Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[Hoopla]

Hoopla, did you actually know that I knew about Mini 973? If I hadn't mentioned it, would you have unclaimed and if so, when?

I did not know, though I would have unclaimed soon after. I was still waiting on the last players to post before that could happen. I actually thought someone else would have picked up on it a lot sooner than it did, but this was a good amount of time to leave it to get the game going.

I didn't mention it before, but redtail's contribution to Almaster wagon is convincing. I'm waiting on the final results of the newbie game he is in before I understand him a little better as a player, but I think he is town. I think AGar is town and I think G&H and Kid Know Nothing feel town too, though these are more gut based reads.

Scum:

Almaster/Vel
Elleran/ConfidAnon

Unsure:

Zach
Shotty
gonnano

Again, these are preliminary reads, but as far as D1 reads go, I feel pretty good about them. Of those in my scum category, I've paired those players together, because I don't think they're scum with each other. One or two of those names will be scum, though. Elleran's recent play is rather odd, and I don't like his idea to withhold information for an entire day - it reeks of scum trying to buy time with a (possibly non-existant) bargaining chip.

[Espeonage]

VOTECOUNT

2 -

AlmasterGM

- Agar, redtail896 (L-5)
2 -

AGar

- gonanno, drmyshottyizsik (L-5)
1 -

Hoopla

- Vel-Rahn Koon (L-6)
1 -

gonanno

- ConfidAnon (L-6)
1 -

Elleran

- Hoopla (L-6)
1 -

Zachrulez

- AlmasterGM (L-6)
1 -

myshottyizsik

- Zachrulez (L-6)

Not Voting - Good and Honest, Kid Know Nothing, Elleran

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

@Hoopla, please answer my points in 107. You've switched votes for no reason, but in your lastest post I'm still scummy enough to warrant a vote. I'd rather have Town lay out their arguments so that the rest of us can see what you're thinking, assuming you're Town. You can answer that as well while you're at it.

I get the feeling that the Alamaster/AGar battle is a Town v. Town scenario. AGar seems to have voted for AGM for a rather weak reason, but it was based on AGM's poor explanation of his attitude toward Vigging. Now it seems as though AGM has got his hair up and is going after AGar for equally weak reasoning and is tunneling.

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

@shotty: If you're going to be deliberately unhelpful, please replace out. You're not helping your team (whichever team you're on) in any way, shape, or form with your "scum" claim. You can better explain your stance on claiming (which wasn't ever even an issue until you made it one) without being so inflammatory.

@Elleran: please clarify this statement in 112, "I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now."

G&H and KKN need to vote, with reasons. We can't analyze your voting patterns if you don't have any. I fully agree with Hoopla here - we need everyone to take firm stances on every day. There's no reason to withhold your vote, or at least express a strong FoS, this early in the game.

[Zachrulez]

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

I still think AGM's side of the argument is more likely to be coming from scum. His explanation for going after Hoopla after the fact is inconsistent with his initial judgment of her claim. I see it as a point against AGM and agree with Agar and Redtail that it's scummy.

As for the vig argument, I don't find any of that particularly scummy. That kind of argument tends to stem from play style differences. People have different ideas about how certain roles should be played optimally.

[Zachrulez]

Right now though, I think Shotty needs to be lynched. He's claimed scum, and I feel very strongly about lynching scum claims.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I'm not excited about AGM's 110. The explanation of what his argument focused on (the PGO claim) doesn't fit with his true argument about the vote (the meta read). Coupled with the fairly shoddy attempt to redirect to redtail and Zach makes this a horrible post. AGM seems to deliberately misrep redtail by leaving out ALL the original content in his post and quoting the "in short I agree with AGar" statement.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: AlamasterGM

EBWOPreview: Zach: Do you honestly think shotty is scum enough to waste a lynch on him?

[Zachrulez]

I think that Shotty's scum claim makes him much more likely to actually be scum. I don't see it as wasting a lynch.

[gonnano]

So... I'm thinking VI on Shotty, but not necessarily scum.

