890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[Seacore]

/Confizzle in the hizzle

[Seacore]

Random votes are a bad idea. And people should stop them. The fact that you can't "Unincant" means that it's dangerous to get a large amount of ingenuine votes going.

Let me emphasise that for people who may have missed it in the rules.

You CANNOT Unincant.

Let's have no "oh, I missed that, and I thought I could unincant" explanations when somebody delivers the last vote that then becomes a hammer when the deadline is reached (obviously not this 11 vote deadline, but you get what I mean).

The Random voting stage is probably a dangerous idea in this game because it will create a population of incants that cannot be removed, only shifted. This becomes more and more dangerous as the deadlines move on. We can't really go "okay, here are two bandwagons that have been created and this one was more heavily defended, therefore its likely to be guilty... oh crap, now we have lots of incants"

My next thought is that we should all be careful to avoid interpreting "pro-town" behaviour as actually town, since all the scum are scum hunting genuinely as well.

Each scum team is effectively a vigilantee who doesn't care if they miss.

So, in conclussion, avoid random voting for now. It might come down to it later, but I don't think it's healthy for the town now, it might eventually create a double or even triple lynch.

I'm not FoSing Faraday or Dis because I believe that they were just trying the usual RVS.

Finally

Percy: Can you confirm that four are three cultists in each cult? Or was that just an example

If that's the case, holy crap, we're in the minority... which means I should stop saying 'we' 4 to each team?

[Seacore]

Whoa, what happened to my typing in that mod question

Percy: Can you confirm that there are four cultists in each cult? That's what your example cult text suggests

[Seacore]

My vote really wasn't random at all. I thought Snow_Bunny's fos was a load of BS.

Then explain yourself when you vote. Voting without explanation is scummy.



Also, I didn't think we'd have 4 on each scum team, but given the example text for the cultists, I thought it was worth asking.
3/3/6 wouldn't be too bad. Scum need to hunt each other, the other scum team has a night kill that can slowly wipe them out.
The more scum there are on each team, the more they hunt each other, the less scum there are, the more they'll try to whittle our town numbers down.


Trusting Guardians is dumb, since cult can have guardians just as easily as us.
Basically, there is very little way of confirming somebody is town. Many of the town tells that you use will not work as well in this game. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, obviously we should, but I'm saying really think about it.

If you see somebody make a strong argument against somebody, lead a voting charge against them and they come up scum, in a normal game you're like "yeah, i feel better about this person now" but that means NOTHING in this game.

[Seacore]

Yeah, it's definitely dangerous to have a good hard think about how this game might be different to a standard mafia game.
It's poisonous indeed to clearly state my views so that if I then change my behaviour it's clear that I'm acting out of character.

Oh, I'm certainly scummy.

[Seacore]

Here's an example to prove my point.

Imagine on day 3 there are two bandwagons going.

One's on 7(Bob), one's on 5(Jane).

A Dreamwalker steps forward and says " No, don't incant Bob! He's innocent, I have seen it through the light of his dreams!" So everybody jumps off Bob, onto Jane, and Jane dies. Jane flips cultist.

My point is that "Scum tells" are our biggest desire. 'Town tells' do not help us, as 'town tells' usually describe a good scum hunter.
In a normal game, that would be strong evidence of this supposed Dreamwalker's innocence. In this game, it's just strong evidence that he's not on the same cult as Jane.

So we have two choices here. we can discuss these differences so we're prepared for them, or we can just treat this as a normal mafia set up, lose a bunch of town, and then go "hey, this doesn't work so well".

[Seacore]

[quote=Fara]
Why?
[/quote]

Because it's important for town to understand your motivations so you can be held to account by them, rather than enable you to ascribe motivations to them later. Scum are revealed by their reasoning, so we need to see yours.

And what don't you like about my statement? Transparency of opinion is the crux of a good town game.

[Seacore]

Well I've already explained my thoughts on each of his points, but fine, I'll do it again.

Setup over analysis.

- I analyse a lot, I see no danger in having a good think about this game prior to heaps of people jumping in, particularly with RVS that is, in my opinion, dangerous.

Already discrediting town reads and possible power roles.

- Town reads are less reliable in this game, that's just a fact. Scum reads are fine though. Pointing out that power roles can belong to scum, and that they can't necessarily be trusted, how is that a scummy action?

Deliberate obtuseness over scum team numbers.

- Obtuseness? I read what was in the opening post and asked a question.

Discouraging wagons.

-RVS Bandwagons are bad because we can't easily get rid of our pool of incants. I'm fine with regular bandwagons, that's how this game works.

[Seacore]

Couldn't we wait till a guardian finds an innocent then have him unvoted and have everyone else with 1 vote on them?

I'm assuming you mean dreamwalker, not guardian?

Also.

This will never work because

a)We cannot confirm the dreamwalker is town aligned, or is, in fact, a dreamwalker
b)Assuming that everybody is sitting on 1 incant, except for our chosen one, at 1 minute to deadline all the cult change their votes and bam, several people potentially die, the cult then each do a night kill and it basically dissolves into a night action game of cult v cult.

