Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[Hoopla]

@Hoopla: Did your protective role statistics include mafia doctors at all? (I can't believe I didn't think of this question yesterday)

No redtail, only town protection roles. While we're on the topic, I'll answer this point;

But if Almaster is scum, I seriously do not see why Almaster's wagon would have competed so well, especially when the late push on Elleran was from two townies (one confirmed/one likely)

AGar was not confirmed at the time and Shotty's claim does not make him any less suspect to be scum. I played in a game once where we assumed the claimed Doctor was real. Turns out, we were wrong. I don't trust the "likely town" labels anyone applies. To be honest, you could do without them. By looking for scummy actions, you are by extension weeding out the scum from the town. Giving someone a free pass by saying they are "likely town" only gives them reason to play up to you, as I suspect Shotty did with his "save". Your opinion on this?

Was that game a newbie game by any chance? The stats I listed don't lie, KKN;

Last 50 completed Closed 12-player Mini Normals:

Games with TWO protection roles - 1
Games with ONE protection role - 42
Games with ZERO protection role - 7

This is significant data and something we should heed. There are hundreds of 'what if' outside-chances in mafia and you will lose far more than you win if you take these outside chances instead of something bigger. Shotty being scum is an outside chance for me, and by lynching him we effectively give

someone else

a free-pass. There are only so many players we can lynch and we should use them on players who are likelier to be scum - that is obvious.

If your point is that I should always keep an open-mind and not just give away a free-pass, fair enough. But I probably wouldn't lynch Shotty without a confirmed guilty from a cop/tracker/gunsmith etc, so I'm not going to waste my time pressuring him or whatever. I'd rather use my energy on people who are less likely to be town. If you disagree with my assessment he is town, feel free to continue the debate - but I don't see how you can dispute those numbers besides one game of anecdotal evidence. This is a bigger picture.

[Hoopla]

I don't trust the "likely town" labels anyone applies. To be honest, you could do without them. By looking for scummy actions, you are by extension weeding out the scum from the town. Giving someone a free pass by saying they are "likely town" only gives them reason to play up to you, as I suspect Shotty did with his "save". Your opinion on this?

Zach is more likely than not, scum.

Can you explain in a bit more detail why it is okay to label someone as likely scum (as you do), but it's not okay to classify someone as likely town? I don't understand the point about looking for scummy actions - because that seems like what everyone does. If so, why bother saying it? I don't know what you're appealing to there.

By identifying town players, you effectively minimise the pool scum can be in, which is a challenging and claustrophobic effect for scum if there is a core of town players they can't get a mislynch from. We spend so much time sifting through posts for scumtells, that a biproduct of this is scum working harder to conceal these tells. Town tells are easier to spot and you're a fool if you don't use process of elimination, as this is a brilliant way of cornering scum with less risk. Seriously, looking for town tells is a necessary facet of the game (sorry to use that line again ).

[redtail896]

The actual odds is the likelihood of how many scum would be on the wagon if it was random. This is combinatorics, and sadly beyond my mathematical level. Shanba was the one who worked out these odds for me about a month ago on AIM.[/quote]

For the record, I was bored this morning and ran the numbers: your probabilities are exactly right. The only note to add is that A. they assume that the lynchee cannot vote for himself and B. they assume that the lynchee is town. If you assume those things, that's the probability you get.

[redtail896]

EBWOP: The first paragraph of the above post should be quoting Hoopla.

[Hoopla]

For the record, I was bored this morning and ran the numbers: your probabilities are exactly right. The only note to add is that A. they assume that the lynchee cannot vote for himself and B. they assume that the lynchee is town. If you assume those things, that's the probability you get.

Yes, these numbers are just for town lynches Day 1 in a 3:9 closed Mini Normal. Very specific, but no variables means more accuracy. I have the data for how many scum are on scum D1 lynches if you want.

[ConfidAnon]

I'm finding it difficult to make a post in this game . . . nothing really comment worthy.

I will iso everyone later today and see if I notice things that way.

[AlmasterGM]

I'M GOING TO POST IN ALL CAPS WHILE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING TO THE CONVERSATION BUT RUDE OBSERVATIONS. EL OH EL OH EL.