I'd like to see a vote from KKN, and it would help me out a lot if G&H would at least say where his/her vote would go if it had to be placed. Votes are really the only concrete thing we have in this game, and that's what I like to use as a starting point for my reads.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: please clarify this statement in 112, "I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now."

Like I've already mentioned, I've played many times in real life games where the early PGO claim has been used before. In almost all of them, the claimer turns out to be fake. This being so, I find Hoopla's claim extremely suspicious. However, this being a Forum online mafia, I have harder time trying to read her posts, which made me unvote. Also, her explanation of her action (to promote meaningful discussion) seemed reasonable enough to influence my unvote as well.

@Hoopla: Since Hoopla rather have me explain myself, I unvoted because I weighed the following two in my mind. 1. Your claim reek of fake claim as a scum's protective measure. Perhaps because I play more commonly with PGO in real life and that is why only I seem to have more suspicion and cynic about this. 2. Your claim has indeed caused a great degree of discussion. This fiery discussion is infinitely better than any RVS. To do this, you have accepted a huge risk; an action that scums would avoid from.

When I weighed the two, I have come to a conclusion that you are probably a town. However, I am still puzzled by your unclaim. In all my life games where an unclaim happened, that person turned out to be a bad player, a confused player, or a scum. I can see that you are experienced and not confused. Thus, I have can only see your actions as a clever plan of a scum or a town putting up a great contribution.

That is what I was withholding. It really was a personal weighing of the two possibilities, something that wasn't going to influence the town action by much.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Ok here's the truth night kill me if you want

Claim:

Doctor

[gonnano]

Why, shotty? Why do you have to do this to yourself?

[drmyshottyizsik]

Idk just bored and this game feels like its going no where.

[Kid Know Nothing]

@Hoopla, please answer my points in 107. You've switched votes for no reason, but in your lastest post I'm still scummy enough to warrant a vote. I'd rather have Town lay out their arguments so that the rest of us can see what you're thinking, assuming you're Town. You can answer that as well while you're at it.

I get the feeling that the Alamaster/AGar battle is a Town v. Town scenario. AGar seems to have voted for AGM for a rather weak reason, but it was based on AGM's poor explanation of his attitude toward Vigging. Now it seems as though AGM has got his hair up and is going after AGar for equally weak reasoning and is tunneling.

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

@shotty: If you're going to be deliberately unhelpful, please replace out. You're not helping your team (whichever team you're on) in any way, shape, or form with your "scum" claim. You can better explain your stance on claiming (which wasn't ever even an issue until you made it one) without being so inflammatory.

@Elleran: please clarify this statement in 112, "I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now."

G&H and KKN need to vote, with reasons. We can't analyze your voting patterns if you don't have any. I fully agree with Hoopla here - we need everyone to take firm stances on every day. There's no reason to withhold your vote, or at least express a strong FoS, this early in the game.

I'll vote when I think I have weight with it, when I think that it means something to me.

There are other things you can analyze besides my voting power, so why are you trying to tell me that I need to vote? If you're thinking voting patterns as in later on tomorrow or days after that, you should be able to easily assume that sometime today I am

going

to vote. And even if I don't, isn't that something to analyze? This just seems like you want to put a slight pressure on us to vote and I see little positive reason to do that.

Just because I haven't put my FoS in bold, you can pretty much see where I am interested right now.

[redtail896]

In response to backtracking, there isn't any. I used part of your argument, part of my argument. Both were nessecary but not sufficent for the vote.

Or, if you insist there was backtracking, fine. My advocacy now is: both parts of the argument were necessary but not sufficient for the vote.

I didn't fully understand this section. Could you elaborate? At the time of the vote, you said the meta argument was the main reason, but now you claim that the claim was the main reason. Which is it? Because the way it was phrased, it didn't seem that both were "necessary but not sufficient."