The only way the town benefit from that is if the cults accidentally cancel out each other's votes with their last minute voting (i.e Darkness moves their votes to where shadow had them and vice versa) or they hit each other with their votes and enough town survive to the next day to throw some weight around the next day. Even then I'm not sure what would happen, the cult would be fairly easily identifiable, but it wouldn't be easy to multiple lynch them...

Anyway, I think it's a bad idea to do this.

[Seacore]

Oh absolutely. A town engineered multilynch is a good idea towards the end of each day unless one person really stands out as guiltier than others.

Even if only one is a cultist, his cult buddies have to look on as he dies or do a last minute save which then makes both the saved player and the last minute incanter guilty. Even three is not a terrible idea as long as each of them has a reasonable scumminess about them. More than that is silly.

[Seacore]

Agreed. 3 is very risky and should only be used when people have been confirmed/ultra suspicious (i.e. they last minute voted the day before). If we are bad enough to get three town in one hit, we're fucked.

I believe I'm going to enjoy working with you, Brother Chaco.

[Seacore]

I disagree with the idea that a no lynch is ever a good idea. In fact, it's probably a good idea that a couple of people have thrown in some incants, so that no lynching is definitely off the table.

But I'm passionately against the idea of a typical Random Voting Stage since it introduces too many incants too soon. Yes, you can just move them to less at-risk players, but that involves coordination and it's too open to "Oh my god, I'm so sorry, I was unexpectedly away and then you burst into fire"

I'm quite happy for SC to have voted for me. I think it's an incorrect decision, but his vote is based on his opinion, I'm definitely not trying to discourage people for voting for people they think are scum.
I'm against people going "I'll just vote this person for now and see what happens"
I'm also against people just voting without saying anything else, I don't care what your secret plan is Fara, it still looks scummy. Anybody, scum or town, will ask you the same question "why did you vote for me" it reveals nothing, but makes us harder to hold you to account.

[Seacore]

[Yeh and I'd have liked to have seen that the first time.

All of the points I answered in that post had been brought up prior to his accusation.
All except the "over analysis" one, which is just ridiculous.

[Seacore]

Also, Fara, I would like to hear, do you agree/disagree with my thoughts on

Random bandwagons being bad
Power roles being evident of being "pro town" and thus less trustworthy
Pro town tells being significantly less helpful compared to scum tells in this game as opposed to normal games.

In fact, I would like to hear from other people on these points as well.

[Seacore]

Hehe, I was about to comment on the buddying too, I'm happy for you to note it, I know that it can look suspicious sometimes, but I enjoy finding someone who sees eye to eye with me.

You'll probably find I'll buddy a bit with you too Snow, since you seem to think along the same lines.

I agree with your multilynch concerns. Both (or all) lynchees must be scummy enough to warrant it. Or at the very least a political consensus between to vote camps. Definitely not "might as well have another one. That kind of voting might cloud information gained.

[Seacore]

ecause if we need very few votes, it's easier for scum to control the lynch.

In my opinion this is a good thing. We tempt the scum to reveal themselves. If we need 10 to lynch and it's a town kill, then we've got all those people, plus anybody else that was suspicious to look at. If we only needed 6 and the same thing happens, then that makes it a lot easier.

I also don't understand why people are so suspicious about my pro-town comment. I'm talking about "pro-town tells" being things that actively make you think they are hunting for scum.
If you are including in "pro-town tells" the absence of "scum tells" then thats cool.
That's the only one I think can be trusted, because everything else could be scum hunting scum.

Also, I completely disagree with DisCode on his vig comment. It benefits one scum team to actively hunt the other to extinction, then to come after town, because they can't trust that the other scum team doesn't have the same plan. Thus their night kill would likely be used in a vig way. If they have a dreamwalker then they will really be scum hunting.

The problem with getting too high an incant population early is that it has a lack of accountability to hold people to in later days. An "accidental" multi-lynch could happen by somebody being "unfortunately away" from the game.

I think that if we do go with multi-lynch this is the way it should happen.

1)Good arguments are made in regards to the scumminess of two players
2)People tend to agree with points about both of them.
3)Wagons naturally form as players find one or the other more guilty in their opinion.
4)When the totals are close (but not necessarily exactly even) and we are at about 2 or 3 deadlines away, we float the idea of a multi lynch.
5)If most people are pro multi-lynch, we get them to even and we ask everybody to hold it there.
5)Anybody who votes to make the votes uneven is viewed suspiciously, whether the person who dies flips scum or not.
6)Anybody who votes within the last hour of the last deadline is viewed extremely suspicious, probably an auto lynch.

Thoughts?

[Seacore]

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with slightly less than consensus, but if others are happier with absolute, I'm good with that.

[Seacore]

But the risk that a cult would do that is low, especially earlier in the game. The results of a lie would be damaging to the entire cult in question, and only advantageous in an endgame scenario.

The cults could actually have the role, so they wouldn't be lying. If a cult dreamwalker comes forward claiming to be a town dreamwalker, they'd have the same information, there'd be nothing to catch them out.