Seriously Almaster, this is why I don't like you as town. G&H has not sat there and said "Look at me, I'm pro-town." Rather, he's been defending his play style as not being scummy. This post was completely unnecessary.

Read the rest of the game. I've been contributing plenty. That one post was clearly a mockery of Good and Honest designed to show why he is objectively scummy. And Good and Honest HAS been doing those things - he has been using a self-delcared meta to be anti-town, and even if he does offer some thoughts (most of which are outdated), he refuses to vote, answer questions, or tell us who the scum are. And then he tells us his play is "Good and Honest" in post one? No, no, no.

Same to you Almaster. You have a vote, don't you? Use that to express your feelings over G&H's unwillingness to answer you. Same to you Hoopla.

I've got that vote on Zach right now because he is way more scummy, but that has already basically been decided, so I'm spending most of my time today talking about Good and Honest.

Kid Know Nothing says he's not defending Good and Honest, but it is really starting to irk me that he always seems to find a way to attack me over my attacks on Good and Honest. Normally I'd say scum would be very wary of chainsawing, but if Good and Honest is scum, he supposedly can't lie, so the team might not have to choose between defending him or cutting him lose entirely. Chainsaw seems like an excellent way to resolve the differences between those two options, so if Good and Honest flips scum, Kid Know Nothing deserves a very, very close look.

[Kid Know Nothing]

@Hoopla: Did your protective role statistics include mafia doctors at all? (I can't believe I didn't think of this question yesterday)
@KKN: Okay, you make a fair point. But I think scumhunting is still happening. Also, a question: to what extent do you think your case against Zach (and this applies to everybody else with such a case) can applay to ConfidAnon?

I was going to look into him next, actually. Sometime later tonight.

Hoopla; Do you consider it likely that there were two scum on Elleran's lynch? Seeing as the percentage of two scum being involved with a day one lynch of a townie is fifty percent, it'd be plausible. If that was so, do you think that someone could bus Almaster? It'd be a risky play, yes, but it's worth noting that the three votes you are interested in, mine included, held little in the way of reasoning when it came to voting Almaster. I'll agree that, from your perspective, at least one of us is scum.

The reason I don't search for townie players with a conscious effort is simply because it's an unreliable cop out for someone. If a person has town tells, I will see them. Don't get me wrong. I just don't always like them. While it may not be easy to fake town tells as scum, it's certainly possible and I've always played Mafia with the notion of "Guilty until dead and confirmed." In a way, this is a good thing for games like these. While you use the process of elimination, there are going to be players using their own way of hunting. A combination of styles offer different perspectives, which is never a bad thing.


CA, why are you finding it hard to make a post in this game? There is plenty to comment on. If you'd like, I can certainly give you a lot to answer.

And in that one post and a few others, Almaster. You've been nothing but rude. You could have said that in a much more civil way.

And again, exactly how have I been defending anything that has been asked of G&H? Do I hate it when three or more townies decide that they aren't going to answer someone's questions, thus limiting discussion, thus limiting the places I can look to find scum? You better believe it. The whole point of that is

limiting conversation is scummy, and if not only scummy, it is most certainly anti-town.

I don't deny that you've contributed somewhat, but the post was completely unnecessary.

More later

[gonnano]

Gonnaro, if you find the fact that G&H is scum because he wouldn't claim for that reason, why would you use it, even jokingly?

If you have nothing to hide, you could answer the question safely. There is a difference between telling someone their play style is detrimental and mocking them because of it. There should be no harm in you answering that question.

Why would anyone say anything jokingly? I thought that it was obvious that I wasn't legitimately citing that reason, and the fact that there is no harm in answering the question is sort of the point. My intent was not to mock G&H, but to show what would happen if everyone just ignored questions that they didn't feel inspired to answer. I am willing to accept an honest playstyle, and I can even accept someone who won't vote until absolutely necessary. However, ignoring questions is not something that I would consider an acceptable playstyle. If you really, really need to know the answer to G&H's question, I will gladly answer it for you.

I disagree with people who say that mafia members have to lie. It's true that the point of being mafia is to make people believe you are town, but it is entirely possible for this to be accomplished while only making true statements.

