Khan's Unnamed 3p Mafia II (Micro 175) {Game Over}

[Tierce]

'morning!

saul, we should

You two should crossvote.

[Tierce]

Because she made one throwaway post and hasn't come back to play with us...

Also she hasn't insisted she's obvtown yet.

Vote: Kublai Khan

Only because I like you.

Tierce hasn't been around; your morning is my bedtime. (And what else do you think a suggestionmand you vote each other is if not me calling myself obvTown >.>) I was about to go to sleep when I got stuff to deal with on the other corner of the sandbox, so I'll be dealing with that and go to bed. Lynch KK for great etc.

[Tierce]

Well, etc.

...I'm going to bed.

[Tierce]

I'm a supersaint. I self voted on the outside chance that scum would quickhammer me, but I think whichever one of you is scum is wise to the game so eh...

By the way that means lynching me is a town autowin provided that town votes me first should you guys go down that route... it's just a matter of which one of you is actually town... that's the fun part.

That makes things easy for me. You're the lynch, one way or another: if you're lying, you're scum, and lynching you is a Town win. If you're speaking the truth, saul has to be the one who hammers you because etc.

VOTE: Zachrulez

I'm more inclined to think that saul is scum; that reaction to me not hammering seemed fake--he's familiar with the quirky mechanics in the previous 3p game, and also possibly with Hoopla's Vengeful Townie bit.


Buuuut bed. Pugs are calling. (>")>

[Tierce]

Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

[Tierce]

Hm. Given what I know, your claim is very plausible.

Very

plausible. Given my role PM, the way the town win condition is worded, and the fact that I can't see scum making that claim risking that the setup could involve a town PR...

Now the only question is,

Tierce, why

aren't

you the scum?

pedit: Whoa, get called away to work in the middle of the post. No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

VOTE: Tierce

Because I'm Town. Ask a silly question...

I do not believe you did not read the previous game, saul--and you just said you did, so. This is from the rules post in said game:

i) Town: You win when the Mafia player is dead.

Now, how would a win con that is just the same as the previous one make you assume shenanigans?

[Tierce]

Aaanyway, sleep. This is getting silly and phoneposting hurts my poor brain.

[Tierce]

If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

The beauty of it is that I don't have to pick between the two of you. Either his claim is true or it's not. I'm just scumhunting on the side, a la "check if the Innocent Child's claim holds".

......Bed. Now for reals.

[Tierce]

Actually, hold on.

UNVOTE: Zachrulez

I'm not voting saul, Zach. You are going to self-vote again, and then you get to pick who hammers you. If you're scum, you die. If you're Town, you get the 3pp LyLo confTown role.

[Tierce]

If you're Town, you get the 3pp LyLo confTown role.

He's already conftown. He didn't hammer you when he had the chance, and

you

haven't claimed a role which would make that a bad move for scum.

Your point being? I didn't claim. That's why I am not voting you, Mr. Claimed VT. You are a free hammer. I'm not.

[Tierce]

90 minutes past bedtime. Enough.

[Tierce]

My ability to sleep through the apocalypse is envied by many and shared by few.

I'm in the middle of an Alpha Omega session, will get to this once it's over.

Tierce, do you counterclaim (or co-claim) Zach? Are you also claiming supersaint?

No comment.

[Tierce]

Behold! She lives!

I'm pondering that after he saw this:

Tierce and I can call each other scum while zach-scum goes on to win

he couldn't resist setting it up that way. There's a 50-50 chance of that from where I'm sitting.

Setting the game up like this on purpose would be immoral; you're a mod, you know this. I know you go on wild speculation as Town, but why would you suggest KK is doing something like that? I think this is null, because I can't find

any

game-relevant motivation to say this (other than "let's make up random stuff to cover up the Zach rolefishing", but that's seems too far-fetched). But, by the way, this is kind of offensive to suggest regardless of whether you believe it or not (if you're scum, it's obvious pretense). Mods are not supposed to set up things like this on purpose. Don't suggest they do, that's gaming the mod and questioning their moral code.

I'm also wondering about this:

The game is in LYLO and will continue as long as necessary.

Theoretically we could all just not vote forever until he breaks down and tells us who the scum is just to end it.

Let's try something.