I wasn't trying to take on a leadership hat, I was bored at work, so I did some analysis of the difference between this game and a standard game. I stand by my analysis.
I find it suspicious that I'm being bandwagoned just because I've stated my ideas. The fact that I've laid out exactly what I think would set me up for a massive fall later if I started acting against my thoughts. I've been the most transparent so far, yet I'm being focussed on.

Also, what am I supposed to do when I'm accused of buddying?

So far, my cult suspects are on SS's town list, with the exception of mipe. Particularly Discode for his reaction to my Vig comment. It was an overeaction as far as I'm concerned and I'm suspicious of it.

incant:Discode

Might as well start incanting people I'm suspicious of.

[Seacore]

Also, lets make this clear, I'd vote for Chaco in a heartbeat if he looked scummy to me. But he seemed to understand my points of view and that enabled a better discussion between the two of us.
The idea that town can't chat to people is dumb. Buddying is interesting information but only when added to everything else. Scum are just as likely to buddy with each other as they are with town, because distancing is a well known tactic.

[Seacore]

Okay, so it looks like I'm going to be the first lynch. Which is a shame.
Let's see if I can answer each point of my "scumminess" rather than each accusation, because there are some double ups. If I miss them, please point them out and I'll try to answer those as well.

1)

I'm Buddying Chaco

- I've explained this, I do it in many games when I think I've found an important point and some people agree with me and some people disagree with me. I do it as scum and and town. I think Buddying in general is a null tell, because as Chaco's pointed out, scum are aware that town is aware that it's a tactic.
1a) A sub point to this is how I reacted with Snowbunny accused me of buddying. I laughed because I was genuinely going to type something along the lines of "oh noes, I'm buddying, I must be scum." But I also answered why it appeared that I was buddying, and that's because Chaco was the first person to agree with my RVS statements. So to say that I didn't respond is false. I also then accepted the scrutiny, and to say I didn't, is false.

2)

I'm playing the Victim Card

- I didn't actually mean to, I was just trying to point out that, if I'm scum, I've done a good job of pointing out exactly my beliefs and plans for the game, which is not a scum move. It's one thing to disagree with my tactics, which is why I was bringing it up to begin with, it's another thing to want me to burn for it. Please not that most of my analysis was done when there were just 4 other posts. And since then I've been answering questions/accusations about it.

3)

My Vig - Mafia comment

- This has been taken massively out of context by DisCode. I was saying that as far as each cult is concerned, the other cult is basically a Vig who doesn't care if they miss. I'm not saying we sit around and hope that the Cult leave us alone, they won't. But given that they cant' be sure that the Other Cult, isn't focusing on them, they need to focus on the other cult, while they hope, in the meantime, that the other cult misses on their night kills and that town miss on their incants. Cult are MUCH MORE dangerous to Cult than town are, they want them dead as much as town do, but they have more information and more kills with which to do it. We're in the crossfire of that, hoping to pick patters, kill the cults and survive. There is NOTHING scummy about this thought, and I don't like that it's been focussed on by DisCode as something scummy.
I'm not trusting the cult teams to protect us, that's dumb, thus my comment of a Vig who

doesnt' care if they miss

.

4)

My dislike of a large incant pool

- My opinion, is that we approach the 3 quarter mark on each day, thus, for day 1 needing about 5 or 4 votes to incant, a large pool of incants scattered around the place is dangerous. It's too easy for people to get accidentally lynched at this point, I think FOSing is much safer. My thoughts here are all about "accountability" I can think of too many examples where people can explain away there vote on the lynchee as "I changed my mind from my first vote, and then I struggled to put my vote somewhere"
This concern stays true in later days. Yes there will be no RVS (I hope) but it's still a tactic that people often use to see slightly suspicious activity and throw a vote down knowing they can take it back. We could start Day 2, with 9 people (or less if a multilynch happens) and could start Day 3 with 6, this becomes a real concern with such low numbers, and I was just getting my thoughts out there. I think incants are too dangerous to thrown them around as a tactic.
Serial Clergyman things that I'm doing this to remove votes and thus remove pressure. I think the same thing can be achieved with FOSing, and , as I've said above, as the deadlines trickle by, having 12 votes lying around starts to become a serious issue, because after someone has responded well (i.e. as town) to the pressure, the vote needs to go somewhere.

5)

Controlling future lynches

- I wasn't trying to control them, I was pointing out how I would be operating. Somebody who changes their vote after there's general consensus in a multi lynch can and should be accused of "saving" who ever wasn't lynched, no matter their reasons. Anybody who does so at last moment is looking very guilty indeed. DisCode has taken my quotes out of context here by not putting them against the fact that I was discussing Multilynch strategies. Again I'll point out that declaring my strategies is a step towards transparency so I can easily be accused later if I change my tactics without reason.