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

I think AGar was a bit quick to drop the vig thing. My issue (which I tried to explain in my last post but I'm not sure it came off well) is that AlmasterGM seems to think shotty is unreadable VI, and so should be killed by the vig. I disagree with this on 2 counts: I don't think shotty is unreadable, and I can easily see the potential for better targets in the vig's eyes. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill though; I'd like to see other opinions on this.

However, that's not the centerpiece. I'd like to see AlmasterGM's response to me, particularly to the above question.

@shotty: How can you possibly say this game is going nowhere?

[Elleran]

Idk just bored and this game feels like its going no where.

How can you call a D0 PGO claim boring?

[AlmasterGM]

First of all, to the claim that I am latching: yeah, I suppose I am. And it will, of course, do no good to claim that I had independently come up with many of these points, and AGar simply beat me to the punch. I tried to differentiate my case as much as possible, but there's no getting around the fact that we had many of the same points. Such is life. You can't expect every single person on a wagon to come up with a unique, different case. That's neither reasonable or possible. At least I tried: Zach just copied my case and went with it.

Ok. So do you think AGar's original vote on me (which was based soley on latching) was unfounded, then? What about Zach?

You see, I actually agree with you that agreeing with other players isn't a bad thing. But other people don't agree with that and are being inconsistent about how they apply that standard (e.g., I'm scummy for using some of AGar's argument, but Zach isn't for posting "lol i agree." This makes no sense.

1. 2 people that I'm happy to name: myself and Hoopla. I would bet others here would agree, but I don't want to speak for anybody. And there are any number of reasons to think it might be a logical move (as noted by Hoopla, a PGO claim that the town generally believes is rather bad for scum).

2. If you see the pros and cons of such a play, why are you saying that it's definitely illogical? There are logical reasons to do it. It got rid of RVS, and it gave us plenty of material to work with. Even without the unclaim, you don't get to just state that it was an illogical play. That's what I was objecting to.

I don't get what the point of this argument is. Hoopla isn't even a PGO anymore. Why are my opinions on whether claiming PGO is a good or bad idea relevant?

If this debate actually matters, fine, we can sit around and argue. But it seems to me like this is 1) a theory smokescreen plopped in front of finding scum and 2) that the real issue is whether I changed my advocacy or not, not what the advocacy actually was. And the advocacy issue has already been addressed / is being debated below.

From what I understand, what you really mean is, "VI's that are unreadable are Vigbait." Is that accurate.

Yes.

If there is actually somebody else SCREAMING scum, then fine, you Vig them, but that usually isn't the case D1. AND OH LOOK, shotty is being a total moron and flipping between claiming scum and claiming town PR. Sounds like a mighty fine target for a VIGGIN'.

I didn't fully understand this section. Could you elaborate? At the time of the vote, you said the meta argument was the main reason, but now you claim that the claim was the main reason. Which is it? Because the way it was phrased, it didn't seem that both were "necessary but not sufficient."

They are BOTH important and need each other to exist.

Saying the argument was "mainly" about in prior posts was probably poor choice of words; I was merely trying to emphasize that AGar's argument alone was not enough to warrant the vote and that the other half of the analysis was cruically important.

If you think that this wasn't sufficiently outlined previously, then fine, feel free to think that I'm backpedaling. I'm not going to try and defend the semantics of my prior positions; I know what I meant and I am trying to be more clear now, but if it wasn't clear before and you don't get it now, there's nothing to be done. But what is more relevant is...

I don't get any of this line of attack. It's all like, lets hurl a thousand differnet poorly constructed arguments at AGM and see what happens. Why am I SCUM? Nobody has bothered to argue that at all except for Hoopla, and she's not even voting for me. WHOOSH.

VRK in particular, your vote is very uninformed, I addressed all of redtails argument in my previous post.

[Hoopla]

@Hoopla, please answer my points in 107. You've switched votes for no reason, but in your lastest post I'm still scummy enough to warrant a vote. I'd rather have Town lay out their arguments so that the rest of us can see what you're thinking, assuming you're Town. You can answer that as well while you're at it.