VOTE: Kublai Khan

This is scummy. It's much the same as NS's mod-vote in Vi's Mafia in Triplicate; it's a joke, and it

was

funny when I read it, but--you read the previous 3p game. Like with the wincon bit, it was in the rules in that game as well. You said you didn't read the rules in the previous game, but it's a

3p

game and you know there is a scum player due to said wincon and the fact that we are in LyLo, so we can't be "all Town", as you say you wondered. I know you're a rational person--speculation is not discordance, but in this game you have rather dissonant frames of mind. Did you or did you not know this was in LyLo/there is a scum player? Did you or did you not know that the wincon is the same as the previous game, so super saints are irrelevant to it because that's how KK writes things? The lack of knowledge makes no sense from a Town player who read the 3p Daycop game and who wants to verify things before making assumptions on roles. You're pretending not to know things to try and fish information out of Zach. However, I will grant you that I don't think you were familiar with super saints before this game, though you are familiar with vengekill roles.
Ramble ramble ramble etc. My point when I started this paragraph was that voting the mod is a cheap Towntell. My main point of contention here is: you were in Maf.Triplicate, you know I don't go on those things as evidences of Townieness, so it kind of doubles around and I go back to not thinking there's a lot of scum intent there. But it still looks fake, like you have nothing better to do yet are afraid to admit it, and chose to make that post out of a feeling of awkwardness.

But his not hammering me tells me I'm right.

I expect you mean hammering

me

, not

you

, but:
Claiming supersaint is suboptimal (Zach appears to have wondered if it was an iffy claim to make, if you look at Post 12) and you're trying to paint me as scummy for a theory point that is on the Super Saint wiki page, which you probably read if you were going through SS3. It doesn't matter if you "knew" the role or not, you're calling me scum for making a decision...

too quickly?

You do know I read a lot of games, right? Let's add that one of my first IRC mafia games was SS3 and I was the super saint. Also Open 390, with the Brass and Shrapnel setup. I don't have to wait on you to know things I've known for a year and a half about the SS/vengeful role.

I know it's not optimal to claim vengeful, and therefore have no interest in claiming or counterclaiming or co-claiming or

anything

in these circumstances. Consider the hypothetical scenario in which I'm a super saint, Zach is scum and knows there is a super saint in the game. He can self-vote on page 1 without worry, because neither of us is the kind to trollhammer as Town. He claims super saint, and if he's lucky, you either blurt out you are a VT, or I counterclaim. Then he knows you have to be the lynch, therefore won't hammer the real super saint (me). (Hypothetical scenario 2 is Zach is a Jester, and wants to be lynched (SS would be an AWESOME claim in that case), but regardless of my role, he can't be a Jester because it's not a Mafia-aligned role and it's not present in the win conditions.)
Outside any hypothetical scenario, I'm not going to be lynched in this game (you are NOT going to add to my two mislynches), and neither are you. Zach is the lynch, and he gets to pick who hammers him after self-voting. And I promise I won't laugh at you for self-voting even if you're scum, Zach~

No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

...And? If he's telling the truth, he is still the lynch. Choosing to lynch a claimed super saint is not scummy, but you're trying to say it is:

And was I shocked to see her vote you right off the bat like that, instead of taking time to think it through. If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

Bonus points for the posturing in the first sentence.

Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

This statement is not said from town to someone they think is scum.

See above, under the LOLNOPE NOT CLAIMING section. It wouldn't be optimal for me to counterclaim as a supersaint, and I am not clarifying things on that end. It doesn't matter, because

I'm not the lynch

.

I think saul is scum, but it's up to Zach. #YOLetc.

[Tierce]

I had a revelation while staring at the microwave.

saulres is scum and believes both of us are super saints, so his only solutions, in his PoV, are to have Zach/I hammer each other--he has to vote first, or the first vote has to be a self-vote with him not voting.

Again, yeahno not going to claim. This is fun to watch. ^_^

[Tierce]

I had a revelation while staring at the microwave.

saulres is scum and believes both of us are super saints, so his only solutions, in his PoV, are to have Zach/I hammer each other--he has to vote first, or the first vote has to be a self-vote with him not voting.

Again, yeahno not going to claim. This is fun to watch. ^_^

Yeah, but you're not ever going to vote him for that are you? You're going to lynch me because we 'have to'. What if I pick you to hammer me?

No, I'm not. And if you pick me to hammer you, I'll do it; if you're Town, we even get to keep the beautiful statistic of "number of 3p LYLOs Town Tierce has won: 0". Win-win, right?

[Tierce]

I don't think so.

Why haven't you hammered me?

[Tierce]

That or I'm scum who won't hammer because I'm afraid you are a supersaint.

Behold my masterplan at work~

[Tierce]

Kublai Khan really is a mad genius here, this is one hell of a stand off.

Come play this 3p game with me, she said.
It will be fun, she said.

Have I mentioned I hate LyLo lately? I kind of want to wash my hands of this and let you figure things out, but that would be cruel and unusual punishment and not really help Town.


saul, I said nothing about "figuring out the setup", and I am still not going to answer that question, for obvious reasons. (Hint: scum supersaint is irrelevant because the moment you hammer them they are dead anyway, no point in giving that ability to scum in a game like this.)