6)

I'm discussing strategy rather than analysing others' plays

- I again bring up that I started discussing strategy before most people had posted. There had been a random vote, a comment against random voting, a comment against that, and another (what I thought at the time was a random) vote. Not too much to discuss. Since then I have been trying to explain my concerns, but I've also been making a few comments here and there on others. So that's a slight straw man by SC there. He's claiming that I'm not doing anything that is hurtful to scum, I disagree, I think my strategies hurt scum quite a lot, but thats the overall argument, not just one for this point. I've also been generating lots of discussion, if I'm lynched, and when I come up as town, I'll have generated pages of people disagreeing with certain points of my ideas. Hopefully that will help.

7)

My dislike of using town tells

- I think there are only really two town tells. There is good and effective scum hunting (shown through strong analysis, catching people in lies and leading a scum lynch) and there is 'lack of scumminess' (shown through helpful contribution, consistent comments and actions, posting regularly and not 'floating by')
My argument is that the first one, which is usually the clearer of the two, is not as helpful because is it the EXACT behaviour that one cult will be using to catch the other cult. I don't understand why this is contentious. I was just trying to avoid a day 4 "oh my god, I can't believe you're scum, you were so pro-town the whole time", so I just tried to get it out there.
7a)

My concern about taking roles at face value

Again, this is a sub point of my town tell comment, I was just trying to make everybody aware that a the usual cop claim followed by a scum lynch does not a real townie make. Again just trying to make everybody aware of it. This was especially after SC raised the tactic of finding a cop, having them find somebody clean and then having a mass-multilynch of everybody else.

8)

My question the GM as to whether there were 4 cult on each team

- Sigh, yes, I see that this would have been fairly broken. I don't think it's as untenable as 45/45/10 but it would be very difficult for the town. But when I was writing that post, I actually thought the example PMs suggested three cult to a team (which most of us agree is a real possibility), at last moment I went up, checked and saw that the PMs mentioned that there were 3 Other members of each cult, and scrolled down to change in. The problem is, I changed the wrong word. Notice in that post I say "four are three"? Thats because I was trying to change "there are three" to "there are four" and mistook, in my "at work and probably shouldn't be playing this game" mindset, 'there' and 'three'. I was trying to get the post off before needed to go back to my job and I didn't really think it through. I then cleaned it up in a quick second post.
Also I think the accusation from SC that I asked the question in the post rather than a PM is stupid one. He's probably make the same argument for my guilt if I PM'd "oh, you didn't want to post that in the thread because you knew it would look guilty?" I thought of a question and asked it as I was typing, get over it.

I think thats all of them.

Basically four people keep showing up to really argue against my points. DisCode, Starttransmission, Fara and SerialClergyman. Other people have agreed with them, but they're the main three of have answered my posts in length.

Of these four, DisCode has consistently taken things out of context. Not actually reading what I've said about how the Cult's should be more scared of each other than us and thus it is similar to the fear of a Vig, (which seems to be arguing with me for little point), Accusing me of generally trying to control lynches when the quotes were directly taken from a conversation about how multilynches would need to work. and finally, in post 91, Discode accuses Chaco of saying that I'm scum but not voting for him, which what Chaco actually says is "IF" I flipped scum, then he would be the likely next target. Gee, Discode is making quite a habit of the out of context remarks.

Discode is looking very scummy.

Also, Serialclergyman accuses me of asking questions that should have clear answers, in an effort to appear more town. Well in post 24 he asks how multilynches could possibly happen. So that's a bit pot calling the kettle black when he should have just read the rules.
He looks a bit scummy to me too.

Fara, I just don't like his play style, he doesn't give as much information as he does, claiming it's to "fake out" people. I think town should be transparent at all times, thus anybody who isn't transparent is scum. Fara seems to be posting a lot, but not really engaging in much, just defending his initial vote and disagreeing with me, less analysis than the other three.

Starttransmision seems to be the least scummy of my four main attackers. Except for misconstruing how I dealt with the buddying accusation.

I'm happy for my incant to stay with DisCode.

[Seacore]

It sure is. But seriously what's the point of saying this?

I'm not allowed an introductory sentence with which to frame the rest of my post? Wut?

[Seacore]

You said:" Each scum team is effectively a vigilantee who doesn't care if they miss. " You don't mention the as far as the other cult is concerned, and it's also not really implied here either.

I think it's at least slightly implied by the context of the post. I'm discussing the motivation of the cult teams and how they differ from normal mafia.
Since there are two teams, their priorities are:
-to avoid being lynched
-to look for patterns to find scum
-to use their night ability to kill that scum

That looks like typical vig behavior to me, the only difference is that they don't care if they kill town while they do that. Which is pretty much what I said. But its fine if that wasn't understood straight away, I've explained it several times since and won't both explaining it again.

[Seacore]

The reason why I focussed on those four, is because I don't have much time to play over the weekend, and I used all that time trying to defend myself. During that defence I obviously spent more time on the posts of those four than on others. I will analyse other posts later today or tomorrow when I get a chance.

I'm probably going to leave my response at that, and start a little more active scum hunting which I'm aware I haven't been doing so well (although I'd be very content with a DisCode lynch).

