mini 2051: tree's dump blitz - game over !!!

[northsidegal]

okay first things first:

what do you all think of the jury lynching based on what town collectively decides, i.e. basically by vote?

in some sense that kind of takes away what's special about this game, but at the same time it essentially turns it into 2:6 nightless, which i'm fairly certain is a pretty good setup for town. if one of the members of the jury has some kind of

very

reliable read, then i could see that being a lynch (although in that case maybe they could use the message to relay that if they think we're missing something that they've noticed)

basically i think one of the main ways town loses this setup is through the jury going for some kind of hero lynch on someone that the main town thinks is towny. 2:6 nightless is a townsided setup precisely

because

scum can't get rid of good / obvtown players and so they just survive until endgame such that even if you mislynch a lot of times in a row, you can easily catch scum by PoE

[northsidegal]

and as a further point, just in terms of having an enjoyable game i don't really want there to be no connection between any effort put into the thread and what actually ends up going through as a lynch

i would really rather not have one of the only times i get mislynched as town be based on the random decision of three people

i would really rather not spend a ton of effort casing someone basically in vain if the jury ignores me (this would feel that much worse if i ended up being right on someone)

i think most people can probably agree with both of those points

[northsidegal]

Sorry for the tiny text in the previous post. So I wrapped my head around the setup.

Regarding the jury going by majority, what’s the benefit of them essentially giving up their own vote? Wouldn’t it be even better for the town if they added their own opinion to the mix?

the jury literally

can't

add their own opinion to the mix.

Yeah having jury vote by our majority is not sensible. They’re ICs so if anything hey should have more than their fair share of the vote

i mean, i agree with you in principle in that a discussion guaranteed to not contain scum is better for town than a discussion that

is

, but i still really don't like the idea of that kind of disconnect between what's going on in the thread and what actually happens.

sure, i think it would be nice if town could come to agree on maybe some kind of lynchpool and then the jury might lynch from there, but again – i just really don't like the idea that essentially some random player dies at the end of the day.

[northsidegal]

Hello! I think northsidegal's plan shouldn't be that strict. If we take away the input from the jury, we are essentially not letting the three confirmed town players in the game do anything. What I'd imagine is that we can all decide on people we think are mafia but still let the jury decide for thenselves.

yeah, i can agree with this: coming up with something of a "lynchpool" or something, and hopefully what the jury's thinking and what we're thinking overlap at least in some part.

xyzzy sounds town.
I did not opt out, but I considered it pretty strongly.

mind elaborating?

xyzzy sounds town.

Awfully early to be getting reads IMO...

i disagree pretty strongly. why shade apthet for it being too early to make reads when you even asked to "get this party started"?

VOTE: trekkie

[northsidegal]

you know let's be real the only reason schadd came up with this setup is so he doesn't have to post votecounts

[northsidegal]

Yeah... it implies playstyle and nothing particularly alignment indicative. I'm unconvinced.

well, i didn't opt out of the jury because i wanted a higher chance to be town. knowing whether someone prefers town or scum can be useful in sorting them

later

, although just the jury opt-out or not in and of itself i'm not sure about.

I'm not seeing Trekkie-scum with his current posts.

why not?

[northsidegal]

i disagree pretty strongly. why shade apthet for it being too early to make reads when you even asked to "get this party started"?

Those two scenarios are not comparable. Me asking to get the party started is not telling people to give reads a little more than a page into the game.

what exactly

did

you mean, then?

xyzzy sounds town.
I did not opt out, but I considered it pretty strongly.

mind elaborating?

Which thing?

I think xyzzy sounded town because I think that whether or not people opt out of the jury is such a fringe piece of information that mafia wouldn't even consider bringing it up. I considered opting out because I wanted to actually play the game and I don't like making decisions.

yeah, i was mainly asking for the first thing.

is this your first game of mafia?

[northsidegal]

@North

Even if someone wanted to be scum and opted out of jury, they could've rolled town.

Questioning the likelihood of who all would've gotten scum if they had or hadn't opted for jury is a statistics problem, and that always detracts from gamesolving and is often wrong, or right for false reasons.

I don't see any critical thought geared toward gamesolving if we wanted people to spout information that's irrelevant to discussion-related content.

you're totally misinterpreting what i mean when i say "prefers town or scum". yes, obviously whether or not someone prefers town or scum is irrelevant as to what role they actually receive – what i'm saying is that you can use that information when trying to sort them. for example, if you know that someone prefers town and they really don't seem to be enjoying a game (or vice versa), that could clue you into their alignment. i've made those types of reads multiple times in multiple games.