You were trying to paint me as scummy for knowledge I've had for over a year. What is the Town motivation in that? I thought I was the one who pushed pseudo game theory as reasons for votes as scum. "If she were Town, she would have waited and thought [things she already knew for months] through." This makes no sense coming from Town.

Try and emulate a better scum player than me. It's fun, but it's also kind of painful to see you posting just like I do as scum.

[Tierce]

I can just hear CES telling me there's no need to be mean in response to that last post. >.> Sorry, but seriously, don't ever ever style anything after my scum play, on purpose or not.

[Tierce]

You don't see the fun in a setup of a town supersaint, a scum supersaint, and a third person trying to figure out which one's telling the truth?

It's called being confTown in 3p LyLo and it

sucks

. Not particularly fun, no.

I'd really love to take Zach's recent posts as a sign that he's Town, but I've seen zoraster pull an impeccable LyLo behavior as scum, so I am not taking words that don't really cost him anything as truth, and his self-vote can be a gambit if the lynch does not go through to the end. Been there, hammered the wrong person, got the loss. It has to be your choice, Zach.

PEdit: Yeah.

[Tierce]

PEdit: Yeah.

At which point we lynch saul for refusing to hammer.

[Tierce]

ppedit: He hasn't done any scumhunting. He's just riding the claim. That's not solid enough to be conftown.

Exactly, which means that he is the lynch, problem solved. That was my original conclusion in the whole "that's the beauty of it" that was so shamelessly stolen.

By the way, scum supersaint and Town supersaint don't work because one would just hammer each other for a Town autowin.

> Designing setups in your LyLo
> Still ages away from ever designing an Amber game


PEdit: No, but you've seen plenty of LyLos. Even if you're not a cuddly puppy of the sea, I am not trusting you with a ten foot pole.

[Tierce]

The problem with this plan is, from my POV it guarantees a town win for Tierce to be your hammerer. Which is what she was arguing for me to be the hammerer. And since I'm leaning towards her being the scum, I'm unlikely to agree to vote you. And I'm sure she'll say the same thing.

Oh, I'll vote him. Kind of silly to propose the whole thing otherwise; the outcome would just be my lynch and a sure Town loss.

[Tierce]

Can you describe your emotional state right now, Zach?


PEdit: No, saul. One supersaint self-votes and the other hammers. Whatever the result, they are both dead, Town wins. The non-supersaint Townie doesn't vote.
...Did you just ask me to hammer? Because last I looked, your name is not Zach.

[Tierce]

I think he was expecting me to hammer you on the grounds of my "Oh, I'll vote him" words. Which was in answer to "If Zach asks me to hammer", not just hammering Zach out of the blue without him picking. I'm sleepy, not out of my wits.

Seriously, Zach. I want an actual description (though I understand the emotional value of keysmashing all too well).

[Tierce]

So, who dies?

You!

Who else?

[Tierce]

I kind of really hope Zach is scum and made the worst gambit of his life and is trying to figure out how to get out of this situation.

Because that would be horribly satisfying in a really mean way.


PEdit the First: Annoyed? Annoyed is... ack. I don't remember being annoyed as the decision-maker in LyLo. I remember being relieved, frustrated, scared, but... not annoyed. I didn't have to self-vote, but... I really don't think that fits anyway, the end result is the same, and I

hate

being lynched to begin with, but this is the best solution. I don't see why I would be annoyed if I was the one being lynched and making that decision. I would see me being annoyed if I had to hammer a claimed supersaint Townread (which was what I felt over Open 390 while knowing Fate would coast to a win the next Day), but

the lynchee

?

Now I'm more confused than before. But kind of relieved, because that doesn't make much sense as Town emotions right now.


PEdit the Second: I'm trying to. You're not particularly helping.

[Tierce]

No. Because if you're wrong, that means you picked me, and I won't vote you unless I think you're scum. Tierce doesn't have credibility in my eyes to call your claim a false one; she has given no evidence to the contrary.

And I won't give any such evidence. We've been over this.

You do realize that the person who doesn't hammer is the immediate lynch, yes? If you're scum, there's literally no way out if he asks you to hammer. Either Zach is lynched or you are. There is no point in trying not to hammer; it just means that Zach gets to keep his not-mislynched-since-2009 state. Whoever he calls to be the hammerer either hammers Zach-scum or dies, directly or indirectly.

PEdit: Well thanks for saying there's no need for me to scumhunt? There wasn't a real point in trying to figure out Nacho/Plum's alignment in ADwD because a mechanic would reveal their alignment a few Days in. That didn't stop me then and you being the for-sure lynch won't stop me now.


PEdit again: ...Except I marked the whole thing as null and was just giving you non-game-related advice on how not to address such things. It'd be tampering with randomness, and I didn't call you "immoral", I called

deciding the setup without randomness

immoral.