[Seacore]

Preliminary thoughts on players

Chaco - Engages in the idea of a controlled multi-lynch, which I consider a protown concept, but something about his reaction the buddying accusation rubs me the wrong way. And no, it's not just OMGUS from me. It's like he didn't like the attention and decided to say "oh no, I was just laying a trap for him" Vibe: neutral

Datadanne - Has yet to post anything meaningful - Vibe: neutral

Deathsauce - Has a proactive approach to getting answers. I'm happy with the nature of both of his incants, (as in, I'm happy with his reasons for why he did it) although I don't agree with him that Mipe is scum, just weird. - Vibe:townish

Discode - I'll try to summarise because I've made it clear I think he's scum. He's taken things out of context, as mentioned before. Even if Chaco does think I'm scum, that's not what he said when Discode referred to it. Seems to pick and choose quotes for his desired meaning. Also pushes the tactic that I think will become very hard to hold people accountable to during late stage of each day- Vibe:scum

Faraday - Provides as little reason for his actions as possible, which is not very accountable. Seems to pick up flavour text as a point of issue when there are other more relevant things around. However, is decent at focusing on unanswered questions. Vibe:scummish

Magua - Hasn't posted much, but what has been there has been thoughtful and clear. Spoke about his suspicions with reasons, even examined his own biases which leads to a lot of accountability. Vibe - slightly townish, but there's not enough to go on.

Mipe - No idea what he's doing. He asked two questions which would be questions I'd want to know if I was in the scum teams, although they are good to know as town too. He's voted for the mod. He was trying to be clever with the rick rolling gag. Vibe - scummish.

Seacore - Awesome guy, totally town.

Semioldguy - Hasn't posted yet, which is consistent with his confirmation post.

Serialclergyman - Claims he didn't see that multilynches were an option, and the moment it was raised tries to turn it into a conversation in which almost everybody mass-suicides, which would play right into scum hands if it ever happened. Accuses me of over-analysing the setup when barely anybody had posted anything else to analyse. Claims that it's very unlikely that scum have power roles, I don't think that it's "unlikely" at all, and it would serve the scum very well if we believed it was true. Vibe: scum

Snowbunny- hasn't posted much, but seems vaguely townish, but not enough to go on. Vibe:neutral

Starttransmission - the least scummy of my main attackers. actually seemed to consider my answers rather than look for ways to attack me. However, hasn't really invested any energy into other players - Vibe: neutral.

So Discode and Serialclergyman take the lead on my scum thoughts. Faraday is a close behind.

Haven't heard enough from Data, magua, semioldguy, snowbunny and starttransmission, or serialclergyman for that matter. I imagine the americans among you will probably post more now that the holiday weekend is over.

[Seacore]

Yes, I've tried some odd stuff, but I usually try and make it accountable the whole way through.
Anyway, it's fine that you may have been trying something odd to catch me out if I was being scummy. It's just that the way you did it didn't make me feel comfortable enough to declare you town, thus I gave you neutral.

Although, question: What about me seems scummy to you, since you said that you were willing to vote for me.

[Seacore]

You've questioned him on it, and I've given yuo a slight commendation for being proactive in the regard, but you're completely correct on that front. I too want Deathsauce to answer that question. Deathsauce, please do so.

Many of your posts are very short and you don't go into your reasons as much as I'd like, but I've possibly been biased by your first post. I'll stop holding this against you unless I see more concret examples.

The flavour text is where you point out that you don't like how I say it's a shame that I'm going to be lynched and that if I'm lynched, when I flip town, etc. It seems a pointless thing to have a go at somebody about. I was thinking through a long post and I didn't stop and triple analyse each phrase, I just wrote it as I thought it. I can kind of see your point when people try to subtley put in suggestions that they are town, but I was too lime light for that to ever work. I half wrote that post from the point of view that I was going to be lynched and I wanted to contribute something before I died.

Massive agreement on your final point, but there's more than just those three that need to post more. In response to that I'm going to shut up until they do.

[Seacore]

We'll likely be able to tell that there is only one cult left because there'll be only one night kill. (Granted that cults doubling up combined with guardians mean that it's not 100% effective.)
I don't think there will be a solo cultist, that seems unfair, but I could imagine a 2/3 split assuming that the 2 team has a power role.
I'm going to operate under the assumption that each cult has 3 members and one of each power role. Not because I think it's the most likely, but because I think it's the worst case scenario.

[Seacore]

Actually, and this is probably going to bite me, but I think I've finally been persuaded into the "go ahead and vote" camp.
Semi's numbers have finally clicked it in.

I think it's because I'm used to much faster games than this so the deadline seemed more ominous.

Although I do disagree with your comment that if fewer people have caused the lynch that we get less information from it.

I don't understand what you're getting at from Post 70.

I also disagree with your multilynch comment. I think a mutlilynch needs to be organised for it to work. That way we can point the finger at anybody who unlevels it, whereas with your plan its just "hey, I was voting for who I wanted"

[Seacore]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with SC on the suspicion here. Even if it's to jump to somebody that isn't me, I really don't like it when somebody appears for 5 minutes to agree with the crowd and then evaporate. If he's really intending to "postmoarl8er" (which is offensive to read, oh my god) then why not just wait til then to post, you know, after you've had a chance to explain to us your thoughts on the game so you don't look like a scummy bandwagoner?