Now, do you have a read on

xyzzy

and any thoughts on his posts?
And why is disagreeing with 35 warrant a vote and a scumread on him?

not really, he's pretty null.

what do you mean disagreeing with 35? if you mean me disagreeing with him saying that it's too early to be getting reads, i think it's logically inconsistent to both want to get the game moving and to point out to someone that it's too early to be getting reads. i also thought just in general that his entering with a joke into later RVS and then 32 and 33 was just a really awkward series of posts.

it's not like i'm claiming some high reliability scumread, but it's enough to warrant a page 2 vote.

[northsidegal]

ah yes, the old "scumclaim to get out of rvs"

[northsidegal]

(not really)

[northsidegal]

prodding tonymontana and darklighta

just gut i feel like this might be one of those games where most top posters are town and scum are in the lurkers

phoneposting right now so will respond in more depth when i can

[northsidegal]

This is not my first mafia game! northsidegal do you have a read on Taly?

i have a categorical tendency to townread people with taly's playstyle – the specific post links and direct questioning along with the general post style i tend to townread a lot, town or scum

that being said, i do think taly is town

[northsidegal]

I don't understand why "getting out of RVS" response is a scumclaim? I'm referring to 46. I don't see where he claimed scum, or if I'm reading correctly?

it was just my attempt at a joke (which never seem to be picked up on)

[northsidegal]

No I'm not worried about the jury potentially scumreading me. Why should I? And yes votes do matter because they help the jury come to their conclusions.

i still just don't feel like this is a town reaction. if you're town you

should

be worried about the jury scumreading you and your own mislynch – most townies, in my experience and myself included, tend to get pretty rattled when voted incorrectly or when there's a risk of their mislynch.

this sort of nonchalance just comes across as faked

[northsidegal]

I might be biased here, but that’s a terrible theory.

i like how you say this before i give a single ounce of reasoning for what i was saying. and when i say "i like", i actually mean "i really don't like".

is there some reason in particular you have to disagree, or are you just trying to argue with me?

the jury literally

can't

add their own opinion to the mix.

First off, technically they can after the second lynch. But I was merely talking about them adding their opinion in the form of votes.

For what it’s worth, which is probably nil in terms of info, I signed up late and was not aware of the option of opting in/out of jury duty.

okay? yes, i know that they can make a

single post

after the second lynch. that isn't a lot of help to us until the third day.

what's more, they can't "add an opinion to the mix" in terms of votes, because there's no votecount or anything that their votes show up on. their "opinion" is just the lynch.

i don't even understand what main point you're trying to make here and it makes me feel like you're just arguing points for the sake of arguing, without actually trying to sort.

[northsidegal]

I already said this to a degree; what do you think about my reads thus far?

i like your apthet townread and as i'm sure you know still somewhat disagree with your trekkie townread

elaborate on xyzzy town? i don't really disagree (i'm townleaning him), i just want to hear your reasoning

[northsidegal]

prodding tonymontana and darklighta

just gut i feel like this might be one of those games where most top posters are town and scum are in the lurkers

phoneposting right now so will respond in more depth when i can

what gives you that impression? imo in this sort of setup the mafia aren't necessarily incentivized one way or the other -- there are enough possible mislynches that scum shouldn't be the biggest lurkers, but in a normal game, you can tell whether the people who might vote you think you're lurker scum or just a town lurker by reading what they say about you. they don't have that luxury here.

-shrug-

it was really just kind of a gut ping. i've played in and seen a few games recently where that was the case, and while i was thinking about this game i just had that sort of feeling.

[northsidegal]

@TonyMontana

, I have a townlean on about 4 people so far that has been active in the thread, do you think I'm wrong with anything?

Probably wrong about something. :p

A bit busy just these days, due to holidays, but I’m gonna try to get some more substantive comments going tomorrow. To start with, I think your posts are good. That’s not a town read, just a good player read. Same goes for xyzzy, and to that point if you base your reads mostly on whether people are acting like town, you can quickly be a victim to good scum players. So I don’t put much stock in that in itself, but it can of course be supportive to other reads.
I think you make good points in defense of Trekkie, which I thought was getting a too quick push.

really don't like this post

expertly avoids actually really giving any read

[northsidegal]

apthet's theory on taly!scum

is

interesting, but i don't really think that scum actually do things like try to disrupt correct townreads as their primary strategy all that often. yes, it happens, but only in specific scenarios i think

again, could be being suckered by taly's playstyle, but i don't think so

[northsidegal]

TOWN
Taly
TonyMontana

apthet
northsidegal

DarkLightA
Clemency
Trekkie99
NOT TOWN

the bottom part of this might shift once replacements show up

explain tony being town?