[Tierce]

saul... you once asked me in a game where was my "anger" or something the like. You know I have a moral code that I bring into games and that I tend toward the :justice: end of the mercy spectrum. And now you are trying to call me giving you advice

AtE?

I...

Okay, I guess. Never mind, then. Carry on. But please don't ever go into one of my games and speculate I'm doing something like that, because it's ridiculous to bring it into question when the person has given no sign they do something like that

ever

.

[Tierce]

tying me to immortality.

I think I left the vorpal sword in the Jabberwock neck. One moment...

You did call me "offensive" though.

"this is kind of offensive to suggest regardless of whether you believe it or not"
Everyone makes offensive statements once in a while. I didn't call you offensive nor do I think you are an offensive person, otherwise I wouldn't be playing with you.

And I know you won't claim. That's fine. But could you please do something for me, which I do for you? Could you try to see how it looks, with me town, from

my

POV? Why should

I

do what you suggest? You're more persuasive than I am; as a scum tactic you could suggest what you did if you thought you'd be more likely to convince Zach that I'm scum than I would be to convince him you are.

You'd still have to persuade him to vote me. What's the difference? The only potential difference I can see is that the decision is not in your hands. And it would never be in your hands, no matter how skilled a player you are or Zach is, once he claims supersaint. Skill levels are irrelevant since you're both good thinkers and neither of you is a troll. We're looking at a play that eliminates two players and the only way Town loses is if Zach Town chooses Town to hammer him. It makes a 50% LyLo instead of a 33% one.

It's numbers play. Call me Hoopla.

[Tierce]

pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

When did your read change?

[Tierce]

pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

When did your read change?

After I read your posts this morning and looked at your reasoning for not claiming from your POV. (What I thought up to that point was that you were softclaiming to keep me a viable scum option. Your posts got me to see the town motivation for doing what you were doing.)

Had to go and check that. I was confused because on page 3, you mentioned you were thinking about hammering me before my "last couple of posts", so I thought that the wall was not the turning point. But you did say you "had to go and actually think about things", so the 'reading this morning' bit matches up.

pedit: (

Really

getting tired of "pedit"): LOL on my typo. As to your final statement, yes, yes, you could be right, and if we're both town then Zach is really enjoying watching this. But the key thing is, the decision to vote for Zach

is

in my hands. I can't stop you both from voting me (giving scum the win) but I

can

stop

myself

from guaranteeing a loss if I don't think he's scum.

...So you're saying that, in your position, you'd give scum a guaranteed win (by lynching you, a VT) over lynching a Townread that could be wrong?

Or are you just afraid to lynch Zach because he's a claimed supersaint and you lose if you die?


PEdit: Apparently.

[Tierce]

Better to stay mum and just try to argue more effectively than I.

Better to play Mafia, you mean? ^_^

What's your point? Of course I don't want to be lynched if I am not vengeful; that would lead to a loss for my faction, whichever it is. How is this alignment relevant?

[Tierce]

saul's point still makes no sense. You're saying I'm trying to scare Zach away from hammering me. And I can tell you straight up that I don't want to be lynched. But that's irrelevant, because if Zach asks me to hammer me and I refuse, I am the lynch.

I would have to "argue more effectively" just the same if I was on the line for a lynch or not. Because if Zach is a Town supersaint, whoever hammers him dies. My fight is just the same as before, only this way I guarantee that if Zach is lying he is dead scum. Shirking away from lynching Zach would let him get away from it.

What is there to argue that is different between hammering Zach and lynching someone not-Zach?


PEdit: It's irrelevant. Zach is not quickhammering me right now, there's no point in me claiming, and I don't need you to unvote.

[Tierce]

If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

WHY SHOULD TOWN-ME FOLLOW YOUR PLAN?

I honestly don't know how best to explain "Zach plays the role of confTown and gets to pick who hammers him, he either dies as scum or takes down one person with him, making this a 50% LyLo over a 33% one" any better than that. I don't want to be mean, but I frankly don't know how I am supposed to "convince" you of anything other than presenting how it works and the benefit of the numbers. Yes, Town loses if Zach is Town and picks wrong.

Welcome to freaking 3p LyLo.

It's still better odds than your regular LyLo.

[Tierce]

(I could be smug and say that Vi and I designed the Town-winning plan in xudeR aifaM esereveR and people kept trying to make us "convince" them of it when it

was

a Twon-winning plan and we won because of it, but that... that would be mean~)

Bedtime.

[Tierce]

No no no. Stop dodging my main point.

My main point is this: I am town. I have Person A trying to push through a lynch of either me, or a lynch of Person B, based

only

on a claim that Person A is town. Why should

any

town in my position believe Person A's claim?

That is what you're asking me to do. And when I say that, you say "No, it doesn't matter, because that's what's going to happen." Meaning you're trying to shove this down Zach's throat.