Then again, while I haven't read through much of other games, data came up in Percy's last game and was pulling unhelpful stuff like this all the time... wait a sec, I'm going to go look up to see if he was scum then... nope, he was investigator. From skimming and memory, people were threatening to kill him all the way through because of this kind of stuff, but better targets came along each time. So unfortunately, this looks like a null tell in context, it's just annoying.

I disagree with SC's read of the mipe situation though. Mipe's just stating why he doesn't want to be a part of the multilynch. Yeah it's obvious, but it's kind of hard to state his view of it being bad without stating why. Obviously I disagree with Mipe on his conclusion though, I think a multilynch can be a great tactic. It provides two different bandwagons to analyse, it's tempting bait for a scum-save. It's like giving the town twice it's usual strength.

[Seacore]

Yeah, but the difference is mipe has made several other posts, granted most of them with odd comments, but his latest posts don't really change my already established and stated opinion of him (see my large person by person post).
Whereas I only had that one post of data's to go by.

Basically I don't believe either of them is particularly scummy, just not helpful.

[Seacore]

Seeing as nobody else commented about it, it makes me think that Faraday plays like that normally, so pretty much the only reason why I thought he was scum is now out.

I believe I commented, a couple of times.

There's a lot of no commenting because this is a semi-open game, which means it's also a semi-closed game. We don't know the make up of the cults. The questions are fine, just like I'd argue mine was, but incanting the mod is still weird..

[Seacore]

This is why I find buddying such a null tell. Sure it's something to go back and look at once somebody actually flips scum, but until then it gives you nothing. The argument that town shouldn't buddy because they're suspiscous of everybody seems dumb. I can be suspicious and friendly of somebody at the same time.

I'm essentially being accused of buddying because I stated my opinions, somebody else agreed with me, then I asked a follow up questions and because nobody else posted in between we had a small conversation.

Dumb.

Thus I don't find SC's buddying as particularly scummy. Although his doublestandards are.

[Seacore]

How am I parroting? I was the one who said that stuff first!

[Seacore]

Just a short answer to some of Snow Bunny's points against me.
I'm actually being persuaded by other people's points in some cases. That's not just me agreeing, that's me entering into the discussion and finding out I didn't have the best idea, such as Semi's post with the numbers on posting and why random posts didn't actually hurt us. It was numbers I should have done myself, but I hadn't and when I saw them I was persuaded.

Maybe it's because I'm new at games on this site, but can somebody please give me a list of "town-tells" that are not "scum hunting signs".
Specificalyl snow-bunny, often when you give somebody town points you simply say "this seems townish", can you please explain why you "like" those posts.

Also, I don't think we could get a worse case scenario than 3 scum to a team with a power role on each team? Does anybody have a worse likely scenario (considering I was slammed pretty hard for my 4 to a team comment)

I think it's far more likely, that we have two to each team, with one power role on one and one on the other. But that's just a guess. I think they are likely even teams.

Here's a good question actually: Who do you think are NOT on the same team. Either one scum, one town, or two different scum. (You don't need to guess which)

[Seacore]

For example, I don't think Faraday and Deathsauce are on the same team. For a little while I thought it could have been a well designed act, picking on each other for something that they could later claim was misunderstood, but it went on too long and there seemed to be some genuine miscommunication.

[Seacore]

Data, I think, is a good example of being part of a multilynch. As snow has pointed out, while he's far from definitely scummy, he's definitely antitown.

What do people think about Data being one half of a controlled multilynch, with the other member being chosen by our votes in the coming days.

Are people:
1) For it;
2) Fine if it happens naturally, but against controlled multlynching;
3) Against it in this instance;
4) Against all multilynching;
5) Against all multilynching and think I'm scummy for bringing it up?

For me, I'm for it, in a controlled way. On the assumption that he isn't any more helpful than this (and a glance at some of his other games suggests he won't be), and on the same assumption that he won't post anything more incriminating (in which case maybe he's just the only lynch), then I'm for determining who is going to be our lynch for the day with our regular current voting methods, and then as the deadline approaches, we organise some people to vote for data and bring it to a draw.

I believe this has the following advantages:
It allows us to still have a normal mafia style say in who gets lynched
It provides bait for scum to come in and hammer one, thus saving the other
At the very least, it removes an anti-town player without costing us our regular lynch.

Thoughts?

[Seacore]

At risk of being labelled as "agreeing with everybody" I also declare bullshit at Mipe's claim.

So I'll

Unvote. Vote:Data

I'm for lynching them both today.

[Seacore]

The earliest we could doublelynch would be 9 days from Saturday, so I don't see any rush.

Yes, but making sure we don't lynch Mipe solo would be a good idea.

[Seacore]

I am happy to be held accountable for the lynching of both Data and Mipe. And that is how I will treat everybody who has announced they are happy for the double lynch. (Should it go ahead) If the majority of people don't want the double lynch, then I obviously won't react that way.

But I'll say this now, loud and clear. Hold me accountable for the Mipe lynch, whether I'm on Data or him.

