Mini 776: End of the World Zombie Survivors Mafia: Abandoned

[Herodotus]

If Diamondilium isn't paying attention, I don't want them to have the gun.

mod: Can we change our "gun:" votes at any time like regular lynching votes?

[Herodotus]

gun: Shinnen_no_me

their first post looks non-scummy

[Herodotus]

I disagree with EvilEvilMatt's statements that Semioldguy is pro-town on the basis of the things he points out. Not that I find SOG scummy, but:
1. It is possible to generate random numbers on MafiaScum. There is a "dice" function in the forum software, so random numbers can be trusted here if they're done correctly. If we wanted to reassign the gun randomly, we could do so in a way that would let everyone feel confident that the choice was really random. Just to provide an example,

Original Roll String: 1d12

1 12-Sided Dice: (6) = 6

2. That said, I don't think a random selection, or using the mod's random selection, is as good as deciding for ourselves. Voting patterns and arguments are our primary means of finding the scum, and SOG's earlier suggestion gives up that opportunity. That's not pro-town.
3. I agree with post 44. With the understanding that the person who receives the gun deserves some discretion of their own (after all, the scum will be among the people voting, while the recipient of the gun is ostensibly the most pro-town,) they should mostly follow the majority so that we effectively have an extra lynch.

that one post is not nearly enough to judge me by.

True. Keep in mind, though, that there are a lot of players out there who consistently play poorly. Your first post made it look like you might be one of them. With the exception of not understanding that we can lynch after that (why else would there be votes?) your later posts give me more confidence that you can figure out what's going on.

At this point, EEM is the only player I much prefer not receive the gun, as either he's buddying to SOG, or his towndar is poorly calibrated.

[Herodotus]

Voting patterns and arguments are our primary means of finding the scum, and SOG's

earlier suggestion

gives up that opportunity.

How has my suggestion given up the opportunity to see voting patterns and arguments? It certainly hasn't since I made the suggestion and it's barely been a page since then. If anything, it has helped cause some people to take sides of arguments. If you look you can see people giving their own opinions on things, taking sides on arguments and voting how they think they should vote; all after I made my suggestion.

In case it was unclear, I was referring to this:

Because it was selected at random and anyone wanting to get the gun may have other motives in wanting to take it or have it for themselves. Letting it stay with the person who was randomly selected helps keep others from trying to control where it goes.

My understanding of your idea was that we should all agree to leave the gun with Diamond because he was randomly chosen, and not consider other possibilities out of the fear of the gun falling into scum hands. But observing people trying to "take it or have it for themselves" or "control where it goes" is a great way to try to either find scum directly, or link possible scum partners together.

@Gateway: That's not what I'm talking about. You missed the part where I said I agreed with SOG's post 44; it's his earlier plan that I didn't think merited EvilEvilMatt's posts 19 and 24.

[Herodotus]

I'm pretty sure Herodotus was referring to my post 11 and 12, but his argument about that still doesn't make much sense to me. Because the very thing he says I'm giving up is happening so I don't know where he gets that idea from

Making the suggestion you made may have helped spark discussion (which sadly doesn't yet include everyone,) but if I understand your idea correctly, implementing it right away would have done the opposite.
My current evaluation is that you were tossing out a reasonable but suboptimal idea, but EEM illogically took it to mean that you were obvtown. So I'd rather not trust EEM's judgment.

To generate slightly broader participation:
@Amished: What are the most important things you would look for in choosing a player to give a 1-shot vig kill?

[Herodotus]

That's twice I've simulposted right after you.

What I'm trying to say is that your post 11 looked like you were suggesting "let's leave the gun with Diamond and not consider any other possibilities; otherwise the scum might get it." I don't know if you really meant it, but my point is that EEM's jumping on that as a town-tell was wrong. Would you agree?

Please point out where people aren't trying to either "take it or have it for themselves" or "control where it goes" and where we can't start looking for scum or scumbuddies.

This crosses the line, though. I didn't say that people aren't going to scumhunt, I said that following your reasoning in post 11 would decrease the amount of available information. Just like selecting a lynch randomly would.

[Herodotus]

I think we should still use real votes, just to be careful with them is all and aware of what we are doing.

This.
I think if someone gets to L-2 (i.e. 5 votes,) any further votes for that person should be "pseudovotes" until the gun is used (unless we're approaching the deadline and SOG hasn't used the gun for some reason.)
For instance

pseudovote: playername

which (I assume) doesn't officially count as a vote.

[Herodotus]

As Semi has the gun now, I'm thinking that he should go after somebody who he thinks is scum and then force him to account for his actions and reasoning after it is done. That way we can also decide if it was truly a pro-town kill, or if there was something shady to do.

This looks vaguely like setting up a lynch. It goes without saying that if he shoots someone whom everyone else agrees seems town-sided, and the person wasn't scum, he'll face suspicion. I hope that if you're town-sided, you don't intend to argue that if he shoots a townie, then he must be scum. If you're scum, though, then please make that argument.

@Lowell: I don't understand what you mean about outguessing the mod, but I don't think that pseudovotes are confusing or restrictive (it's a self-imposed restriction, anyways.) Simply don't place an L-1 vote, but instead indicate that you would support the person being lynched or vigged. Also, as placing an L-1 vote could cause trouble (as SOG explained,) pseudovoting may extend our time instead of shortening it, as compared to putting someone at L-1 or hammering.

@OGB: They don't need to be formal; the real point is that once someone is at L-2, people stop voting for them, and instead give a clear indication that they support the death of that player. We don't even really need to "keep track of them" at the time; but we should consider them as nearly equivalent to votes later when analyzing wagons.

So SOG will be making his own decisions. But no one should put another player at L-1 without first allowing SOG the opportunity to decide on his kill.

@EEM: please explain post 81.

[Herodotus]

@Lowell:
Suppose that you wanted a particular player dead, that player was at L-2, SOG hadn't used the gun yet, and we weren't close to deadline.
Would you more likely (a) vote that player right away, or (b) say "I believe player X should die. Either do it, or tell us you aren't going to, Semioldguy," and then place your vote if SOG refused?
Please answer ASAP.

[Herodotus]

I think that was a loaded question by Herodotus. Neither (a) or (b) is necessarily the best answer.

I think you mean "false dilemma" rather than "loaded question." Those are probably not be the only possibilities, though my phrasing could be taken to suggest that they are. TBH, I can't think of any more sensible options under those conditions, but if anyone has any, they should share. I just wanted to see Lowell's response first.

At this point, I don't know how to interpret Lowell's answer in 116. "Who cares, a lynch is a lynch" is such a

stereotypically

scummy thing to say, I would normally think it was WIFOM written by scum or a jester. However in the context of the question I was asking, it may have been intended either as meaning the answer I called (a), or offering some third option. I wish he'd been more clear, but it's a little late for that now since later answers are less useful than first responses.

But to review, he originally non-random voted me over a suggestion that would help prevent us from losing the chance to use the gun kill constructively, and used absolutely horrible logic in doing so. (It's too confusing? Then what are you doing playing mafia? Do you vote first thing in LYLO because it's too confusing to remember not to?) Then in post 113, he has ignored my post 108, and maybe even insinuates that it's my fault that no one is voting* -- even though my suggestion only applies after a player has 5 votes on them. This made me think he might be scum.