Your plan will bring you victory no matter

what

your alignment. It's not a town plan. It's not a scum plan. It's an

anybody

plan. So it holds no credibility.

...

I am not looking for credibility, because I don't need to. I presented the plan that gives Town the best odds of winning. Zach knows it is the plan that gives Town the best odds of winning. I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat. You've seen me before, as Town, leading strong stances and behaviors and standing for things without giving ground (

again

, you mentioned my "anger", so you are very much not unfamiliar with me being firm, decisive and fervently standing up for things), but in this game, I'm "trying to shove this down Zach's throat". Why the loaded language for something you've seen me do before? This has not suddenly become scummy

because it is not scummy

. You say that proposing the plan in question doesn't give me Town or scum points, but then bring up "credibility". I don't care about it being "credible", I care about the final result.

And since when am I trying to push a lynch of you or Zach? I've repeatedly said I will hammer Zach

if he asks me too

. Because if he asks me to hammer him and I do not,

I am the lynch

, which means there is no chance of hitting scum if I am not vengeful. In a choice between being lynched and hammering Zach, I will hammer Mr. Annoyed.

The only way you have addressed the fact that I will hammer

if he asks me to

is to demand that I hammer him myself without waiting for his decision:

So

VOTE:

. Otherwise it's just lip service.

If you really want to go that route, then you should just hammer him and get your 50%.

You are not going to pressure me into doing anything, because it's not

your

decision.

You've seen LyLo before. You say you love LyLo, IIRC. What is it that is so strange and new and

shoving down your throat

about the decision not being in your hands, when in a 'regular' LyLo you would have the same force-of-argument between the players? How is it that making a plan like this is suddenly scummy? I've put Zach in a situation where he cannot win if he's scum. You're far more focused on

oh god oh god oh god can't you see how scummy this ANYBODY plan is

than on anything else. I'm done addressing posts about it, it's going around in circles and repeating myself.

She came up with a plan to give her a 50% chance of winning, especially if she could make me look scummy. She's done the latter before (when we were both town) and if you want I'll find the games and link you to them.

If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and

then

suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

This is a rehash of what you were saying before. How is presenting a plan that gives scum a lowered chance of winning, which you said "is not Town, is not scum",

scummy

? "Tierce-scum came up with a plan in which she's less likely to win, but she didn't explain it step by step, look how scummy that is."

Your argument is that Town-Tierce would work on her Towncred before presenting that kind of plan. What the heck?

Zach claimed supersaint.

I don't care about my credibility, because

I know I'm Town

. You know who would be desperate for credibility? Scum. I don't need to go in a mad dash for cred before presenting the best-odds plan, because I'm Town.

Jesus. Damned if I call myself obvTown, damned if I don't and

instead actually do stuff

. You know that you're pushing on bullshit, saul.

Tell me. How is presenting a plan that is a version of this...

By the way that means lynching me is a town autowin provided that town votes me first should you guys go down that route... it's just a matter of which one of you is actually town... that's the fun part.

...scummy because "I didn't work on looking Town before doing so"? It's a matter of priorities. "Let's not do something stupid", like picking the 33% chance LyLo over a 50% LyLo, is a priority. "Looking Town" is not a priority action, because I'm not scum. It's something that

happens naturally

.

---

No italics or parenthesis were harmed in the making of this post.

[Tierce]

Your plan will bring you victory no matter

what

your alignment.

Seriously, what. No, my plan will not bring me victory if I am scum and Zach-Town asks me to hammer him. Because in that case, either I hammer him and lose to a supersaint, or I am lynched and lose. My plan will not bring me victory if I am Town and Zach-Town asks me to hammer him, because you-scum win.

Two different instances with two different alignments in which

my plan causes me to lose

. It is still better odds than a regular 3p LyLo. Why are you trying to sell it as a plan that always gives me a victory and trying to scare Zach away from it? It's not a plan that makes things better for me alone, it's a plan that makes things better for

Town

.

Go figure, presenting those is scummy. The puppy hydra would know. U@.@U

[Tierce]

Zach being technically confTown or not is irrelevant, he can play the role all the same since he's doomed if he's scum.

No one is rolling dice. Playing the numbers doesn't mean a decision has to be made

right now

(unlike you are pushing me to do by trying to get me to hammer Zach, which not so incidentally would give you a win), it means we take advantage of the numbers. That's why (gasp) I've been scumhunting while you have been throwing mud at my plan. That's why I am tired of you going round and round trying to paint me as scummy for presenting a plan like this without showing how it is scummy

in any way

(hint: it's not). You're trying to get me to hammer, and that is not scummy (whatever your alignment, you'd win--there's no Town/scum motivation in it), but you call me scummy for me (obviously) preferring it to be you who hammers Zach. Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

[Tierce]

My point is that you say Zach is not scumhunting, but call his claim "genuine", so then you go and find scummy intent in every action I take, like things that are null at worst (which Town-you would realize because you are doing the same, and if you were genuinely trying to see things from my PoV, you'd definitely notice that) and having more knowledge about Zach's claimed role than you do. Your case for me being scum is bad, and there is no real reason to make a bad case if you are Town.

