, but you actually did defend him on several points he was being attacked on, you attacked people who attacked him, you never showed any interest in attacking him. So, yeah; looking at everyone else's behavior, and looking at your behavior, I think you are the most likely candidate for being Roffman's scumbuddy at the moment. Do you understand why I think that?

[Yosarian2]

Ah, ok...so you're now assuming that darox's seed left a random paper in the capsule? What are you basng that on? I mean, I'm sure the seed probably did something, but that wouldn't be my guess as to what.

Well, if pacman's seed wasn't responsible for the paper, then we have the coincidence of one item placed in the capsule with no apparent effect, and one paper out of the capsule with no apparent source. I find that coincidence pretty unlikely.

I was assuming, since no one claimed it, that either the scum put it in, or else that someone who's dead put it in, or else that the mod put it in before the game even started. Any of those seem more likely to me then to think that planting a seed in a time capsule made a little piece of paper appear.

As for what it did, (shrug). Could be anything. Could have done nothing at all other then be a way for pacman to prove his role (which dosn't even prove his alignment), or it could have had some kind of motivating effect on someone, or roleblocking effect, or protected Pacman from being killed that night, or done any number of other things that wouldn't be apparent to the town at large. I don't see any reason to think that the "the seed caused the paper to appear" theory is all that likely.

[Yosarian2]

Even if I am outguessing the Mod it is not a scum tell.

Oh, I never said that was.

How can you possibly say that Clammy was not defending MLF by attacking Roffman yet say that I was defending Roffman by attacking Clammy? And you don't know I am linked to Roffman you are guessing. You are also using your cop claim to make it seem like you do know which makes me question it even more.

I certainly am not. My cop info gave me exactally two facts, both of which I have already shared from the town. Everything else is pure townie deductive reasoning.

So, yes, I am "guessing" about your motives and about what you were trying to do, if by guessing, you mean trying to figure out your alignment by what you posted in the thread. And sure, it's possible I'm wrong, although your day 2 play really makes me think you're more likely to be roffman's scum buddy then anyone else is.

Right here Yos is bullying Pacman.

Yosarian2 wrote:
Um...pacman, we're lynching Rotten Snitch today. Unless he's your scumbuddy?

Oh, my main goal wasn't to bully him into voting you, although I am pushing for a lynch of you, yes. My main goal was poking him to see how he reacts when I accuse him of being scumbuddies with you, because if there are two scum left, and there probably are, I think there's a reasonable chance that it might be both of you, since neither of you voted for Roffman, and since he didn't vote you, which is surprising since he was the main suspect and I had just made a very strong case against you he didn't even mention. Basically just gathering info for the town to use tommorow, especally since I'll probably be dead by then.

did everyone forget he was on that wagon with me as well?
Even though it was Battousi it was still the same role with probably the same intent. If you think I was defending Roffman what about the others that joined my cause without even giving any reason for it?

KOC did eventually join the roffman wagon, although, like I noted in my analysis post, he seemed a little reluctent to do so.

You keep pretending that this is mostly about you attacking Clammy, though. It's not. If you had just attacked Clammy, that would be one thing, but you also specifically defended Roffman against arguments aimed at him.

If you want to convince people to unvote you, then that is what you need to defend yourself against. You defended Roffman twice, specifically, against the two main reasons people were giving for voting him. To repeat myself again:

All Roff did was vote the most suspicious and mistake the mod rules.
I don't think that is a strong case to vote him

That is a defense of Roffman, against the charge of voting for Mike in a scummy looking way, and that was the main reason people were voting for Roffman. That is what you need to respond to; you keep trying to sidetrack the conversation to talk about you attacking Clammy instead, but this is the biggest problem with your play.

Please understand I am not trying to appeal to emotion here I am trying to let the rest see that the accusations against me are not worth my lynch. There is no way to gather my alignment based on me attacking or even "defending" (if thats how you want to see it) Any other townie or protown role in this game has no idea of the alignment and makes mistakes. Everyone on the Roffman wagon didn't know if they were right and I didn't know I was wrong.