* I'm not sure whether that was his intent, but the more I analyze post 113, the more it seems to be the case.

I generally try to avoid placing OMGUS votes in case I'm subconsciously biased, but Lowell looks scummy.

Vote: Lowell

I don't like pseudo voting. Just use FoS if you don't feel it's safe to put the real vote on.

If people do that, it means that their FoS is effectively a pseudovote by another name. The reason I suggested using a different term was so that people would have to be more definite about their support of the lynch/vig. It avoids letting the scum backtrack with "it was only minor suspicion," as "pseudovote" (or whatever similar term people used) means "I would vote/hammer except that doing so could be tactically bad for the town."

[Herodotus]

...

At this point, I don't know how to interpret Lowell's answer in 116. "Who cares, a lynch is a lynch" is such a

stereotypically

scummy thing to say, I would normally think it was WIFOM written by scum or a jester.

However in the context of the question I was asking, it may have been intended either as meaning the answer I called (a), or offering some third option. I wish he'd been more clear, but it's a little late for that now since later answers are less useful than first responses.

But to review, he originally non-random voted me over a suggestion that would help prevent us from losing the chance to use the gun kill constructively, and used absolutely horrible logic in doing so. (It's too confusing? Then what are you doing playing mafia? Do you vote first thing in LYLO because it's too confusing to remember not to?) Then in post 113, he has ignored my post 108, and maybe even insinuates that it's my fault that no one is voting* -- even though my suggestion only applies after a player has 5 votes on them. This made me think he might be scum.

* I'm not sure whether that was his intent, but the more I analyze post 113, the more it seems to be the case.

I generally try to avoid placing OMGUS votes in case I'm subconsciously biased, but Lowell looks scummy.

Vote: Lowell

Bolded: I'm not following you here; what makes Lowell's answer stereotypically scummy?

Also, IMO bad logic isn't necessarily scummy. In many situations, poor logic simply indicates a poor thought process. However, in some cases poor logic can be used intentionally to push forward scummy actions. I dont think that's the case here.

If, during the normal course of the game, it seemed that a player didn't care about who was lynched, or wanted to get the day over with rather than scumhunt, I would consider that person suspicious. The phrases "who cares" and "a lynch is a lynch," if taken out of context, would suggest such an attitude. If Lowell didn't seem to intend them to be some indirect answer to the question I asked, that's how I would interpret them. So in other circumstances, I would be trying to figure out why someone was intentionally attributing a scummy attitude to himself. My conclusion would probably be that it was anti-town WIFOM. In this case, though, I don't consider them a tell in that sense. My vote on him is not based on his post 116, though I still haven't decided whether it was a coherent answer to the question I asked.

To your second point, I agree. Lowell may not be scum, but at this point he's more likely than anyone else. I'd need to see a lot more from everyone before I'd feel comfortable lynching him.
Just before posting this, I noticed Gateway's last post which sort of assumes that a lynch/vig of Lowell is necessarily going to happen. I disagree, obviously. We have 2 weeks left for (presumably) 2 kills.

[Herodotus]

He ALWAYS plays like this. His behavior is a null-tell.

Well, I've seen that before. In my first game Empking tunneled on Artem using very poor logic. Artem warned us about Empking's playstyle, but we lynched Empking anyways.
I suppose it's time to read some of Lowell's past games to confirm his playstyle.
Still, I'm concerned that he finds it too complicated to use the tactic I suggested. I can foresee him either (as town) unintentionally causing damage with a poorly placed vote, and potentially compounding that damage by getting himself mislynched for it, or (as scum) using this as an excuse to intentionally cause the same damage, and potentially compounding that damage by not being held accountable. That's partly why I asked whether he would vote someone right away to L-1.

[Herodotus]

@Hero, If your not voting Lowell for post 116 then why exactly are you voting? Could you please list all of your reasons?

I tried to explain my reasoning in post 122. I'm not sure if a list format is the best way to handle it, but here goes. It's that:
1. He's using very poor logic to pursue a case.
2. He's opposing what I consider to be the ideal strategy for the town on the basis that it's a confusing restriction, and shortens our available time, when I've already explained why it's none of those.
3. By calling it confusing to stop real-voting at L-2, he might be laying a foundation to act confused and deny SOG the opportunity to use the gun.
4. In post 113, he seems to suggest that I was the reason no one was voting because either my strategy, or the fact that I was discussing strategy, was "being anti-town by delaying the process of trying to get someone lynched." In fact, there was nothing about my idea that prevented voting (up to the point of 5 votes on one player,) and if he's so anxious to make a lynch, then he should support having what is effectively two lynches -- especially since the first may make the second more effective.
One new reason:
5. A vote can serve the extra purpose of being an in-game prod. He hasn't said much other than his case on me. Four of his nine posts so far have contained anything meaningful, and three of those fall into the categories of my other reasons for voting him. Other people have posted less, but he's earned a spotlight.

[Herodotus]

I don't agree with the case on Lowell.

@Herodotus - What do you think of Rishi so far?

In terms of alignment?
I don't think I would have supported the gun-hammer at that time, but extra time in the normal day phase will hopefully be just as valuable as time in the gun phase could have been. I think his hammer will be a null-tell unless we learn SOG's alignment, and even then it won't be a major tell either way. SOG seems more townish than scummy so far, so I don't disagree with his having the gun.
Regarding post 137, I haven't yet made a meta-read of Lowell, but I could believe Rishi's point. That said, if Lowell is at some point revealed to be scum, I'd be suspicious of his second paragraph, which may be a chainsaw defense.

Why don't you agree with the case on Lowell? If you're town, you should be providing reasoning for most things you say. Please also respond to the list I made in post 147.
Finally, why aren't you voting?

[Herodotus]

I don't agree with the case on Lowell.

@Herodotus - What do you think of Rishi so far?

Neither do I, and neither does Hero I suspect.

That depends on what level of agreement we're talking about. I have never supported lynching him, as I've already made clear.

@Hero, If your not voting Lowell for post 116 then why exactly are you voting? Could you please list all of your reasons?

I tried to explain my reasoning in post 122. I'm not sure if a list format is the best way to handle it, but here goes. It's that:
1. He's using very poor logic to pursue a case.
2. He's opposing what I consider to be the ideal strategy for the town on the basis that it's a confusing restriction, and shortens our available time, when I've already explained why it's none of those.
3. By calling it confusing to stop real-voting at L-2, he might be laying a foundation to act confused and deny SOG the opportunity to use the gun.
4. In post 113, he seems to suggest that I was the reason no one was voting because either my strategy, or the fact that I was discussing strategy, was "being anti-town by delaying the process of trying to get someone lynched." In fact, there was nothing about my idea that prevented voting (up to the point of 5 votes on one player,) and if he's so anxious to make a lynch, then he should support having what is effectively two lynches -- especially since the first may make the second more effective.
One new reason:
5. A vote can serve the extra purpose of being an in-game prod. He hasn't said much other than his case on me. Four of his nine posts so far have contained anything meaningful, and three of those fall into the categories of my other reasons for voting him. Other people have posted less, but he's earned a spotlight.

I read this in conjunction with your post 122 to ensure that I was getting a clear picture.
It seems kind of odd to me that you said you agreed with me on that logic tells are not necessarily scummy but when listing your first reason* you merely state he is using bad logic.