Stuff like this:

No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

...And? If he's telling the truth, he is still the lynch. Choosing to lynch a claimed super saint is not scummy, but you're trying to say it is:

And was I shocked to see her vote you right off the bat like that, instead of taking time to think it through. If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

Bonus points for the posturing in the first sentence.

Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

This statement is not said from town to someone they think is scum.

See above, under the LOLNOPE NOT CLAIMING section. It wouldn't be optimal for me to counterclaim as a supersaint, and I am not clarifying things on that end. It doesn't matter, because

I'm not the lynch

.

You were trying to paint me as scummy for knowledge I've had for over a year. What is the Town motivation in that?

[...]

"If she were Town, she would have waited and thought [things she already knew for months] through." This makes no sense coming from Town.

My point is, if she's scum, then her goal is to get you to pick me to hammer you, and to convince you to vote me when I don't.

What's your point? Of course I don't want to be lynched if I am not vengeful; that would lead to a loss for my faction, whichever it is. How is this alignment relevant?

I was calling you scum for voting zach right off the bat and setting me up to be the one to hammer. Reason: I know I'm town. If you're scum, you know that too, so you placed the first vote on him and began building up a case that I should be the one to hammer. If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

WHY SHOULD TOWN-ME FOLLOW YOUR PLAN?

If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and

then

suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

You're also accusing me of having better arguments than you and implying that this helps me if I am scum. Well... sorry for being more or less competent in persuasion, I guess? That is not alignment-relevant, and the ring-around-the-rosie would be the same if we were playing "regular" 3p LyLo, so my argumentatitve ability is completely irrelevant.

Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

Two reasons.

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

2) I feel the way you presented the plan, not the plan itself, was not a town way of doing so. If I had thought of that plan first, I would have suggested it differently than you did. And since I'm town, I think my way is "the" town way and your way is not.

Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum laughing. But I'm not sold on that yet. We (town we, not you-and-me-we) need him to start participating more though.

(Oh, and yes, I've seen you play this way, or similarly at least (in my poor memory) back in PARANOIA Mafia. You were presenting plans and all there IIRC, and you were scum.)

pedit (you're kidding, even now too?): Oh hi Zach. Yes, that's corerct, but I really hope you're looking at my reasons for saying that. It's

not

a scumclaim, as Tierce is trying to present it as. It's a disagreement on the strategical value of doing so.

1) ...So you resort to hypocritical arguments? This isn't scumhunting, this is mudslinging.

2) Still no. I am not you, and this has been proven time and time again in different games. How are things scum-motivated

if you were me?

Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts when there are no hidden variables other than my role, which is irrelevant in this case. The plans in Paranoia obviously had hidden bits, because I was scum and we had a multivote ability. I like to optimize the setup in my favor. It's null, because I try to do it regardless of alignment.

And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim. I understand why you are doing it regardless of alignment, I'm just telling you it's pointless (it's not really playing against your wincon, it's just null stalling of the game), and I am not pushing you on that line of thought regarding your alignment. Theory disagreements are not indications of scumminess--but you are using one to push me as scum above, because "you think that your way is the Town way".

[Tierce]

Changing the order a bit to keep relevant point together.

How would you have presented the plan then?

If I came up with it? By playing long enough to hopefully establish myself as town, or to get a scumread on you. Then presenting it.

How are things scum-motivated

if you were me?

Because I don't see the town motivation in presenting it the way you did. I can see town presenting the argument, I don't see it being presented that way, no matter who you are. It's taking a mafia theory question and basing the play of this game on one viewpoint in that discussion. If we were having this discussion in GD I'd be presenting the same viewpoint, but there's no risk of losing there. There is here.

...Presenting something that is optimal in MD means

it is optimal to use in a game

. That does not mean it's all I'm doing, and I am not basing my whole play on "one viewpoint". I'm trying to scumhunt, which isn't helped when you appear to think that hypocrisy is a valid strategy regardless of alignment. Hypocrisy isn't scummy by default, but surely you can see how it doesn't help Town? This is Mafia, not a catfight. And again, you have a theory disagreement with me. That does not mean that the way I presented it is scummy. Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that

this is optimal

, and more importantly,

I don't need to build up Towncred

.

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible?

That's not what I'm doing there.

You've asked me to hammer Zach twice now.

Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts

??? I don't believe I said that.

