Night Watch Open 95 - Game Over before 703

[icemanE]

Are you kidding or something, bio? You're attempting to defend your actions by saying that, since someone wrote on the wiki that it's "probably out of date", that those things are no longer scumtells? That voting without reason isn't scummy no matter whether the wiki says so or not?

Bio's a pro guys, don't forget it.

How can you say your vote on me was "intentionally vague"? What did you hope to accomplish with its being vague? In short, what was your "intent"?

[afatchic]

The deadline has been set. I don't see any reason not to talk about it. To say that I will pick from that group of four for my deadline vote is simply to say that I don't feel comfortable voting for anyone else at this juncture. I'm sorry if you feel threatened that you are included in this group.

no by all means include me into this group. actually i think everyone should almost be included in this group, unless you are hider in which case you know one inno. given certain conditions i agree that you should start narrowing down your possible suspects in light of the deadline.

however this is not one. we have extremely little info to go on right now, the deadline is like two weeks away, and you are already considering a deadline vote? that seems scummy to me. so can you at all tell me why you think the four of us are scum, or why the others are not?

and then you say that you won't be comfortable lynching on of them at this juncture. do you really think that we will be at a similar situation with this limited information in two weeks at deadline?

I think one of op/panda is scum... and I think a bandwagon is good... and I think that activity wasn't enough at the time I made the vote. If my reasons are suspect then so should yours be; you've done little different from me aside from hopping on a wagon rather than attempting to start one.

okay that is completely fine with me, suspect me; question me; do whatever you like, its what you are supposed to do. but the difference is that mine was done in more of an attempt to gain information and get conversation started. which both seemed to happen. (info gathered... bio joined the wagon pretty quickly.)

A question Which do you generally find more likely for scum to do--start a wagon or hop onto one?

the ones that hop onto it, and what basis they have for jumping on it. a lot of time scum won't try to form a wagon in fear that they will get caught defending their wagon, yet are usually quick to jump on half way through, since others are also doing it.

[afatchic]

Reason for vote on TCS - to see who the first player to overreact would be. icemanE stepped into that one nicely. I gave an intentionally easy target for scum to pounce on and point fingers.

Never do this. setting a trap, normally always catches you. unless you are a mason, in which case you have other proof that you are townie, it normally gets more pressure on you then the person jumping on you. also a lot of times the first person to jump on you is an over eager townie, rather than an opportunistic scum.

also you voted with the promise of a reread and more thought.... hows that coming?

[afatchic]

also im really curious about orangepenguin and crazy's thoughts about everything that has happened over the last three pages or so.

(sorry for the triple post)

[icemanE]

Yeah bio, that trap explanation is crap. I've seen it used before and it's garbage justification.

[Jex]

Vote Count

2 - The Central Scrutinizer (StrangerCoug, afatchi)
1 - Crazy (Xtoxm)
1 - bionicchop2 (orangepenguin)
1 - icemanE (bionicchop2 )
1 - afatchic (icemanE)

Not Voting

Crazy, ortolan, Panda Stomper 85, camn, The Central Scrutinizer

It takes 6 votes to lynch

Deadlineis Nov 28th

[ortolan]

Hi, I just read back over the whole game.

I have to ask you something afatchic. See post 59

okay to be honest i don't at all like ortolans idea of the PR's claiming right now. that just seems scummy to me. however, an idea that i like a little better, which was done in a game i just finished. is everyone fake claims as hider. and you say i hid behind (player) last night, so they are town. and then right before night everyone claims who they will hide behind if they were hider. so right now no one is cleared, and the mafia don't have a clue who the hider is, but whenever the hider dies, the town can go back and look at their reports and find who is actually cleared, and who the hider died behind.

Post 106:

This is the first game i have played with a hider, so i really don't have any idea about it, which is why i am asking questions.

In the first post you say you just finished a game with a hider (and you even proposed the hypoclaim based on that game), then in the second you say you've never played with a hider before. I don't understand?...

Also, TCS, is your suspicion of OP/PS85 intended seriously?

[afatchic]

hmm.... hadn't thought about that, when we used this before it was with a cop, so that didn't really matter.

i didn't mean to say that i had just finished a game as hider where we did this, i meant to say i just finished a game where we did this hypo claim. however in that game we used it as a cop. so could didn't have to out themselves with inno's and their reports became more useful after they got NK'd. i have actually never played with a hider, and prior to seeing it here, have never heard about it.

[ortolan]

ahok, cool

[icemanE]

Last page I implied that a scumteam of bio and afatchic was possible. In a quick reread I noticed that they were the two major proponents of the hypoclaim plan. I'm trying to think of a possible scum motivation for suggesting this plan. It is ostensibly protown, from what I can tell. However, they had N1 to discuss how they'd proceed. I will mull it over.

Also, bio's main priority in previous pages seemed to be discussing how the hider should proceed. Coupled with the fact that fat suggested the plan, with bio quickly agreeing with it and then starting it - I dunno, I'll have to watch these two in coming posts.

[bionicchop2]

Provide one example of scum voting for a town person, not giving any reason for voting and it is clear that the vote was a direct result of the other person voting for them.