I said he was using bad logic to make a case, which is a significant distinction. Scum can generally stick to good logic, but I'd think they'd have to resort to bad logic when manufacturing cases against people. (More below.) Much more importantly, I definitely agree that bad logic isn't always scummy, but I'm also not convinced that it's a null-tell. And the list order was supposed to be loosely chronological.

*I guess you could also include the second and fourth reasons because they are the direct result of Lowell's poor logic.
Argument #3 is a stretch: it is possible that he is laying the foundation for being confused, but using his confusion to stop Semioldguy is a pretty large assumption. At best, this point is weak.

Yes; ALL of my points are weak. I never said there was enough evidence to convince me of his alignment; I just pointed out some scummy behavior on his part, and voted for him. In fact, while I'm still suspicious of Lowell, someone else has since (re)gained my attention.

Also, I don't believe you when you say that you are not voting Lowell for the answer he gave. If you had wanted to vote him for reasons separate than his answer then you could have voted him in post 115. The only difference between voting him in post 115 and post 122 was that Lowell had posted his answer in between them. It seems to me that you asked Lowell a question (which seems to have been loaded as Semi had pointed out) hoping to get a scummy response in order to make it seem as if your vote had more justification.

The question I asked exactly matched the conditions I described in my original suggestion from post 90. I admit it was a false dichotomy, but I don't see how it was loaded, because it was the quintessential example of the idea Lowell said he found so difficult.
I stated the reason I was hesitant to vote for him when I voted. I have a distaste for voting for people for reasons related to their vote on me. Check any game(s) I've ever played to confirm. (I'll post links to all of them if necessary.)

Vote: Hero

Poor logic is not a tell, as I'm sure you'd agree with

I don't agree. Not a tell at all? I think it is at least a moderate tell (especially, but not exclusively, when it is used in creating a case against another player,) but multiple people have now said otherwise. Is there any place -- on the wiki or another unbiased and expert source -- where I could check this assertion?
I'm looking at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ding_Mafia which says that "voting without any good reason" is a scumtell (I'd suppose that doesn't include random votes.) In my opinion, that's what Lowell did. I know the wiki isn't perfect, but I both agree with it, and think that it applies. That puts Lowell at above baseline probability of being scum.

Planning does keep voting from happening because people aren't taking sides with other people, they are taking sides with opinions and logic, which isn't telling of alignment. As long as you keep planning, it is prolonging the vote because no one is scum hunting they are preoccupied with coming up with the best plan and/or poking holes in it, which both sides can do. You weren't the only one doing this, which is why I pointed it out to begin with.

Why can't we both scumhunt and discuss strategy? In other games, that has seemed a useful approach. I know we have a deadline, but this is my only game right now, so I have time to spend on both.

Diamondilium has pointed out Herodotus has contradicted himself.

I don't believe that I have. I'm guessing you're referring to the statements:
"bad logic isn't necessarily scummy" made by Diamond, to which I agreed, and the fact that I consider
"He's using very poor logic to pursue a case" to be a reason to vote for Lowell.
This is not a contradiction. I consider bad logic to be a scumtell to some variable degree (though it depends in part on the player) but not a sufficiently reliable one that using bad logic always (ever, really) implies that someone is necessarily scum.

There was something else in the back of my mind related to what Diamond and/or SOG has said, but I can't figure it out right now.

Why don't you agree with the case on Lowell? If you're town, you should be providing reasoning for most things you say. Please also respond to the list I made in post 147.
Finally, why aren't you voting?

Do you really want me to answer for Lowell or do you want him to address it himself?

Wanna take a guess why I'm not voting? On second thought lets not play that game. I'm not ready to vote yet. Simple as that.

I didn't want you to answer for Lowell, I wanted you to answer for yourself. Everyone else who has commented has stated some sort of reasoning. But let me change the question, since part of it has already been answered twice. What is your opinion of Lowell's alignment, and why?
You don't have to vote, but doing so helps.

unvote; vote EvilEvilMatt

For the record, I don't think EEM is necessarily scum.

[Herodotus]

Herodotus

While I agree that he contradicted himself a little, I don't see that as anywhere close to damning evidence. I like the fact that he doesn't see poor logic as an absolute scumtell, because town can use poor logic too. However, there's just something about his posts that rubs me the wrong way. I also do not like the way he says that he does not think EEM is necessarily scum. He uses necessarily a lot, which the semanticist in me sees as him leaving options open for himself in case he goes one way or the other, that way he can't be caught in a lie because of trusting with absolutes, therefore he uses ambiguous necessarilies so he can pick one or the other later.

So I'm split between voting for Amished and voting for Hero, so I will wait until they reply.

Please quote the specific things you see as a contradiction. Or are you just agreeing because others said it?

I'm sorry if I'm using that particular word excessively, but there are places where I think things may be the case, but I'm uncertain. If there are any specific instances where I've used the word "necessarily," and you want me to take a concrete, definitive position based on absolute certainty, let me know. My answer will probably be something like "I don't know," but it doesn't hurt to ask.

^^ That was going to be my response. Then I checked my own posts in isolation, and found that I've only used the word "necessarily" three times so far outside of direct quotes of Diamond and Semioldguy.
The first time, I said Lowell wasn't necessarily going to be lynched or vigged. Definitely not a case where I'd be worried about being caught in a lie, as it's a matter of predicting the future.
The second time, I used the word because it's the word Diamond used, and I was responding to him. Not quite a quote, but close.
The third time was when I said EEM isn't necessarily scum. He's said a few things in this game that I felt were worth looking into or asking about, but I don't have a strong read on him. I decided I wanted that to be clear.
The other four times the word appears in my posts, it's because I'm [quoting] or "quoting" other people who have used it.

About you:
I don't like lurking, but I think it's too early to say that it makes anyone scummy, and you posted a reason. Null-tell.
Your claim that I'm using the word "necessarily" too much is bunk. But you might just not be paying attention to whether text is quoted or original.
I also don't like being third on your scumlist, or your suggestion that you're considering (but not actually) voting me, as those are both common distancing tells. This makes me slightly concerned that you are trying to link me to yourself.

[Herodotus]

What is your opinion of Lowell's alignment, and why?

Was neutral until he chose to ignore your case and let other people answer for him. Now he's in the scumish category. Specifally after your post with the list 147, he posted twice post 149 and 162 without trying to refute the case. (Diamondilium's response to the case was 168)

While I'm not sure that ignoring a case against him is a scumtell, I've seen a townie use this reasoning before.

unvote

---

Poor logic is not a tell, as I'm sure you'd agree with

I've disagreed with you before, and I've made an argument based in part on the fact that I believe that it can be a tell. Why were you sure I'd agree with this?

I don't consider your proposed strategy to be the ideal strategy either. I think people should just vote. Only be aware of your voting. I don't like a pseudovoting system because it sets up something the players have to enforce and someone not following it creates a rift but isn't necessarily telling of their alignment, just that they disagree with the plan. There are already mechanics in the game to denote suspicion if you don't feel a vote would be appropriate. I don't think we should suggest a new system when one that is already in place would work just fine.