[Espeonage]

Vote Count

4 -

Zachrulez

- Hoopla, ConfidAnon, drmyshottyizsik, AlmasterGM (L-2)
2 -

Good and Honest

- Zachrulez, Kid Know Nothing (L-4)
1 -

Vel-Rahn Koon

- gonnana (L-5)

Not Voting: redtail896, Good and Honest, Vel-Rahn Koon

Countdown Timer:
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/cus ... c=0&p0=240

[drmyshottyizsik]

can we please get some more Zach votes? He is obviously scum

[Hoopla]

Hoopla; Do you consider it likely that there were two scum on Elleran's lynch? Seeing as the percentage of two scum being involved with a day one lynch of a townie is fifty percent, it'd be plausible. If that was so, do you think that someone could bus Almaster? It'd be a risky play, yes, but it's worth noting that the three votes you are interested in, mine included, held little in the way of reasoning when it came to voting Almaster. I'll agree that, from your perspective, at least one of us is scum.

The percentage is 50% only if the wagon was completely random. This was the data from 43 similar games;

Amount of scum on a 3:9 Mini Normal Day 1

Town

Lynch (43 games):

0 Scum - 1 (2.1%)
1 Scum - 13 (27.7%)
2 Scum - 18 (38.3%)
3 Scum - 15 (31.9%)

I've ruled out 3 scum, so it's extremely likely it is 1 or 2 scum. I consider two scum a good chance, but one scum seems slightly more likely. Again, my whole point is I don't see any motivation for scum to bus their buddy unnecessarily when Elleran (amongst others) are easy targets. And if that point is true, Almaster can only be scum if you three are town, which seems significantly less likely than at least one of you being scum.

[Zachrulez]

@KKN: Okay, you make a fair point. But I think scumhunting is still happening. Also, a question: to what extent do you think your case against Zach (and this applies to everybody else with such a case) can applay to ConfidAnon?

It's less interesting that pretty much every point that ConfidAnon made against me (minus the wagon hopping point) could easily be made against him and more interesting that KKN seemingly isnt interested in him.

Being that his vote is still on Good and Honest despite his assertion that my play apparently makes me very likely scum, I'm getting the feeling that he seems to be rather interested in his vote being off wagon when I'm lynched, and that's something that's bothering me right now.

As for some of the points against me...

I'm not going to respond to anything that accuses me of fluff or one-liners because it completely ignores my approach to the game in general.

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.

@Zach: do you still favor lynching shotty?

Yes.

Why?

He's claimed scum. He's lied at least once. (And I think more than once.)

He didn't seem too concerned about being lynched when he claimed scum, which is very inconsistent with the goals of the role of doctor

. His play just says scummy to me in capital letters.

This seems contradictory. Why wouldn't scum be concerned with being lynched? If he wasn't concerned, what does that mean Zach?

The argument isn't as sound as I thought it was at the time. That would be why I'm no longer pushing for Shotty's lynch.

There is this to consider;

I'm getting a town vibe from Vel.

Illogical does not necessarily equal scummy.

Plus, there's this gem:

I buy it. Not because of the breadcrumb, those are silly. I buy it because I thought Hoopla claiming PGO was illogical and Hoopla usually isn't, so it seemed out of character.

The declarative statement, "The claim was illogical" has 2 problems: first of all, this is a very arguable point, and many would think it was logical. 2nd, why do you know think it was illogical, when earlier you said that you could understand the reasoning behind it.

In short, I agree with AGar.

VOTE: AlmasterGM

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

Vote:AlmasterGM

Again, voting without offering anything himself. Parroting off of the ideas of another player.

So you're making it a prerequisite that whenever someone votes, they need to come up with their own reasoning to do so? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do that short of making stuff up. Points were raised on Almaster, and they were legitimate ones. I agreed they were scummy and voted accordingly.

Unvote: Vote:AlmasterGM

Dislike Almaster's 227 where he seems to be

pushing on shotty be scum with shaky theories.

I still dislike shotty's scumclaim a lot... but the fact that he later claimed doctor and that claim has not been countered seems to point to shotty town on reflection.

He back steps. Actually, he pulls a complete 180. Shotty goes from being absolute scum, even if he isn't that we should lynch him based on a LAL policy, to partially defending him and attacking Almaster for a lot of the same points. Almaster did add some actual content to that discussion however, whether beneficial or not is up to opinion.

It's called analyzing and reacting. I had new information, and that information changed my primary suspicions. Some people would call it changing your mind. Open minded play is certainly more preferable to close minded play.