You defended a scum, dude. You did everything you could to stop him from getting lynched. And you did it in a no-reveal game, which makes it an even stronger scumtell since you probably would have expected to get away with it since we wouldn't even know he was a scum after he died. Is that 100% proof that you're scum? No, but it's pretty strong evidence against you, and it's the best case that has been made against anyone yet today. Basically, it just looks like you're more likely to be scum with Roffman then anyone else in the game does.

[Yosarian2]

Well, Rotten Snitch, if you're town, then who do you think we should lynch tonight? We don't have much time, but we could probably swing three votes over to someone else today just in case.

I am tempted to let you live, because if I die tonight, then the town'll know you're lying scum, and if I live, I can investigate you if I so choose. But in that case, who do you think we should lynch instead?

[Yosarian2]

You around, RS?

(sigh) this is why it's best to not wait until like 5 hours before deadline to claim.

Seriously, I might unvote you, if and only if you absolutly guarentee that you will protect me tonight (that way, the town can lynch you tommorow if I die tonight), and if you've got a suggestion about who to lynch instead. Which means you have to post, before deadline; not much time left.

[Yosarian2]

We're not at deadline left, there's still time to get 3 votes on someone else. Which is why I was asking you specifically who you think we should lynch. The fact you're not interestested in answering is telling, I think.

Cop>mortician, since while finding out the alignment of dead people is certanly important, it's obv better to find out the alignment of living people, especally late game. And the odds that there is one scum roleblocker is not that great, I don't think.

So, yeah. Since you're not willing to commit to protecting me, I suspect you're scum who's hoping to kill me tonight and then claim you protected the mortician tommorow. Vote stays.

[Yosarian2]

My D1 blow-up was pretty funny. What happened was, I was modding Gangland Mafia and I watched two vanilla townies use a similar tactic to basically out all of the scum on D1 and then pick them off efficiently. I figured I'd try it, but I guess it backfired.

The thing is, if you didn't self vote, you would probably not have been lynched at all that day. I was starting to come to the conclusion that you might be town, and was close to unvoting you; and if I had called off the wagon, you would not have been lynched; and with a better day 1, we might not have lost so horribly. I had even explained what you needed to do to get me to unvote you, and you just decided I was scum because I was attacking you and so just ignored everything I said.

I probably should have unvoted you a little sooner, but I wanted to keep the pressure on a little longer, and wanted to make my arguments absolutly clear so you would understand that they made sense for me being a pro-town person. I was NOT expecting that that pressure would make you say "I give up, Yosarian is scum and he's too good for me" and then to self destruct.

[Yosarian2]

Commentary

2.)

I am unhappy with how powerful the No-Reveal aspect was. The point of playing No-Reveal was to essentially strip away the power of information roles, and force the town to rely more on their scumhunting skills than the average game would otherwise require. Having a Cop claim is nice in a regular game, but here you

always

have to second-guess a Cop claim precisely because you are

never

sure if they were telling the truth, even if the player they claimed a result on has died.

Interesting...in my experence, the opposite is true. With no reveals, the game becomes all about follow the cop; the only real info the town ever gets is from pro-town power roles, and they have to base everything on that.

[Yosarian2]

To add to my commentary:

I think my largest bone with this game (now that I've given it some more thought) is that I made the game 'too easy' for mafia. Certainly the Mafia had plenty of chances to shoot themselves in the foot (like if SensFan had been alive when Darox fake-claimed), but I almost always try to balance my games so that whoever wins, they really feel like they had to

work

for it -- I do not like to reward luck, but I

do

like to reward smart play. Although this says nothing about how the mafia played in this particular game, I do think the set-up could easily result in a mafia win without a good deal of effort/stress.

I talked to a number of people about what power roles they would give to the town, and almost uniformly people said I should not have an investigative role beyond the Coroner and the Cop, precisely because that could too easily result in a process of elimination game (i.e. "you don't have to work for it"), especially since that information could live longer than the player would (by using the pieces of paper).

I see there is a comment about the town being "woefully underpowered"; what powers would you then give to the town to make the game more balanced? Presumably, this would be replacing the Tallyman or the Horticulturist or both.

I tend to think that the town needs a lot more role-based information in a no-reveal game, to make up for a lack of other kinds of information. Yeah, that can mean a "process of elimination" type thing, but so long as some mafia have "provable" roles as well, that's ok, especally since the town will never really know if, when X claimed masons with Y, if he was telling the truth.