I know you said you don't want us to waste time discussing points of future strategy, but this has become relevant to judging at least one player's alignment. I feel like some people are misinterpreting my idea, and I don't want that used in manufacturing a BS argument.
I also think people should use real votes, for the most part, and be careful with them and be aware of the count on someone they are voting. My post 90 quotes you saying something along those lines with a response of "This." (which is equivalent to "QFT," or "I agree.") And no one said anything about enforcement; if someone were to contradict this way of doing things, we would have to judge their motive by the circumstances and the effects of their actions.
Finally, in case it was unclear, I don't think you should be obligated to use the gun only in the case that someone has a majority of votes/pseudovotes (which goes both ways -- you're neither obligated to use it on someone who has a majority, nor to wait until someone reaches a majority.) But I think that we would get the most information out of a strong wagon that supports the death of your target, whether the person was town or scum.

[Herodotus]

Hero, you aren't third on my suspect list, you are one of three. You are second, actually. Had you read my post carefully, you would have seen that I said I listed my scum list in order of when I found them scummy, not in order from scummiest to least.

Ok, I see that now. I'm just used to people ordering by degree of suspicion. I retract that paragraph, since the other part isn't useful on its own.

[Herodotus]

You seem to be ignoring the nature of the request you made in post 146. You asked for all of the reasons that I was voting Lowell. The present perfect tense means you seemed to be asking for my reasons at that time. If you wanted my original reasoning, it's all in post 122. I think points 1, 2, and 4 correspond to that; let me check when I return home. My third point came about when I was thinking about the game, after my original vote. I listed it in post 147 because when I wrote that post, it was one of the reasons I had my vote on Lowell. I first mentioned it in post 139, before your request for my reasons.

didn't suspect Lowell nearly as much as it seemed

This is probably true; however I don't think I'm to blame for some people misunderstanding the degree of my suspicion. Also, how is it a scumtell for me to vote for someone I'm not 100% certain is scum?

Hero, could you please answer your own question from post 115?

Suppose that you wanted a particular player dead, that player was at L-2, SOG hadn't used the gun yet, and we weren't close to deadline.
Would you more likely (a) vote that player right away, or (b) say "I believe player X should die. Either do it, or tell us you aren't going to, Semioldguy," and then place your vote if SOG refused?

My answer is (b). No question; I think it's best to make sure SOG isn't shut out from using the gun by poorly timed votes. Also, I think you already knew that was my answer. You, SOG, and I were discussing this on page 4.

I didn't revote Lowell because I first want to reread the thread to see if anyone else is more suspicious than he is. At the time, I was thinking Kabenon might be, for reasons I explained in the post immediately before my unvote. I want to see what he has to say, and reread, before I decide.

The wagon on me started with poor logic, as most people seem to agree. Frankly, I think the logic is getting even more strained, and it seems based on misreading. Is this whole wagon designed to prove a point about bad logic not being a scumtell?

[Herodotus]

@Kabenon:
It's been about 24 hours since I asked, and you've posted, but there are at least two issues to which you haven't responded.

vote Kabenon

Please quote the specific things you see as a contradiction. Or are you just agreeing because others said it?

Your claim that I'm using the word "necessarily" too much is bunk. But you might just not be paying attention to whether text is quoted or original.

[Herodotus]

And as for your contradiction, I mentioned it more as a response to people who were voting you for your contradiction. I wasn't trying to bring that to the table as my own contribution, I was commenting on how I didn't think it was enough to merit the attacks on you.

Hmm... I'm not entirely satisfied; I think if you make a statement, you're responsible for whether that statement is true or otherwise pro-town. But you weren't trying to use it as evidence, so maybe it's not too important.

unvote

but people should keep it in mind.

@Rishi:
You're lurking.
What is your opinion of what Amished had to say on pages 7 and 8?

As far as the role claiming goes, I am a firm believer of honest claiming. If ever in a claim situation the player should claim and shouldn't lie. There can be exceptions to this, but it's best not to bring that topic up.

I disagree. Truth is less useful than helping the town win. Vanillas, for instance, should be trying to get themselves NKed, while PR's should be avoiding it -- so every single player has a reason why they might possibly lie about their role.

kabenon's list basically takes the 3 most popular lynch candidates and lists them as his 3 top suspects, right?

unvote, vote kabenon

This is interesting.

[Herodotus]

@Herodotus - Wait a second here you're fine with Lowell not answering an entire case you make against him but Kebanon doesnt answer 2 questions in 24 hours and you call him on it and vote for him? This double standard will not fly with me. Your Lowell love connection is noted. Also I think you are just flinging crap all over the place to see what sticks.

unvote, vote : Herodotus

@GolfBall - Still think Herodotus is town? Care to share any kind of useful opinion on anyone else?

@mod

I miss Rishi and Gateway

I still find Lowell more suspicious than any other player. I should probably

fos: Lowell

just so it's clear; I tried to cover that fact in the post where I unvoted him. But I don't feel that votes always need to be left on the player one finds most suspicious, particularly when you're not certain. Sometimes it's even most useful not to vote for a player of whom you're suspicious.
Assuming Rishi posts with some useful content, I'll reread Lowell and depending on what he may say in the meantime, return my vote to him. I voted Kabenon to prompt him to answer my questions after he failed to do so the first time, not because I found his failure to answer scummy.
As far as your other accusation, if you don't mind my rephrasing, yes, I am trying to poke and provoke people in order to see how they react, and find out what sticks. I am happy to see you doing the same, as it tells me you're likely a townie who is scumhunting. I also like the aggression you have finally found as of your last post, and hope that you will keep it up regardless of what may happen.

[Herodotus]

As far as the role claiming goes, I am a firm believer of honest claiming. If ever in a claim situation the player should claim and shouldn't lie.

There can be exceptions to this, but it's best not to bring that topic up.

I disagree. Truth is less useful than helping the town win. Vanillas, for instance, should be trying to get themselves NKed, while PR's should be avoiding it -- so every single player has a reason why they might possibly lie about their role.

I am guessing you disagree with that part of the post too?

"X, but it's best not to bring up topic X" is pretty ironic...
But anyways, I have reasons for why I don't think people will necessarily tell the truth if you ask for a claim; I haven't posted those reasons yet, but I think it could help, so I might discuss it despite what you said there. If you disagree, then explain why.

On a related note, your request for a role claim, if you make one, is nothing at all like requesting a role claim from someone at L-1. And while it looks from post 207 like you aren't going to, I worry that if you're scum, you have the opportunity to make a fishing expedition, targeting a handful of townies one at a time while not forcing your scumbuddies to claim. Which is yet another reason why I like your idea from post 44.

Also, speaking of agreement, will you be answering this question from post 191?

Poor logic is not a tell, as I'm sure you'd agree with

I've disagreed with you before, and I've made an argument based in part on the fact that I believe that it can be a tell. Why were you sure I'd agree with this?

[Herodotus]

@Diamond:
To simplify this, would it be fair to say that your suspicions on me are ultimately based on your statement "it didn't seem as if Hero had genuinely believed in his case against Lowell."? Most of the rest of what you said in post 217 seems to be issues related to the fact that I believe I'd already refuted the argument you made, and that I did so by pointing out how things I'd already said were misinterpreted. Assuming I'm right, which I guess I might not be, that would mean the reasoning and/or reading leading to the accusations was poor. I'll answer you once I know the specifics; could you make a list, with the dependencies (as you see them) of your arguments made clear?
The part about unvoting Lowell doesn't work. I felt that my vote was most useful on people other than Lowell; I'm not going to hinder myself in looking for the scum just because you might interpret my changing my vote as scummy. That goes for my first vote, my other past votes, my next vote, and future votes (with the understanding that I'll be careful in possible LYLO.)