Deadline's about 24 hours from now and I'm not sure what my weekend access is going to be like. Given the deadline rules I'm going to change my vote now as I'm ok with an Elleran lynch at this point and I don't want to risk a no lynch.

Unvote: Vote: Elleran

L-1

Zach comments on Elleran

once

all of day one, and yet he is perfectly content with the lynch.

Mislynches are great when you're not on them and can look for an easy target to blame for them aren't they? Have some scumpoints.

I was happy with an Elleran lynch at the time because he demonstrated multiple times that he wasn't paying attention to the game. That behavior left me feeling there was a good chance for him to flip scum. Just because I didn't comment on it doesn't mean I didn't see the scummy things he was doing.

Better yet, lynch Good and Honest. Seriously, one post through the entirety of day 2?

G&H's one post had more content than all of Zach's combined. In my opinion.

Quantity =/= Quality

Plus nothing she says is going to actually amount to a vote... so... she's posting to what end exactly? Contributing to what end? Making points that others might agree with and vote on? How is that content? How is that contribution? It's like the opposite of contribution. It's sitting back and hiding. It's ridiculous. I could care less how much she "contributes" at this point, cause she's NOT contributing anything. I'm more interested in the anti-town behaviors and the potential scum motivations behind them, and I see clear scum motivation behind her refusal to claim. (Refusing to claim because she would have to lie.)

At this point I'd be putting some serious thought into whether I want my vote on KKN or G&H if not for this one little gem that confid directed at Good and Honest.

Good & Honest, is your alignment anything other than Town?

I looked through her iso, and I couldn't find anywhere that she bothers to address this question. If it was any other player it might not be a big deal, but considering her meta...

Why exactly am I the leading bandwagon again?

[Good and Honest]

Happy birthday, Hoopla! I wish you all the best! And, even if you sometimes come across players like me whose way of playing you don't approve of, may you always enjoy your games of Mafia!

drmyshottyizsik, in our other game you at least gave reasons for your suspicions. Could you please explain why you think Zachrulez is a mafioso?

redtail896, yes, soccer is a team game. So, if one wants to play by only using one's left foot, it's only fair to tell that to one's teammates from the beginning so they can adjust. Which is what I have done. I have done it in each of my games on this site and I intend to always do it - in my very first post in every game I participate in, I warn the other players about my playstyle.

Also, I realize very well that my teammates have the right to be angry. That's why I have said it in each of my games - if someone thinks my playstyle is making the game less enjoyable for them, they can vote for me.

By the way, I had a couple of questions for you. I hope you'll answer them.

gonnano, I'm surprised by your reaction. You yourself had previously stated that I have to be asked the "right questions" - when I said I can't promise I'll answer all questions, I was thinking mainly about questions like ConfidAnon's (which Zachrulez has brought up now and I'll talk more about this below). As I said, I'm always open to questions. And since it looks like you didn't understand my point about the stimulus coming from the inside, I'll explain in greater detail:

Since I want to always be honest, each time I reveal my role (or something about it) in a game of Mafia is going to be a remarkable event. I have been imagining some special situations where I'll do it and that will make that particular game very memorable... So, obviously, I want the stimulus for revealing (a part of) my role to be coming from the inside - if I answer questions about my role or participate in mass claims (i.e., when the stimulus comes from the outside), everything special about my revealing my role will be lost. And that will make the game less interesting for everyone, I think.

So my thoughts about the stimulus were solely related to my role in a game of Mafia. They had nothing to do with answering questions in general. After all, when one answers questions, the stimulus always comes from the outside - and, once again, I'm always open to questions.

I hope you'll now answer my question. I have an additional one - you're voting for Vel-Rahn Koon and one of the reasons you've given is that Vel-Rahn Koon voted and unvoted Elleran in quick succession. Why do you find that suspicious?

Vel-Rahn Koon, once again, I'll agree with gonnano that a mafioso doesn't HAVE TO lie. Let's imagine a mafioso in a particular game who, from reading the thread, gets the feeling that Player X looks the most suspicious. So the mafioso says that and might even vote for Player X. Technically, the mafioso would know that Player X is an innocent townsperson but from reading the thread the mafioso finds Player X the most suspicious. So if the mafioso says "I find Player X the most suspicious", wouldn't that be honest?