I'll start. VOTE: NSG

Discuss something other than meta, pls.

i don't think that's a fair accusation. i brought up theory in the absolute beginning of the game when:
1) i felt it was important to talk about and
2) there was nothing else to talk about

past that point i

have

discussed real reads. explain how i haven't?

[northsidegal]

Right off the bat northsidegal tries to diminish the power of the townside. The proposal to turn this into a 2:6 scenario by having the jury adhere to a vote is not only futile, but it is also essentially reducing what is kind of a 2:9 game.
Maybe it's just a lapse of logic, but it certainly is not pro-town.

this isn't a 2:9 game. it just isn't. you can say that "oh, the jury can add their opinion!", but it just isn't true.

for all intents and purposes of the people

actually in the thread

, if there isn't at least

some

kind of connection between what the people want and what the jury decides, it's literally no better than playing 2:6 nightless with random lynching. that's already townsided – my proposal would turn it to 2:6 nightless

without

random lynching, a significant improvement.

if you were paying attention at all you would also notice that i later agreed that, rather than it following a strict vote, the jury should lynch out of a "lynchpool" of players that we come to agree upon. my initial proposal of following exactly a votecount was just that – an initial proposal.

it's just categorically false to say that what i was doing as anti-town. the

exact opposite

is true.

Meanwhile she tries to have her cake and eat it too by questioning apthet's town read on xyzzy, while at the same time not only criticizing trekkie for essentially doing the same but also essentially starting the fakevote wagon on him.

what? elaborate on this specifically, please?

[northsidegal]

i mean, even beyond it being pro-town, i'll still also argue that it just makes it a more enjoyable game if the jury follows what we're saying

it's really not enjoyable to play a game where there's no connection between what you do in thread and what actually happens, and you don't just have to take it from me:

I feel so weak and powerless

[northsidegal]

I just think you are missing the point. There is a connection, at least I believe there is, and that's what make it enjoyable. The first lynch was a dud, but I believe when the jury lynches you, we will have a lot more to talk about. Like trying to figure out who your scumbuddy is.
Hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say you flip townie. Then we'll have to discuss whether getting you lynched was a scum plan by me.
Point being that any of these discussions will inform the jury and that's a direct connection. And you seem to want to avoid that connection. Take agency away from the jury, leave us to fight amongst ourself.

that's not what i meant by "no connection" and you know it

this entire post is posturing. your entire reason for being so utterly convinced that i'm scum is... you disagree with me on theory? really?

you're still hilariously misrepresenting my position. what i think is in no way "taking agency away from the jury" – in fact, having a lynchpool that the jury chooses from is hardly different from what you propose, that the jury add their own votes.

i mean, in this exact same post you even directly ask the jury to lynch me. do you not see the hypocrisy in saying that "the jury should listen to the town" is "taking agency away from the jury" and then turning around to directly ask the jury to lynch someone? doing that is

less

choice than giving the jury a lynchpool to choose from.

[northsidegal]

Is it just me or do I keep hearing this? Of course the jury is listening to us! What do you think they're doing? Ignoring our discussions and throwing a dart at a board and lynching however the dart lands on? I feel like your upset that you have no control of the situation or the jury. Because as town this shouldn't be a concern knowing the jury is of course town. Do you think the jury has poor judgement?

you're misinterpreting what i mean when i use the word "random". let me be clear about a few things:

• i'm not saying the jury isn't listening to us.
  
• i don't think the jury has poor judgement (the only person i really know on the jury is flicker whom i don't think has poor judgement, and while it wasn't the best i don't strongly
  disagree
  with the lynch they've already made)

when i say "essentially random", it's in the context of a theoretical scenario in which what goes on in the thread has no connection to who ends up lynched. for all intents and purposes, for the people in the thread there would be no functional difference between a random lynch and a jury lynch. that's a

theoretical scenario

which i want to avoid. i don't know how many times i need to make this clear.


i can only imagine that scum are intentionally trying to paint my (very light) setup ideas as scum-motivated, because obviously not wanting to simply sit back and do nothing as the jury decides everything

must

be scum motivated, just because they're all town.
honestly – does

anyone else

agree that "this shouldn't be a concern knowing the jury is of course town" is a valid statement? yes, the jury is all town – that doesn't mean that they're infallible or that they will guaranteed catch scum themselves.

[northsidegal]

huh

well played to town

you can release the pt schadd