Everyone should keep in mind that we're letting Lowell get away with some very scummy behavior. I already pointed out his last change of vote, and now there's

unvote, vote hero

now that the wagon's cool again.

What did I say about people saying stereotypically scummy things being anti-town WIFOM?

unvote; vote Lowell

Twice in a row

he changes to the cool, promising bandwagon. The lampshade he's hanging on that fact is damn scummy, too. And don't forget the reason he gave in voting for kabenon -- that kabenon chose his suspects on the basis of the most popular lynch candidates.
I take no responsibility for leaving him alive.

It looks to me like you are agreeing with Diamondilium that poor logic does not directly connect to being scummy. That the logic itself is not a tell, but rather the way the logic is used.

I think I see what you mean.
When I said "your second point," I meant the sentences "Also, IMO bad logic isn't necessarily scummy. In many situations, poor logic simply indicates a poor thought process. However, in some cases poor logic can be used intentionally to push forward scummy actions." Not the sentence "I dont think that's the case here;" I suspected it might be the case, and assumed that went without saying, since I was voting for him.
I think that scum are marginally more likely to use bad logic in the game for any given topic. Townies may use it X times per game on average, while scum may use it X+Y times per game on average with Y>0, and therefore bad logic is a mild scumtell on its own. There are a lot of other factors, but that doesn't make it useless. In case you need the post # as a reference, I elaborated on the distinction between "necessarily scummy" and "scumtell" in post 183.
But your comment that "Poor logic is not a tell" was a direct response to "He's using very poor logic to pursue a case," so "the way the logic is used" was sort of a given. Would you agree that someone using bad logic to pursue a case is a tell? I think so, at least when they claim the case is not random. On the basis of that tell and a few other issues, I decided Lowell was above-baseline in terms of scumminess.

@Amished and SOG:
For the moment, I'll follow SOG's suggestion not to discuss certain things. But it is common knowledge on the site that it is absolutely the job of almost every VT to try to be the target for the NK, so that the scum aren't killing people with power roles.

@Diamond: What do you make of Hero's statement that he'll be putting his vote back on Lowell pending a reread of both Rishi and Lowell??

That's not exactly what I said. If Lowell hadn't gone overboard with the scumminess in his last post, I'd be changing my vote to Rishi right now to prompt him to post something useful.

We're not hearing from a *lot* of people. It's possible that some of the scum may be keeping quiet so they can have me killed without having to take positions. It's also possible that some of the scum are taking advantage of the quiet to push on me right now. Lowell's request for a claim and a vigging is insanely premature.

[Herodotus]

On the lurkers:

Gateway -- probably flaked. He hasn't posted on the site since his last post here almost a week ago. Edit: and now I see he's being replaced.

OGB -- hasn't said much, and needs to post more depth. Question below.

Rishi -- same. Disappeared for a while, but post 224 seems to indicate that he will make a "full post" sometime.

Musher -- I think he misunderstands DGB's list. I agree with Amished about DGB's sort-of-self-vote being a null-tell, but Musher's interpretation of it seems relatively sincere. Still, I'd like more activity from him. Question below.

Kabenon -- has stopped lurking.

Herodotus -- not lurking so far, but I have a major exam in the middle of May. Hopefully, I'll have the self-discipline to study, but that will mean I'll be spending less time here. Fortunately, there will be a night between now and then, and my inactivity will mostly be during the early part (morning?) of day 2.

---

No time for a full post right now, but as I said, I think Lowell's behavior is a null-tell, but I don't like a couple things about his last post. First off, after he criticizes Kabenon for jumping on bandwagons, he does the same thing himself. Also, we all agreed to let SOG use the gun the way he wants.

When you say that Lowell's behavior is a null-tell, does that include the things you pointed out here, or do you mean Lowell's earlier behavior?

@OGB: Any suspicions?

@Musher: what do you think of the things DGB said in her posts after the self-vote and unvote, about Amished and Kabenon?

[Herodotus]

I find Lowell's posts 247 and 248 to be full of manipulation and omissions, but I'm not ready to get into every single detail. Here are some of the biggest things:

I'll vote for anyone else on my scum list.

Your list of 5 people? If you're town, this approach will guarantee that a townie will be lynched, since the scum can choose one of those people who isn't among them and support that person's lynch. If you're scum, it's a low-risk way to distance -- just include a scum partner whose lynch you don't think others will support and you appear to be opposed to that player. And it lubricates your vote, making it easy to slide around onto various bandwagons. I don't consider what you said there to be a strong tell by any means, but it's somewhere between a bad idea and a minor scumtell.
Still, I'm glad you posted it; if you flip scum, this may be useful in finding other scum.

unvote, vote hero. Back to where we started, a good wagon. I support the target, as well as the people driving it.

1. Unvoting, then voting the same person is manipulative. Either you were trying to make it look like there was a growing wagon on me, or you were hoping people would apply the same logic as you used for DGB and say it's an honest mistake and therefore a town-tell for you. Or both. I don't buy that you forgot where your vote was; you were very dramatic about casting it, and it was in your last post before this doublepost.
2. You support the people driving it? The people voting for me are you, Semi, and EEM:
It's a given that you support yourself.
Semi is in your "watching closely" category.
From what I can tell, EEM voted me largely because he thinks you and I are scumbuddies. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 28#1643928
So I doubt you mean what you said.

As for omissions, you skipped a lot of posts that provided context for some of the things you mentioned in your recap, such as posts 88 and 89 right before post 90. You also left out things from the specific posts you did summarize, such as the fact that musher took an opinion in post 97 -- he wasn't just "reiterating options." I can understand that a full post-by-post analysis takes a lot of work, so skipping irrelevant parts is understandable to some extent, but you seem to have an agenda here which you are supporting with your omissions.
Almost every time you use a "+", it's because someone agreed with you, and almost every time you use a "-", it's because someone disagreed with or suspected you. I'm surprised you didn't go ahead and include all of your posts and put a "++" next to each of them. In fact you did misrepresent your own post 99 slightly, since it did not mention an "end to this discussion," and in fact was part of the discussion. And other posts were even more butchered.

Lastly, your point about Semioldguy

directly

contradicts your own ideas. I agree that SOG's approach to the gun has seemed to change over time, but it's been moving

toward what you advocated

. For you to say that makes him less town is about as hypocritical as one can get. Or unintentionally honest.

[Herodotus]

People really are okay with what Lowell has been saying and doing? Or is he being defended by scum? I'm confused.
(And if they're scum, are they his buddies, or is he innocent, and they are going for townie points?)

Musher has pretty much flaked; I don't see what a wagon on him could accomplish.

unvote, vote: Rishi

Post or perish.

Also, we all agreed to let SOG use the gun the way he wants.

I don't think we ever fully "agreed" to anything.

[Herodotus]

WRT: Rishi, he posted yesterday? Or are you

waiting for his full post analysis

?

He's said a little, but not enough IMO. I hope my vote will help fix that. Unfortunately, Kabenon and OGB aren't saying much either, while Musher will probably be replaced. Why do people sign up for games they won't play?*

As for the gun I dont think it matters anyway. We no longer have control of it semioldguy can do what ever he wants.