You]re saying that I am playing similarly as Paranoia Mafia because I'm presenting a plan. I have two counterpoints to it: I present plans as Town (you were in Maf.Triplicate! I quickly decided the lynch order when the Rarefaction mechanism became obvious! Look, a plan as Town!), and my "similar play" in Paranoia had a plan with hidden parts, because Town didn't know some of the pieces. So how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia in particular, and why did you jump to that game without thinking of the much more recent one in which we were both Town?

And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because

one doesn't vote people they don't think are scum in LyLo

. Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.[/quote]That's not what a scumclaim means. But if you refuse to hammer Zach, I am not going to hammer him myself out of the blue, and he's not going to hammer me (since he could just ask me to hammer him), so you are still the lynch.

And then Zach flips scum and me and I weep over my carefully nurtured "Town LyLos won: 0" in the post-game.

None of this is really scumhunting. :/

[Tierce]

Quote fail in that last bit. Rewording a bit:

And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because

one doesn't vote people they don't think are scum in LyLo

. Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.

That's not what a scumclaim means. But if you refuse to hammer Zach, I am not going to hammer him myself out of the blue, and he's not going to hammer me (since he could just ask me to hammer him), so you are still the lynch.

And then Zach flips scum and me and I weep over my carefully nurtured "Town LyLos won: 0" in the post-game.

If Zach is Town, asking for someone to hammer him is the same thing as us crossvoting and asking Zach to hammer one of us,

but that is a 33% Town win play

that does not account for the possibility of Zach being scum. I'm not going to allow that to happen when we have a claimed supersaint. Call it "shoving down your throat" if you want to. It's not scummy and I have to keep trying to wash the mud you're lobbing at it.


I'm ignoring any "but I don't wanna lynch the supersaint why are you making such a scummy plan you have no credibility" posts from now on. It's getting silly and I am tapping the keyboard keys with far too much force. >.> <.<

[Tierce]

The only parts that interest me (which were not answered) are:

Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that this is optimal, and more importantly, I don't need to build up Towncred.

Your reply didn't address this. I don't need to convince you to follow a plan based on numbers. I get your point, but I don't wait on this magical pile of Towncred before presenting a plan like this, that's nonsense. Because as I stated, I will hammer Zach if he asks me to. Therefore, if he is Town, he has to scumhunt and pick well, and I have to scumhunt and see which of you I'm convinced he's scum, and you have to scumhunt, etc. Shirking away like you are doing doesn't solve anything (well, it keeps Zach's no mislynch streak, so THAT's something), it just changes the lynch target to you, and the case you are presenting on me is scummy because you keep calling things scummy

which are not

. It's a bad case, you're not scumhunting, you just want me to hammer Zach without figuring things out further.


And:

You're saying that I am playing similarly as Paranoia Mafia because I'm presenting a plan. I have two counterpoints to it: I present plans as Town (you were in Maf.Triplicate! I quickly decided the lynch order when the Rarefaction mechanism became obvious! Look, a plan as Town!), and my "similar play" in Paranoia had a plan with hidden parts, because Town didn't know some of the pieces. So how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia

in particular, and why did you jump to that game without thinking of the much more recent one in which we were both Town?

I bolded the relevant bits. Calling out a game on vague terms and neither going into detail nor presenting non-matching points for my Town play makes this call-out irrelevant. If I craft plans as either alignment, how is it

scummy?

I never asked you to think that my plan design is something I specifically do as Town,

because you know it's not

--you and Zach have seen me as Town and as scum and I've played multiple games with both of you; in fact, I'm fairly sure I said I design plans as any alignment. But you're latching on to this scum game from ages ago and using it to imply that I (only) craft plans as scum without providing a counterpoint. A counterpoint you had direct experience with, and much more recent than Paranoia. Why are you so eager to call this a scum behavior when it's one of my biggest strengths

as a player

?

Open 369 (third party): tried to devise a way of winning (hiding from the Town that the co-win would never happen);
Fluffydash's MLP the First (scum): suggested killing the remaining Town in a scum-scum-Town neighborhood so we would have Daytalk during MyLo for quicklynching coordination;
Mini 1313 (Town): got my strongest Townreads on the lynching wagon instead of me, because a mechanic would give them benefits from it;
Mini 1324 (Town): played the numbers and didn't use my suicidal kill N1 to increase odds of winning;
Paranoia (scum): organized several strategies throughout the game, including a final vote lock for scum;
Open 390 (Town, game with supersaints): just leaving this here because OH GOD TIERCE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH TOO FAST there's no way she has had experience with this role claim before right?;
New York 155 (serial killer): hit the same targets as scum on the first two Nights, decided to lay low the rest of the game to play on the setup knowledge;
Mini 1383 (Town, hydra with Vi): devised the plan of leaving confirmed Town as final revivals;
Micro 70 (Town): organized a lynch order for the LyLo groups that played on the numbers.