Post #159 before you even bothered with #165.

1. That is not an example since you do not know my alignment (unless you are scum which would make it an even worse example since you know I am town).

2. icemanE never voted for me

OMGUS can only be used if you can prove that no reason was given for the vote (otherwise the term doesn't exist). If you can prove a vote had no valid reason behind it, that is scummy on its own and the fact the other person voted for them is inconsequential. All the term does (and the scumminess associated with it) is make players hesitant to vote anybody who votes for them or is suspicious of them.

If you have a valid reason to vote back, then OMGUS does not happen. If I see someone make a crap case on me and vote me for it, I will attack the case and vote back.

That is kind of my point. The lack of reasoning is the root problem and the fact the other person voted is irrelevant. This is turning into theory debate though and I don't care to try and convince you of this point.

Now, iceman and yourself have both applied the term to me. You made an assumption I only voted him because he FOS'd me. Now, if OMGUS is such a clear scum tell, explain how my vote on iceman (which made me look suspicious by being intentionally vague) would advance a scum agenda of not getting myself lynched and getting an innocent town player lynched.

I see a vote and expect to find a reasoning for it in that post, or failing that, for the vote post to tell me to go look at a specific post for it. You did not vote icemanE and tell us that you were voting him for the same reasons as your vote on The Central Scrutinizer in the same post—you waited until a later post. It gives the same vibes as "vote: bionicchop2. I'll tell you why later." Were your vote and your reason (or a reference to it) in the same place, I would not have HoS'd you.[/quote]

I don't think the timing of revealing reasons matters as long as the reasons are there. If you had asked me for a reason and I had refused to answer, it would be one thing. I do want to be clear, I don't think you were necessarily wrong to question me for what I did. I just think some of your assertions about what is definitively scummy are wrong.

[bionicchop2]

Reason for vote on TCS - to see who the first player to overreact would be. icemanE stepped into that one nicely. I gave an intentionally easy target for scum to pounce on and point fingers.

Never do this. setting a trap, normally always catches you. unless you are a mason, in which case you have other proof that you are townie, it normally gets more pressure on you then the person jumping on you. also a lot of times the first person to jump on you is an over eager townie, rather than an opportunistic scum.

Never say never. I am not overly concerned about getting pressure placed on me. icemanE may be an overeager townie or he may be scum, but now I at least have a lead on where to start looking. Previously I didn't have much and the conversation was a little slow (hence the deadline was set).

also you voted with the promise of a reread and more thought.... hows that coming?

The first 6-7 pages really haven't given me much yet. The 2nd read didn't do anything to change that. I think that information will be useful in upcoming days for clearing people, but nothing as far as scum hunting. I am in favor of strategy discussions on d1 of open games, so I am not going to criticize others for it.

[bionicchop2]

Are you kidding or something, bio? You're attempting to defend your actions by saying that, since someone wrote on the wiki that it's "probably out of date", that those things are no longer scumtells?

Specifically that the one you chose hasn't been valid in any games I have played. Others in that list also are irrelevant now. The list was made in 2004 and players have adapted over the course of the last 4 years.

That voting without reason isn't scummy no matter whether the wiki says so or not?

Bio's a pro guys, don't forget it.

Sarcastically criticizing my general ability to play mafia really isn't super productive. Focus on the game content please.

How can you say your vote on me was "intentionally vague"?

How can I not say it when I intentionally did not post my reason for voting you when I did?

What did you hope to accomplish with its being vague? In short, what was your "intent"?

I was seeing if your response would match my assumption of what your response would be. It did. You are playing by the textbook, so I figured I would do something else which is mentioned on the page and I don't agree with. Now I need to decide (as afatchic kind of pointed out) if you are an eager townie assuming the wiki tells are true and thinking you are on to something, or scum using an appeal to authority to plant seeds of suspicion. If I decide you are probably townie, then I can look at how other people responded to our interactions.

[camn]

Wow guys. I take a couple days off...

Anyway. This TCS wagon looks pretty bored-townie fueled to me.
TCS made a statement which, arguably, was craplogic.. and he deserved a couple votes for it.

The only problem was the votes

with no reason

.
Voting with no reason, IMO, isn't necessarily scummy... but it is poor play, and DESERVES retaliation.

SO.. in summary, the votes on TCS for craplogic were justified, and the votes for bandwagoning ALSO justified..
... But I get a null read on all of it.

It seems like we are spinning our wheels there.

SO.. back to the MEAT:
@ The Central Scrutinizer.
--- lets talk about these 4...
"the panda, the penguin, the fatty, and the bionic one."
Care to explain your suspicions on each?

[StrangerCoug]

Un-HoS: bionicchop2

since he's done a good job of defending himself.

[afatchic]

Last page I implied that a scumteam of bio and afatchic was possible. In a quick reread I noticed that they were the two major proponents of the hypoclaim plan. I'm trying to think of a possible scum motivation for suggesting this plan. It is ostensibly protown, from what I can tell. However, they had N1 to discuss how they'd proceed. I will mull it over.