I like the example you've given with redtail896. Yes, I approve of what redtail896 has done so far - wasn't willing to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; investigated some players, pointing out contradictions in their posts. However, redtail896 hasn't given analysis on ALL of the other players in the game. In fact, it's exactly because I noticed that redtail896 hasn't commented on gonnano yet that I asked redtail896 my second question. The fact that in redtail896's next post there was no answer worries me a little... But I can't be sure what it means.

You're asking me about my honest opinion. The thing is, I don't like too definite statements that someone is a mafioso or not. There can be multiple explanations for everything. In my first game on this forum, at one point I presented my idea that two players were mafia partners. I was so proud at the time because I thought I had solved the case... But, as it turned out, neither of the two players were mafiosi and I felt stupid. It's probably not strange that I don't want to be wrong; moreover, I'd feel bad if I make strong accusations that prove to be wrong. Also, I think that when I make an observation about something, the observation itself is more valuable than whether I think it might mean someone is a mafioso. After all, every player can decide what they think about the observation - but they wouldn't have been able to if the observation didn't exist in the first place.

Still, in my answer to AlmasterGM in my previous post, I did mention some players whose behaviour has caught my attention and I guess there's no harm in explaining once again why:

AlmasterGM - seemed eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; I said I wasn't happy with AlmasterGM's behaviour and AlmasterGM expressed willingness to lynch me at the end of Day 1; AlmasterGM still hasn't explained to me the real reasons for voting for Elleran.

Hoopla - was the main driving force behind Elleran's lynch; hasn't explained being THAT eager to lynch Elleran and especially bringing up Newbie 957 (where Elleran was lynched for a similar behaviour as a "Townie") if that wouldn't affect Hoopla's position towards Elleran; after I asked why some people were so eager to lynch Elleran as quickly as possible, Hoopla presented the idea of lynching me (supposedly simply for refusing to participate in the mass claim).

Zachrulez - seemed very eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik; I said I wasn't happy with Zachrulez's behaviour and Zachrulez expressed willingness to lynch me at the end of Day 1; didn't do much on Day 1 and only started interacting with ConfidAnon after I hinted at their lack of interactions.

ConfidAnon - I found ConfidAnon's actions towards gonnano strange; didn't do much on Day 1 and only started interacting with Zachrulez after I hinted at their lack of interactions.

Also, Vel-Rahn Koon, recently I have been wondering about you. In the beginning you were quite active; you weren't willing to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - good things. But you have been relatively inactive lately and you still haven't answered my question whether your comments towards ConfidAnon are also valid for Zachrulez. It seems to me like you're somehow avoiding to comment on Zachrulez.

But I'll say it once more - even if I haven't found something really noteworthy about a certain player, that doesn't automatically make them an innocent townsperson. I agree with Kid Know Nothing that one should always consider the possibility that each other player might be a mafioso.

AlmasterGM, I might not have done exactly what you wanted me to but I still shared thoughts which were related to your question. You, on the other hand, continually neglect my questions/comments towards you.

Regarding your comments towards me - did you actually look at my three other games, which I have linked to? In my opinion, the things you say I'm doing (or not doing) here are the same things that I've done (or not done) in my previous three games. If you find something about me in our current game which is different from my other games, you're welcome to say that.

About my "Good and Honest" playstyle - "good" means that I don't want to do "bad" things (this is mostly related to potential games where I'd be a mafioso); "honest" means that I don't want to lie - and later in post #456 you yourself state about me: "he supposedly can't lie". So I don't know what you're saying "No, no, no" to concerning my playstyle.

Also, AlmasterGM, you insist that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me. First of all, if a player is defending another player, does that really reveal something about their roles? Second, even if certain posts by Kid Know Nothing can be counted as "defense", I think some of redtail896's posts can also be counted as "defense". Yet you have stated more than once that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me but haven't said anything about redtail896 "defending" me. Why are you using such selectivity?

I want to say something about the discussion between Zachrulez and Kid Know Nothing regarding drmyshottyizsik - I think the reason drmyshottyizsik wasn't concerned about being lynched was that drmyshoyttyizsik was bored of this game. That has nothing to do with drmyshottyizsik's actual role in the game.