This is true. I meant that we didn't come to a consensus on the best use of the gun (it's probably a good thing we didn't spend time on that,) so I don't see what Lowell said as going against an agreement.

My top picks for death today.

Lowell

or

Herodotus
as well as
OozingGolfBall

or

Musher333

Explain this. Does that mean one of the first pair, and one of the second? And why?

@Kieraen: My support for Lowell being lynched or vigged is not a policy lynch. While there are other players I could see as scum, he's the most likely based on a combination of the things I've pointed out. I've played with the other three players you mentioned (for no more than a day each,) as well as ZeroPhear who likes to claim scum when he's a townie, and Killer Seven who seems to post no more than ten words per week. It was not my understanding that Lowell's style was nearly as automatically scummy-looking as that tier. In skimming a sample of his recent games, I see mixed results -- no policy-lynches (not even from Dejkha in their last game) or kid gloves with respect to Lowell. He frequently lurks and sometimes he says odd things, but not to the degree of his page 10 posts.
In my last game I (T) defended Zerophear (Maf) and believed his fakeclaim (which was remarkably well performed -- he claimed to be a cop and that he'd investigated someone who was lynched the day before, and that the mod told him the action failed -- an impressive way to take advantage of his own meta.) So I don't feel like offering him too much slack, and he's said multiple scummy things with apparently scummy motives.

* Question for the experienced players: are there games on this site that aren't full of lurking? It seems like we have to fight two battles at once to both look for scum and make people talk.

[Herodotus]

@EEM: You think Lowell and I are both scum, but you want only one of us to die? That seems odd. Please explain.

[Herodotus]

If I believed about two players what you say you believe, then I would say that one of the suspects should be vigged, and then if they were scum, we should probably lynch the other. Your plans seem assume that the person vigged will turn out to be town. The only way you could know that is if you are scum.

FoS: EEM

If EEM is scum, that will reduce my suspicion of Lowell.

[Herodotus]

The only way you could know that

EBWOP: (and the only reason you would advocate lynching someone you assume is town)

[Herodotus]

Notes on EEM's alignment: (I'm borrowing Lowell's + for town, - for scum, and adding = for null-tell.)
His starting posts are speculative and/or buddying. (-)
He earned my vote by refusing to answer a direct question because it was about Lowell ("Do you really want me to answer for Lowell or do you want him to address it himself?" You're the one I asked.) In the meantime, two other players answered it. (-)
Answers the replacement question. Considers Lowell's decision not to respond to a case a scumtell. While I disagree -- I think it's a null-tell, and the only thing that matters is the case and the validity of any defense offered -- I've seen Zazier use this reasoning as town in a marathon game, so this looks townie of him. (+)
Post 188: a peculiar thing to say about DGB, but I don't know what to conclude about it. May hint that DGB is not a scumbuddy of EEM? But then there's the WIFOM... (=)
Post 209: A bit silly. Aggressive, which I'd see as a town-tell, but reprimanding me for being aggressive. The part about Kebanon/Lowell doesn't tell me much about EEM's alignment either, but this post foreshadows a tell that will show up later. (=)
Posts 269-282: The diamond of scum-hunting: knowledge he shouldn't have. He accuses Lowell and me of being scumbuddies, but he calls for only one of us to be killed. If he's town and thinks we're scum together, he should want one of us vigged, and then if that person is scum, he should try to get the other lynched. After all, if he were right, then lynching someone else would be a likely mislynch, whereas the alternative is killing 2 scum. This to me suggests that EEM doesn't even consider it possible that Lowell or I would flip scum if vigged, which is knowledge he shouldn't have unless he's scum. (--)
Post 289: Then he names a specific number of scum. He says "probably," but it's still curiously specific. I had to reread the flavor text from page 1, but there's nothing to indicate 3. (-)
Post 290: Everyone is supposed to be grilled by most other players. (-?)

I still find Lowell suspicious, but while there are a lot of points against him, they're somewhat circumstancial. If EEM is scum, I'd consider that evidence in Lowell's favor.
Rishi isn't off the hook as far as the lurking is concerned, but there are too many lurkers to stop them all. Hopefully some hard evidence (reveals) will spur activity by day 2.
So I support vigging EEM, while Lowell would be my second choice. After that, we should consider the reveal before we decide on a lynch.

unvote; vote: EvilEvilMatt

I suspect he's been playing Doom 2 in violation of the rules of the community, and that his reveal could prove informative.

[Herodotus]

Olive, italic, bold is mine.
Sorry, I'm late for work and can't fully respond. Later.

This is ugly but it should work. Bold is mine.

Notes on EEM's alignment: (I'm borrowing Lowell's + for town, - for scum, and adding = for null-tell.)
His starting posts are speculative and/or buddying. (-)

Do you still disagree with semioldguy being protown? Why is it so hard to think a person would want to locate and empower someone who was being protown. That was the point of the gun voting in the first place.

Straw-man.

He earned my vote by refusing to answer a direct question because it was about Lowell ("Do you really want me to answer for Lowell or do you want him to address it himself?" You're the one I asked.) In the meantime, two other players answered it. (-)

I still wouldnt want to answer cases for other players just like I wouldnt expect someone else to answer for this case. I would have been willing to answer for Lowell if thats what you wanted and if others hadnt done so on their own.

I asked you to, and you didn't; that was my point.

Answers the replacement question. Considers Lowell's decision not to respond to a case a scumtell. While I disagree -- I think it's a null-tell, and the only thing that matters is the case and the validity of any defense offered -- I've seen Zazier use this reasoning as town in a marathon game, so this looks townie of him. (+)
Post 188: a peculiar thing to say about DGB, but I don't know what to conclude about it. May hint that DGB is not a scumbuddy of EEM? But then there's the WIFOM... (=)
Post 209: A bit silly. Aggressive, which I'd see as a town-tell, but reprimanding me for being aggressive. The part about Kebanon/Lowell doesn't tell me much about EEM's alignment either, but this post foreshadows a tell that will show up later. (=)
Posts 269-282: The diamond of scum-hunting: knowledge he shouldn't have. He accuses Lowell and me of being scumbuddies, but he calls for only one of us to be killed. If he's town and thinks we're scum together, he should want one of us vigged, and then if that person is scum, he should try to get the other lynched. After all, if he were right, then lynching someone else would be a likely mislynch, whereas the alternative is killing 2 scum. This to me suggests that EEM doesn't even consider it possible that Lowell or I would flip scum if vigged, which is knowledge he shouldn't have unless he's scum. (--)

Vigging Lowell would have been a better plan...

Post 289: Then he names a specific number of scum. He says "probably," but it's still curiously specific. I had to reread the flavor text from page 1, but there's nothing to indicate 3. (-)

1 to 4 ratio is pretty standard I thought. How many do you think there is?

I don't know. Probably between 2 and 5. 3 may be common, but I'd guess that fewer than half of minis have exactly 3.

Post 290: Everyone is supposed to be grilled by most other players. (-?)

Indeed (?)

Yep.

[Herodotus]

Notes on EEM's alignment: (I'm borrowing Lowell's + for town, - for scum, and adding = for null-tell.)
His starting posts are speculative and/or buddying. (-)

Do you still disagree with semioldguy being protown? Why is it so hard to think a person would want to locate and empower someone who was being protown. That was the point of the gun voting in the first place.