I've been doing this for

months

. I plan things out and try to optimize setups. I'm not about to wait on "Towncred" to publicize things like this when it is

the optimal play

. I expect people will be convinced by mathematical truths when I calculate them.

And yet here you are calling me scummy for presenting it as I did, when I've been doing it like this since I started vaguely thinking about setup solving. What in the merry hell.


Okay,

now

I'm done

whining

discussing it. I want responses to:

Why do you think

I

, with my history, would have convinced you first as Town, instead of presenting the plan and then scumhunting?
Why are you latching onto a scum game where I presented a plan when you have had first-hand, recent experience that shows I also craft plans as Town--which shows that it is a null behavior at worst and not 'similar' just to that scum game?

[Tierce]

EBWOP:

see which of you I'm convinced

is

scum

What a ridiculous homophone to make a typo on.

[Tierce]

most of what he's doing is more or less having the effect of putting pressure on effecting the gamestate

One of our Englishes broke. Not sure if it was yours or mine. Can you rephrase this?

You're not addressing saul's points directly. Why is that?

[Tierce]

Fair enough. I've done the same as confTown in LyLo, but from where I'm standing it's frustrating because it hampers my ability to scumhunt you. Sad Tierce.

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

No? He was saying that Town would lose in reply to my #75, which was "we'll lynch you if you don't hammer Zach". That is not a perspective slip.

[Tierce]

his posts about reconsidering me don't ring true.

How?

Yes, I'm being a nag. But I have to see whether I would be comfortable about lynching saul if he doesn't hammer you, and that's why I need you to be open with your scumhunting.

[Tierce]

Jesus Christ.

Zach, are you picking saul because he said he won't hammer you, which means he's the lynch and you win as scum with the gutsiest gambit I've seen in a while?

Don't answer that. Mogget might need a :PARTY:nfoil hat before this game is over.

[Tierce]

I hate you, KK.

PEdit: Because I've been trying from the beginning to say that Zach might be gambiting and therefore he HAS TO BE THE LYNCH. Your refusal to hammer means I have to scumhunt him and I am not pleased with what I'm seeing. This isn't rocket surgery.

Zach: I'm studiously ignoring you while rocking back and forth in a tight ball.

[Tierce]

I hit more page tops here than in my own modded games. >.> There goes my carefully wrought line of

PANIC

thought.

[Tierce]

Yes, waiting is better--which is why I said that his refusal to hammer is not a "scumclaim", but you have to be lynched all the same. I don't want to lynch him, I want you lynched.

Bed, part 2. My sleep schedule is best defined as "error: not found".

[Tierce]

So if you do hammer me now, I am going to be very annoyed...

I'm not. Paranoia is one thing, breaking what I know it's optimal play is quite another.

Bed.

[Tierce]

Woo!

Mogget will definitely be getting a :PARTY: hat once I wake up.

Sorry about the paranoia, Zach. It wasn't for you, it was to convince saul that I wasn't scum.

Well played. I stand by this plan being optimal for Town, and for not claiming vengeful if you're in LyLo. saul, mudslinging/hypocrisy never ever helps you as Town, because it's not honest or transparent. My arguments were all honest, and I only looked Town because you were looking like scum. None of my arguments other than the lynching plan cost me an inch of scum benefit to make, because they were all 100% true regardless of alignment.

For what it's worth, before Zach self-voted (which was an SS claim), I thought that saul was the supersaint.

Thanks to KK for modding and for the two of you for playing with me. Sorry to break your streak, Zach.

[Tierce]

Zach, I couldn't have convinced you not to vote for me, could I have? Did I give up too easily?

I mean part of the reason I did pick you because you were unwilling to hammer me. Part of the aspect of that was to force Tierce to vote you. Then I would be confirmed town. (I was NEVER going to vote you first.)

Which was one of the reasons I was absolutely unwilling to vote saul and needed that paranoia where it was.

PEdit: That works for me too. (>")> (As seen.)

[Tierce]

I have absolutely no clue. Hadn't planned that far out yet.

[Tierce]

Now I just need an avatar with the boat on the bottom of the ocean with 2 skeletons on it.

FWOOOOOOOOSH

, etc.

It was a very saintly boat. The blaze was clearly due to a halo with faulty wiring.

[Tierce]

I mean this, saul:

Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

Attributing scummy intent to an action that is null (and you knew it was null because you were doing the same) is usually scummy. It's mudslinging, and it's hypocritical because you were doing it too. As Town, it behooves you to find what is scummy about one's play, not define Everything They Do as scummy. When I had an action (the Zach lynch plan) that is not scummy, presenting it as scummy is not going to fly with people who realize it isn't a scummy action. That's where Zach said I had you by the throat: you were attributing scummy intent to something that did not have it.