I think the idea of a double lynch, at least this double lynch, is to remove our top suspect - Mipe, and also policy lynch an anti-town player - Data.

[Seacore]

If everyone on the mipe wagon did this I doubt we would all also vote for the same second person. A second lynch isn't representative of a majority and isn't even representative of being on any sort of equal ground as mipe's wagon.

When I proposed the double lynch, I didn't say "hey lets vote for somebody else too" I said "who would be interested in making data one half of the lynch" and many people agreed. So we don't need to wonder if wewould all vote for the same second person.
The question was Data or nobody, are you up for this or not? Don't hide behind general policies when a specific question is on the table. Are you happy for a data/mipe double lynch?

[Seacore]

As I understand it, the sole reason that policy lynches are bad, is that they cost the town the opportunity to scum hunt.

It seems to me that the town is satisfied with a mipe lynch. I haven't seen anybody speak against it since his "claim".

So, we've chosen our scum. If this was a normal game we'd be mostly happy with a mipe lynch. But we have the opportunity here for a policy lynch as well. Why not take advantage of this?

What can scum do in 9 days to take advantage of this? I don't see them arguing successfully for a third person, as I see it, it's either mipe or mipe/data.

[Seacore]

Seacore: As I'm going to be lynched, you can stop protecting me now, mmkay?

Oh, I stopped being even a half voice against your lynching the moment you claimed. I'd just like you to not meet the holy light alone.

[Seacore]

Given that we're at lynch-1, and will relatively soon be at lynch, would somebody like to organise some of the double lynch willing people to join me on data.

I'd do it myself but at lot of people wouldn't be happy with me taking the lead on this, as I'm still high on many people's scum lists.
It would be best to do it soon, as somebody could come along and hammer mipe under the pretence of "I agree with semi and death that it's bad to double lynch, bam". Which appears far less scummy than disrupting an established double lynch.

Deathsauce - when somebody asks you for reasons, you don't just restate that you think they are scummy. You provide why, you know "reasons".
Because you are scum
Because you act scummy
Because the things you do are scummy

these are not reasons.

[Seacore]

Well I don't have any evidence that she's teamed up with DisCode, I also don't have any evidence that she's not.
I'm not the one who raised it as a thought.

I'd sure as hell like you to explain why you think it is likely.

[Seacore]

Ah sorry, I missed the "start" in your post as well.
Yeah, I really don't think she's with start, given she took a loud stance against him, and if they were on the same team, they'd either both be for the data lynch or both against it.

That being said, I'm not going to respond to any of your (or other people's) accusations unless you provide reasons, otherwise you're just shouting into the dark (or maybe shouting from the dark, Mmm? Cultist?), or trying to get me to do your work for you.

[Seacore]

<snip> Well worded explanation of accusation </snip>

Thanks!

I will definitely consider those points (as potentially scummy) in my future SnowBunny accusations.

What about DisCode?

[Seacore]

Also, with the exclussion of Data and Mipe, who are unlikely fans of their own lynching, it seems that only DeathSauce and Semioldguy are against the double lynch.

DeathSauce and Semi - Will you, with your noted objections, allow us to proceed with the majority plan?

Anybody else object?
So far I've got:
Seacore
Faraday
SerialClergyman (although he seems less than 100% on it by later posts)
SnowBunny
Starttransmission (although it seems to be a lack of objection, rather than a vote for)
Chaco

We haven't heard anything from Discode for a while.

Anybody want to change their minds? Because otherwise it looks like we have a clear majority wanting the double lynch.
Magua

[Seacore]

EBWOP
Magua should obviously be in the pro-doublelynch list, but I was editing while on the phone. He should be inbetween Start and Chaco

The list is in order of people who signed on to the data/mipe lynch, for auditing purposes.

[Seacore]

Oh absolutely, as data's is/would be a policy lynch, if another player replaced in, I'd wait for them to post their opinions and move for a solo mipe lynch (on the assumption that other scum didn't do anything stupidly obvious in the meantime)

[Seacore]

@Semi - Fair enough. I understand your reasons and thought process and find you to be fairly town. I just disagree with you, I think that removing Data gives more power to remaining active town, makes scum stand out more, and gives us the small chance of lynching two scum in one go.

So my question is this, you've stated your objection, and that is good, and I am completely for you continuing to argue your point of view. But will you actively disrupt a double lynch?
If we leave you and deathsauce as 2 of the four members of the mipe lynch, and we have four others on the data lynch, what would you do to stop it, if anything?

[Seacore]

Personally I'd love Data to get replaced. Then I'd drop the "policy" (there seems to be a slight semantic argument about this word going on) lynch and just go with mipe. But I don't think that'll happen. A glance at data's other games suggests that this is his MO.
I ask the question of you too DeathSauce.

On the assumption that the clean majority of us want a data/mipe doublelynch. Will you merely continue to voice your objection (which is cool) or will you actively strike against it?

[Seacore]

Lets imagine that we have only 2 options from this point.

1) We lynch mipe right now.

2) We resolve (democratically) to organise a situation in which mipe and data are both lynched.