Also, bio's main priority in previous pages seemed to be discussing how the hider should proceed. Coupled with the fact that fat suggested the plan, with bio quickly agreeing with it and then starting it - I dunno, I'll have to watch these two in coming posts.

just something to say bout this.... a lot of times, especially on day 1, scum will attach to a townie as if they were their partner, so that if they get lynched, the townie goes tomorrow and kinda covers for their partner or if the townie gets lynched first then it kinda clears them to some people. rarely will you catch both scum playing off each other on d1.

also i really don't know how that idea can be any help to scum, unless everyone decides to say they hid behind scum last night. which would narrow down the odds for who could be hider.

[orangepenguin]

unvote

, now that ppl iz talkin

Also, I got a bad vibe from my initial votes on the penguin and the panda. I can't really decide between the two of them, but I'm fairly certain that one of them is scum.

Care to explain your vibe and suspicions at all?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Machine

I think that in post four he may have been subtly encouraging the watcher to claim, a tactic which I disagree with thoroughly. Watchers/cops should almost never claim, I think; they should simply make it obvious who they investigated should they end up dead. Were I watcher, and not hider, this is how I would play the game.

Furthermore, I think that in the case of the hypo-claim, he attached his banner to afatchic in order to appear more town. I don’t think it likely that mafia would propose a mass claim like this, but I do think it likely that mafia would take over as “town leader” of a tactic like this.

Also, I like his play and I think that in general it has seemed very pro-town. But I don’t know who he really thinks is scum and why. He voted me to wagon and quickly voted Iceman as the result of a “trap.” I don’t like “trap” reasoning… it seems to me that you could use this logic to justify just about any scummy action you cared to take. In general, I think we should be wary of those who seem pro-town, but aren’t giving us the full depth of their suspicions.

The Penguin

May fall guilty of my slightly better than 50-50 “votes for scumpartner in random voting stage” tell, assuming bionicchip2 is scum. This is a weak reason at best, of course.

A stronger reason is his complete lack of content. I would be pleased to see more from the penguin.

The Panda

The Panda is, apparently, out of commission. But I’m not going to give up on my initial suspicions without a fight. His replacement will have to convince me.

And, initial suspicions—gut-like things. Panda-Replacement may assuage me, I suppose. I honestly didn’t even realize he was AWOL when I voted for him. I just picked one of the two exotic animals who were contributing jack shit.

The Fatty

I honestly didn’t like his vote-hop to me. But after a re-read, I get a more neutral to pro-town read from him.

So my top three looks suchly:

1. The Penguin
2. The Machine
3. The Panda

[ortolan]

TCS; you seem to be saying that of your four suspects, you only really have a case against one (the machine- that's bionicchop2 right?)

I saw your jokevotes against OP and Panda and somehow they seem to have evolved into a real suspicion now, and I don't see what they've done to warrant it- apart from possibly lurking, but I was under the impression that was widely considered a null-tell.

Mod: I think we need a replacement for Panda Stomper, he hasn't posted in a week and a half.

Before I comment on this:

I think that in post four he may have been subtly encouraging the watcher to claim, a tactic which I disagree with thoroughly. Watchers/cops should almost never claim, I think; they should simply make it obvious who they investigated should they end up dead. Were I watcher, and not hider, this is how I would play the game.

Which post were you referring to? Post 70?

The Fatty

I honestly didn’t like his vote-hop to me. But after a re-read, I get a more neutral to pro-town read from him.

What did you notice that made you change your mind?

[afatchic]

TCS my main reason for voting you was more or less to get conversation started... which it has.

i haven't unvoted because i don't like how you are treating it as if the deadline is almost here and you have already narrowed down who you would considered voting for at deadline. can you explain to me why everyone else is clear? right now everyone should be about the same, give or take. since we don't have a whole lot of discussion.

[camn]

Thats how I feel.
My leading suspects?

afatchic
bionicchop2
Crazy
icemanE
orangepenguin
ortolan
Panda Stomper 85
StrangerCoug
The Central Scrutinizer
Xtoxm

I have cleared myself, obviously.. and I think KMD is PROBABLY clear.. but knowing destructor.. that is by no means absolute

Also.. I get a pretty town read off ONE of the above... but I don't ever see the angle in saying who I think is

town

...

[afatchic]

Camn im confused, who do you think is scummiest?

[ortolan]

I'd be surprised if you found TCS the second least likely to be scum...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

TCS my main reason for voting you was more or less to get conversation started... which it has.

i haven't unvoted because i don't like how you are treating it as if the deadline is almost here and you have already narrowed down who you would considered voting for at deadline. can you explain to me why everyone else is clear? right now everyone should be about the same, give or take. since we don't have a whole lot of discussion.

Lazy lazy lazy. Maybe you are scum.

I don't care if you continue to vote for me... just vote for someone.

I am attempting to hasten the process of the day. We had a deadline slapped on us before we had a single serious wagon. I would rather not end the day on the first serious wagon, thank you. If all of us treated this game as if the deadline were tomorrow, then we'd be on much more solid ground.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As it is we're probably going to just stumble around like drunken zombies and eat the first brains we get our hands on.