Zachrulez, you say the accusations against you completely ignore your approach to the game in general. Would you, please, explain what your approach to the game in general is?

I'm wondering why you thought that Elleran's lack of attention (especially with the evidence from Newbie 957) made it a "good chance" for Elleran to be a mafioso.

Also, I'm confused by this sentence of yours: "Quantity =/= Quality". Wouldn't that actually prove my point - that your numerous short posts (bigger in quantity) weren't necessarily better (in quality) than my single long post?

Finally, I'm shocked if you really expected me to answer ConfidAnon's question. I have received similar questions in all of my games on this site and I have never answered them. In fact, here is an explanation I gave in my first game:

"I'm not going to claim any role. I always want to be honest so whenever I say I have a certain role, that will be true. That's not a problem when I have a "good" role... But sometimes I'll probably be a mafioso and then I'd have to say "I'm a mafioso"... which, like I already said, would spoil the game for everyone. So obviously in those cases I'll have to remain silent. But then if I always claim that I have a "good" role when I do have a "good" role, people will logically conclude that in the games where I choose to remain silent, I'm a mafioso! So that doesn't help, either. Therefore, the solution is not to claim any role... unless the case is special, of course (I'm thinking mostly about situations that can occur during the late stages of the game)"

By the way, I asked something in my third game and no one really explained it to me so A QUESTION TO EVERYONE - if my playstyle is that "detrimental to the town", how come in my second game the mafiosi killed me on Night 1 and in the post-game comments they said they had considered me a threat to them?

I must admit I'm starting to despair. More and more of you seem to neglect my questions/comments towards them. That certainly didn't happen in my previous three games (one player announced they wouldn't read my posts until I vote but soon changed their mind)... You must realize that by neglecting my questions and comments you're preventing me from developing the discussion and thus less information is available for everyone.

Kid Know Nothing, I'm glad you seem to agree with me about my previous paragraph. I have to say that I don't mind it at all if people are discussing my playstyle but that certainly shouldn't be the only thing they're doing. In my first game Day 1 revolved mostly around discussions about my playstyle and, as a result, there was little information for the following days...

I have a couple of questions for you, Kid Know Nothing - you say that from Hoopla's perspective (regarding the votes on Day 1) at least one of you, ConfidAnon and Zachrulez is a mafioso. What is your perspective?

The other question - you mention that there didn't seem to be many reasons for your vote for AlmasterGM. Is that how you think the other players perceived your vote or did you yourself think at the time your reasons for the vote weren't strong?

Hoopla, I have been thinking about something. According to that quote you gave, you enjoy the game of Mafia because of the challenge. Previously, you said that my playstyle makes it more difficult to determine what my role in a particular game is - isn't that actually challenging?

I think a problem with some of your analyses is that you disregard some possible explanations because someone doing a certain thing would be "unnecessary". Whether something is "unnecessary" or not doesn't mean that someone won't do it.

Also, you didn't comment on certain things regarding the votes from Day 1. For example, at one stage redtail896 voted AlmasterGM but then switched to Elleran. Do you think that has any importance (I'm still asking you questions in the hope you'll answer them someday)?

By the way, you seem to acknowledge that Elleran was an "easy target". Since you're realizing that, why indeed were you so eager to lynch Elleran?

[drmyshottyizsik]

Good and Honest I will give reaasons just for you.

I'm getting a town vibe from Vel.

Illogical does not necessarily equal scummy.

Plus, there's this gem:

I buy it. Not because of the breadcrumb, those are silly. I buy it because I thought Hoopla claiming PGO was illogical and Hoopla usually isn't, so it seemed out of character.

The declarative statement, "The claim was illogical" has 2 problems: first of all, this is a very arguable point, and many would think it was logical. 2nd, why do you know think it was illogical, when earlier you said that you could understand the reasoning behind it.

In short, I agree with AGar.

VOTE: AlmasterGM

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

Vote:AlmasterGM

Here he piggy backs and Get behind a wagon with out reason right after getting mad that I did that.

Vigging a troublesome player whose alignment is unclear is the correct vig play for night 1.

Vigging a troublesome player who you have a strong town read is not.

Honestly, his stance on Hoopla bothers me more.

Here he says that Vigs should kill people they are unsure about... NOOOO Vigs should kill people they have an anti-town or scum read from, only scum wants a Vig to blind fire.