My wagon was AGar, You, Almaster and at one point Shotty. I've developed a town read on AGar, which leads me to believe that one of you three are scum. It seems like probabalistic reasoning, but I think I can justify it based on the opportunity my claim presented scum with. It was a simple place to stow away a vote, because there were multiple reasons to do it, with policy and my meta arguments being the main one. And if I know scum, they are generally likelier to seek safe votes early in the game than town, who are in the dark, and less concerned about the way they appear. Because you and Almaster voted me in a similar fashion, not for my claim, but for other actions, it feels like you were trying to further the wagon without being appearing to be in favour of policy. As for shotty, I have no idea what to think, but I am feeling town VI and want him to replace out if he isn't going to play the game properly.

I suppose it's mostly gut that separates you from Almaster, and I don't expect everyone else to read into this information the same way as I. But if one of you flipped scum, it would likely indicate the other as town I feel, as I don't think scumpartners would so blatantly follow another on to such a wagon. It doesn't prove anything if either of you flip town, because town/town is still a viable option.

I'm voting Elleran now because he is inidividually the scummiest player in the game now, and his weak backtracking and flipflopping seems awfully like scum realising he's in a corner that could get illuminated, and wants to shuffle away quietly. His thoughts on my argument with AGar are also bizarre and seem contrived, and like filler - extra things to fill a post, that look like something, but actually isn't. There's a lot of his play that feels like filler - non-commital, non-probing stuff to fill space. I'm hesitant to declare this as active lurking, because his play has been weird enough to be noticable, but his one commitment he made in this game (the vote on me), he withdrew in his next post after I attacked him. This is scum walking on eggshells, trying not to offend.

Idk just bored and this game feels like its going no where.

Shotty, if you're bored, replace out. Because you're making the game less fun for everyone with this type of attitude and style of play.

[Hoopla]

Also, more people need to be paying attention to Elleran. Have a look, you won't be disappointed.

[gonnano]

I'm actually inclined to believe shotty on the doctor claim -- I think it would be a very bad move to vig kill him. If he's town the mafia can't risk keeping him around for too long, and if he's still around in a couple of Days he'll basically be confirmed scum... there's no sense in taking a chance now when waiting will yield much clearer results.

[ConfidAnon]

I'm actually inclined to believe shotty on the doctor claim -- I think it would be a very bad move to vig kill him. If he's town the mafia can't risk keeping him around for too long,

and if he's still around in a couple of Days he'll basically be confirmed scum...

there's no sense in taking a chance now when waiting will yield much clearer results.

This is just asking for wifom.

[gonnano]

not really... even though the scum know that we know that they know ... etc., they still couldn't risk keeping a doctor around for more than a Day or two.

[Hoopla]

not really... even though the scum know that we know that they know ... etc., they still couldn't risk keeping a doctor around for more than a Day or two.

They can if they have a roleblocker, which is likely.

[gonnano]

What if a Vig claims? If they have a RB, we definitely have more than a just a doc, and then they would have to pick between him and Shotty. It would still make more sense for mafia just to get rid of Shotty soon so that they could hopefully block our other PR.

[gonnano]

Case on AGar:
- Jumped on the PGO claim like no tomorrow, reasoning was based on a previous play that was not actually all that similar (PGO is disprovable, Miller is not)
- Went after me for saying that it was POSSIBLE that he was scum trying to convince the town that the PGO claim was a gambit, accused me of being a scumbuddy on the basis of me not agreeing with him
- In his ISO post #13, he says that my case against him is unfounded, calls my vote OMGUS, and states more reasons that Hoopla still seems scummy to him. Somewhere in the middle of this he unvotes Hoopla. This seems like scum trying to back away from pressure without admitting that there is a case against him.
- He then pushed a case on AlmasterGM, which he is now slowly backing away from without moving his vote.

[gonnano]

@G&H - You've said that you aren't going to lie, but will you tell half-truths with the intent to deceive people? How do you feel about telling untruths without the intent to deceive (sarcasm)?

this is mostly because I'm curious, but I think it's relevant to the game too.