Straw-man.

Bite me.

This was a straw man argument because I wasn't talking about later impressions of SOG's alignment, I was talking about your first two posts. Which were not based on the actual pro-town things that SOG said later. (such as posts 44 or 87 for example)

Sinse he got the gun I know I'm not alone finding him protown. Sure, I did before anyone else did but wtf man let it go.

You pointed to SOG's first three posts, which were not alignment-tells, and I thought you were basically calling SOG obv-town because of them. It was the "give this guy the gun" thing that made me think you were claiming to be 100% sure, but upon an nth review* that may not have been the case. I still dislike it, but I'll let it go, since I'm not sure how certain you were claiming to be.

* where n is higher than you'd want to know

Now answer the question. Do you think semioldguy is protown or not?

Right now, I'd say SOG is leaning protown. Previously I'd have said protown; the change is at least partly a matter of my earlier intuition subsiding. I haven't considered him worth reviewing in-depth yet; I tend to focus more on the people I have reasons to suspect from mid day 1 through day 2.

He earned my vote by refusing to answer a direct question because it was about Lowell ("Do you really want me to answer for Lowell or do you want him to address it himself?" You're the one I asked.) In the meantime, two other players answered it. (-)

I still wouldnt want to answer cases for other players just like I wouldnt expect someone else to answer for this case. I would have been willing to answer for Lowell if thats what you wanted and if others hadnt done so on their own.

I asked you to, and you didn't; that was my point.

Its a playstyle arguement. I called you on your case being crap before anyone else did. Once you confirmed you wanted me to instead of Lowell I would have except other people answered for Lowell point for point before I could.

All you said was that you didn't agree with it, and you said that after Diamond and Rishi had stated doubts. Considering that my case wasn't crap at all, it's perfectly fair to expect you to back up your disagreement with a reason. Avoiding a direct question is definitely not a "playstyle" issue.

[Herodotus]

@Amished: It takes 7 to lynch, 6 after the gun is used. One more vote would be L-3.

Could someone on Musher's wagon or considering joining please state/summarize the case? Is it just a lurker lynch?
Setting aside whether it's actually a good idea, *if* we are really set on killing OGB and Musher, I'd think vigging Musher first would be more convenient for the mod so he can stop searching for a replacement. But that's a big if, obviously.

[Herodotus]

Well, if OGB isn't going to even answer, then I'm okay with his being vigged.

[Herodotus]

While I prefer a EEM or a Hero lynch, I don't think that's going to happen at the current deadline and I do not want to have a no-lynch. Therefore, I find a lurker lynch perfectly acceptable. Of the lurkers, Musher seems to be the most likely to be lynched based on how many votes he has currently. Therefore,

vote: Musher

I think even without the extension, it was a bit early to use that reasoning for your vote. There were 2.5 days left at the time; couldn't you have switched your vote to Musher on May 8th (the day before the deadline) if the EEM lynch wasn't going to happen?
If we get close to deadline with no other option, I'll probably switch to Rising(a.k.a. Musher,) but I'd prefer to lynch someone I think is more likely to be scum. Also, I find two of the players on his wagon to be independently scummy (though I don't suppose that both of them are scum.)

[Herodotus]

Hero, now that Musher has been replaced, why are you still willing to switch your vote to him? The point of lynching Musher is to kill off a lurker but it doesn't seem as if that is going to be the case any more.

Because I think lynching RisingPhoenix would probably be better than a nolynch. I'm not even 100% sure whether that's true, since the presence of Lowell and EEM on his wagon makes me think there's a decent chance that he's town. Of course, that's not conclusive. So like I said, if there's no other option at deadline, I'd probably switch.

By the way, I was hoping someone would answer my question about whether there's a case on Musher other than the lurking...

[Herodotus]

Yeah, I've read DGB + Lowell's exchange a couple times. I just thought there might be something more, either buried in the thread or unwritten, that I was missing.

[Herodotus]

hello. so as a replacement i should read the game, correct?

Rising, have you read the game yet?

Who would you primarily like to vote for then Lowell, now that musher has a replacement?

I'd vote for you or hero. Though this is all pointless since clearly we can't get our shit together enough to lynch anyone at this point.

Demoralizing and parking your vote while stating you'd rather lynch someone else is anti-town.

So, I am surprised that semioldguy took absolutely no heat for shooting OGB. OGB has zero votes at the time, and he presented a case primarily based on lurking. (See my first paragraph of this post to let you know what I think of lurker-hunting.) Yes, we're close to deadline, but he gave OGB only two days before the shot, during which time OGB did not log into the site once (or at very least didn't post anywhere). After making the shot, he immediately started a case on me IN THE VERY NEXT POST without even seeing the result of his shot. He was not in the least bit interested in gathering any information from the kill - he just wanted someone dead.

I think that's a pretty strong conclusion to draw. If he is scum and just wanted to kill a townie, he could have chosen one whom others suspected (though I suppose it would be easier to later direct a mislynch on them.) I didn't like the original selection of OGB, but then OGB stalled near a deadline. His decision not to respond (and it WAS a decision, even if he never logged in during those 2 days -- and keep in mind he is an alt) was harmful to the town. This may be somewhat of an after-the-fact justification, but I feel that pulling the trigger was the right thing to do at the time. And the approaching deadline explains SOG's decision not to wait longer. (I think he probably should have "aimed" the gun a day or two earlier, but that's just a strategy/judgement issue.)

I guess my thoughts on vigging in general is to get rid of the lurkers so that we have only people around that we can vote for, and therefore get more information out of voting. Who would you have rather seen shot? Clearly he was not going to shoot himself.

I agree with vigging lurkers when there aren't better options, but did you really feel that the person you were voting was not the best person to be killed?

Drawing lurkers out with pressure votes and direct questions is the best way to deal with them - if they are intentionally evasive to direct questioning, then there is a justification for lynching them.

My top suspects other than you are probably Hero (vote hopping, pretty thin reasons for some of his votes) and DGB (playing differently this game – I've played with her a decent amount and she's usually more aggressive and active. The fact that she's more docile this game is odd).

You suggest pressure-voting lurkers (I agree completely,) but criticize a player for thin reasons for his votes? Wouldn't those pressure votes show up as thinly-reasoned votes in analysis?

My voting history:
I voted Lowell because of minor/moderate suspicion.
I voted EEM because he didn't answer a question and let two others answer for him, and to prompt him by example to vote. I unvoted after he gave a townish-looking response.
I voted Kabenon because he didn't answer two questions.
I returned my vote to Lowell when my suspicions of him became stronger.
I voted Rishi because he was lurking. I'd previously asked him to post more and say more, but my requests weren't enough without a vote. (And it seems my vote wasn't enough pressure, either.)
I voted EEM because of strong suspicion.

Three of my votes were pressure votes, while I've voted two players based on serious suspicions. Those two players are my "most likely scum" list. I don't consider that to qualify as vote-hopping.

DGB's play is apparently different from her normal play (I've only been in a marathon game with her, so I can't confirm that, but I understand she has a reputation for a particular style.
But is this a scumtell? Does her play in this game match her play in games where she was scum? I don't think a different playstyle is a scumtell unless it's consistent with either previous play as scum or a scum strategy. My read on her is pretty neutral other than the Musher wagon, which I thought was mildly suspicious.