In the case of 1) the conversation is over, we get information and night begins

In the case of 2) the conversation continues as we await the deadline, we get more information from the lynch (albeit at a higher cost) and night begins.

Your argument that the conversation is being dominated by this topic is moot, since you're arguing for the conversation to completely stop.

We gain nothing by lynching Mipe now that we do not gain by lynching mipe a week or two from now (with or without data). I can't see anybody putting an argument forward that allows Mipe to survive.

[Seacore]

1) I'm trying to establish whether you are willing to go with what the majority have said (which is pro-town, even if you disagree with it) or whether you are planning to loudly say "if I can stop it, I will". If you say that you're going to do the first thing and then do the second, then it's a very scummy act. If ANYBODY disrupts the double lynch once it's put into place, that is very scummy.

2) We can't ensure this

3) It is in the "WHERE" things go wrong that we obtain or information. Who moved last minute to save one of the two lynch targets? Thats heaps of information right there.

Basically yes, if we move for this double lynch, there's a chance that they hammer the other one. And if they do that, we kill that person the next day, because they are totally scum, even if the other one flipped scum. If either of them are town, they should just accept their fate, because a double lynch provides us with more information and thus makes it more likely that they (as town, dead or not) will win.
If they don't, then we know they are scum.

@Mipe - Will you be willing to move your vote to data right now, because as you've seen, you're dead. Either alone, with data, or on day 2 if you screw up a double lynch, you're dead.

[Seacore]

Prodding: Datadanne. He has until the next deadline to post or he will be force-replaced.

Mod: Sorry, to clarify your use of 'next'. Does this mean, later today (what's site time again?) or does this mean the deadline after that?

[Seacore]

No, I'm saying mipe should just accept his fate. Data's already voting for mipe, so any movement by him burns himself, not mipe. And seriously, mipe should just accept has fate, he's already said he's immune to night actions, so nothing can save him.

[Seacore]

I think it's bad strategy to wait to lynch anybody unless we can lynch two people

But we can.
Please explain to me the consequences of waiting to enable a double lynch?

[Seacore]

Also, I'm not that gung-ho anymore, Semioldman has done a good job (as he did with my "no votes unless you mean them" idea) of persuading against my position. I'm still for a double lynch, and I absolutely object that a natural double lynch is the only way to go, but I'm definitely not raving for it, I'm just trying to keep the argument going.

Right now, the best play in my eyes is for data to be replaced and for Mipe to be lynched after the replacement posts their thoughts. And I think everybody who is for a double lynch probably agrees with me (based on their statements).

However, should data remain and remain useless, I think its a good idea to double lynch them.
Yes it's a gamble.
But it's a gamble that will provide a lot of information.

[Seacore]

Please explain to me the consequences of waiting to enable a double lynch?

I have, but you choose to ignore those consequences.

No, I'm not talking about the consequences of a double lynch, I'm talking about the consequences of waiting. That seems to be Start's main concern, is that we should do it RIGHT NOW because we can!

[Seacore]

If we weren't having this conversation, it would be Night and there's be no conversation except for the scum.

So how is that different?

[Seacore]

Anyway, with Semi, DeathSauce and Starttransmission added to Data and Mipe (with a fairly inactive DisCode) it seems we don't really have the numbers to pull off a double lynch anyway.

So what's better for the town, lynching prior to a data replace? or after?

[Seacore]

So your argument is that you're impatient? Okay. Its not actually costing us anything, because we'll still have that time to hunt when the day starts. I don't see how the scum are gaining anything from this extra day time.

[Seacore]

Okay, I'm willing to go with the single lynch too, then. But I'd like a few thoughts on my replacement question first.

Lynch before replacement or after?

[Seacore]

Semi- I think most people have been clear that Data is a policy lynch, we just disagree with you as to whether policy lynches are bad in this case or not.
The extra time was to organise the double lynch, which would have cost us nothing, I don't buy the distraction comment.

But thats fine, enough people have jumped off the double lynch ship, so its kinda moot for today.

I'm happy with Chaco's assessment that lynching now gives the replacement more time to catch up without the need to say "I'm 10 pages in, almost there"

Unvote. Vote: Mipe

[Seacore]

Oh yeah, I'm definitely not on board with letting mipe off the hook to be a target for a night kill. I hope that the cults will be focussing on each other, but I don't trust them to be that effective.

[Seacore]

Deathsauce, don't be ridiculous, having the scum vote for each other is fine.

We wold have said to mipe "hey, if you want even a chance of surviving, vote for data right now, or we'll lynch you solo. So he moves his vote. Then we say to data (except we wouldn't have needed to because he's already voting for mipe) hey vote for mipe or we'll kill you.

Then if either of them move their votes they kill themselves. That being said, with the replacement, I'm happy with the solo kill more than ever.

[Seacore]

Also, Deathsauce, by my count you've brought him to L-1. He'll die at the deadline in 5ish hours

[Seacore]

well done shadow, very well done.

Also

AAAHHHHHH!!!!! How many of my points were brought up after I was almost killed for saying them?

[Seacore]

Heh, I actually pointed that out once or twice.

Yes, that made me scream out loud