As for Herodotus, I found him scummy for several reasons. The contradiction that Diamondilium pointed out is only one of those reasons. I didn't like the loaded question he directed at Lowell. I thought it was scummy for him to suggest lying about roles when claiming as town, for reason I already stated.

My question may have been a false dilemma, but it was not loaded. I had already explained this at the time. Your lack of response to my explanation suggested that you understood this.
The part where we disagreed about claims was after your vote on me, so it could not have been a reason for your vote when you placed it.
So we're back to this supposed contradiction. So far no one has quoted contradictory statements of mine, they've only asserted that I did it. As I said to Kabenon, I think players are responsible for their assertions being either valid or otherwise pro-town, even if they're just agreeing with others. Maybe especially when they're agreeing with others.

On a side note, I think there's nothing inherently wrong with lying when you're town. As long as you're playing by the rules and not harming anyone, lies and manipulations by townies are a matter of the ends justifying the means. In my last game, I made a decent attempt to talk two scum into outing themselves by misrepresenting the game strategy and bluffing. Sadly, I only got one. And in this recent game Rhinox, who was town, claimed SK to avoid a mislynch in LYLO. He even tripped up a scum in the next post, but one of the townies was too closed minded to accept his gambit. Another example is a cop voting for someone because of a guilty investigation without claiming that they're a cop, which breadcrumbs their results. But I suppose this question is academic.

As I stated back in the last paragraph of 252, I agree with Amished and SOG that Lowell's criticism of SOG for his decision on the gun is out of place and suspicious.
I currently have Lowell linked with Rishi, anti-linked with EEM and DGB*, and dis-linked with SOG. These links are not strong, but I think a Lowell lynch is possible, has a decent chance of hitting scum, and could be informative. I'm a little more suspicious of EEM, but Lowell is close behind, and a Lowell lynch would give us a better picture regarding EEM as well as others.

(linked meaning possible scumbuddies, anti-linked meaning "of likely different alignment," and dis-linked meaning "not scumbuddies.")

*From games I've read, voting "deals" like their Musher wagon usually involve a scum and someone they are not teamed with, though they could be two scum from different factions.

So I'd support a Lowell lynch. I hate to spread out the votes even more, but I'll be back before deadline in case this doesn't go anywhere.

unvote; vote Lowell

[Herodotus]

I was going to vote Rishi had the situation ended up like the one with Musher; however, now that he is posting I see no reason to vote him.

Same here. I had typed up a post comparing Rishi unfavorably to Musher but also considering waiting for a replacement, but when I previewed it, Rishi had posted, so I just scrapped the whole thing.

[Herodotus]

I'm here too. I just don't understand this -- I see plenty of scummy things that Lowell has done, but nothing significantly scummy from Musher or Rising. Granted, neither said much, but I'd put the odds a lot higher on Lowell as scum than Rising.

I've read the argument between Rishi and SOG. I think most of Rishi's points aren't very strong, but it's reasonable to check SOG's explanation to make sure his reasoning for the OGB vigging is proper and consistent. I wouldn't want to lynch either of them at the moment.

@Rising: It might be a good idea to play a newbie game first; you can find the queue here. You may even want to ask to be replaced in this game if you're not lynched. You more or less need to read every post in order to play.

@Amished: where did you get the number 1/11 from?

[Herodotus]

EBWOP: when I say neither, I mean Musher and Rising.

[Herodotus]

I'd find it hard to imagine how a game with only 1 scum among 11 players would work, but I suppose you're only using a minimum value for an example.
The problem is I'm having trouble seeing how the scenario where we lynch a townie is better than a no-lynch.

To use more arbitrary numbers:
22% chance Rising is scum. Lynching him is very good.
75% chance Rising is town. Lynching him is moderately bad.
3% chance Rising is neutral. Lynching him is moderately good.
Or a no-lynch, which is somewhat bad.

My question is whether
.22 * (very good) + .75 * (moderately bad)
is better than
1 * (somewhat bad)

I could be convinced, but I don't like the idea of eliminating someone I'm not particularly suspicious of.

I'll probably be on for another half hour or so. There's a very small chance I'll be on within the last hour before the deadline.

[Herodotus]

My other consideration is that there's a good chance for someone to come in and hammer Lowell. I think the information gained from lynching Lowell would be much greater than the information from a Rising lynch, AND be almost twice as likely to eliminate one of the scum.

[Herodotus]

I guess now that Amished has switched, there's only one possible lynch. And I suppose Amished's post 411 calculation is reasonable, if silly.

unvote
vote: RisingPhoenix

[Herodotus]

@Diamond:
When you have time, please reread post 247. Do you find his recap to accurately represent the things people have said in the thread?

Why did you think that "Having tried to get a wagon on musher is well, actually protown in my eyes." Musher had failed to post after a prod, so (1) he was already due to be replaced, and (2) there was no way for the wagon to pressure him to do anything. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 97#1651997

Looking through some of his posts; he [Lowell] seems to have pro town intentions.

I don't see this at all.

[Herodotus]

Yeah. Lowell is town.

I doubt that.
But I want to hear from Kabenon, whose last post was almost 2 weeks ago.

[Herodotus]

Who here has had their suspicions change since yesterday not involving Amished and what changes are there in your suspicions?

I have failed at parsing this, but my suspicions haven't changed by much. The fact that Amished was killed makes me lean slightly more toward Lowell -- as opposed to EEM -- as my top suspect. I'm expecting a busy weekend, but I'll reread if I can.

[Herodotus]

That may be how you perceive it but that did not seem to be the case with Lowell; he seemed to believe that pushing that wagon would lead to some fruition.

@Lowell: What did you think the Musher wagon could accomplish, besides distracting from lynching you?

You gonna hit and run like that?

Please explain this sentence.

What does amished have to do with me?

Well, why did you kill him? The answer to this question will give you all the explanation you need for why I'm leaning more toward you now.


(P.S. the above is a loaded question. But it's rhetorical.)

vote: Lowell

[Herodotus]

There have been four posts in the last 60 hours. Barring a deadline extension, we are almost halfway through day 2.

fos: everyone

for lurking

mod: have all needed prods been sent?

@Lowell: What did you think the Musher wagon could accomplish, besides distracting from lynching you?

That question was not the rhetorical one.

You gonna hit and run like that?

Please explain this sentence.

[Herodotus]

Not voting or looking for suspicious people could prolong this game, and hence your retirement.

As someone who would prefer that DGB stayed,

I have to wonder whether you're trying to talk me into unvoting.

[Herodotus]

How is that an attempt to get you to unvote?

I also am sad to see DGB leaving.

I don't really think it was. The part in italics was a joke.

Will respond to all soon.

Is it soon yet? Are you stalling until the last day before the deadline?

We need more Lowell votes.

[Herodotus]

@Gorckat:
I hope that some day you will be able to return to MS.

@Lowell:
Are you going to answer my questions, or not?
And why have you not done so, or indicated that you will not, a week later?

[Herodotus]

did I mention hero is (was) scum????

You did. And you were right. I'll never figure out how you managed to pick me out from among the others offering similar ideas at the same time.
It never seemed that you were trying very hard to convince others, though, so I doubt you'd have gotten me lynched.

[Herodotus]

Just out of curiousity:
Was there any significance to the townie enabler role?