Unvote: Vote: drmyshottyizsik

Die

Then he blind votes me with no reason other than
"Die"

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

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.

I was making a point and he pushed and stretched this as far as he could, but as soon as he realized this wagon wasn't going to roll, in his very next post he says

Unvote: Vote:AlmasterGM

Dislike Almaster's 227 where he seems to be pushing on shotty be scum with shaky theories. I still dislike shotty's scumclaim a lot... but the fact that he later claimed doctor and that claim has not been countered seems to point to shotty town on reflection.

Ok this is your next post Zach, you imedietly jump right on to the next wagon. And your only reason you can give is because he had a shaky theory on me. So, what would you call your theories? Also it seemed like he was asking for a counter claim, as to draw out a second doctor.

2) shotty is a proven idiot and could still be lying town, meaning we out the doctor AND mislynch shotty.

The fact that you throw this out there as a possibility bothers me. I don't think I ever saw anyone mention it, but if Shotty is NOT the doctor and town, he should take the claim back in his next post because this scenario can be seriously detrimental to the town.

God why do you have to think like scum???? Zack people can mention things even if no one else has mentioned it. Not every one is as scummy as you and just jumps right on to someone elses ideas.

Show of hands, who would lynch G&H if he doesn't complete the massclaim?

*Shows hand*

So you want to blind lynch someone? Only scum would want that Zach. Lets the vig take care of him if he must die. You have no indication that he is scum. You will never get G&H to claim so don't try or you will always be trying to lynch him.

Deadline's about 24 hours from now and I'm not sure what my weekend access is going to be like. Given the deadline rules I'm going to change my vote now as I'm ok with an Elleran lynch at this point and I don't want to risk a no lynch.

Unvote: Vote: Elleran

L-1

Ok so now a new wagon appears and what does Zach do???? He jumps on it, and his reason is that we are close to dead line, and killing a towny is better than killing no one at all... Here is when I knew he was scum.

Anyway 2 things bother me about Good and Honest right now.

1. The refusal to claim at the end of the mass protective claim when she could have easily protested earlier. Why wait until everyone else has claimed to take that kind of stand? Don't like it at all.

2. Other than that toward the end of the day, there wasn't a peep of contribution from her. That looks pretty calculated to me on reflection.

Vote: Good and Honest

Ok so here if I was inside Zach's brain this is what would be going threw it
"ok so Hoopla said this may be a good idea to off him, so now I will vote him and once again just jump on someone elses idea"

Either way, my point still stands. The only way it could have been a displayed lack of attention is if I honestly made a mistake. In your post, you attacked me of both intentionally misrepresenting you and unintentionally making a mistake.

Fine, it's not a misrep, but it's still scummy.

Why as town would you throw that kind of accusation out there without verifying it?

Here Zach I agree with you, but it is also why I think you are scum. You totally just got mad at him for what you are doing 1000000 times worse.

As I have said, I intend to always be honest when playing a game of Mafia.

So, in general, I won't reveal what my role in a particular game is. In our current game, I was only supposed to say whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not - but that still has something to do with my role. I have to say it - I don't plan to NEVER reveal my role. In fact, I can think of special situations when I'll do it. This is also my answer to Hoopla's question at the end of Day 1 - that will really depend on the situation.

If you take the bolded as an honest assessment of the kind of player you are, there is a clear scum motivation for you to refuse to claim.

Or he doesn't want to draw attention to a PR. YOU have a clear scum motivation for wanting him to claim.

And then he pushes for more G&H lynchness.
And Zach have you claimed yet? Just wondering, cause you are so interested in everyone else doing it.



There's my case against Zach.
Happy G&H?

[gonnano]

And Zach have you claimed yet? Just wondering, cause you are so interested in everyone else doing it.

Not a protective role.

Read the thread, please.

---------------------------------------------------

gonnano, I'm surprised by your reaction. You yourself had previously stated that I have to be asked the "right questions" - when I said I can't promise I'll answer all questions, I was thinking mainly about questions like ConfidAnon's (which Zachrulez has brought up now and I'll talk more about this below). As I said, I'm always open to questions. And since it looks like you didn't understand my point about the stimulus coming from the inside, I'll explain in greater detail:

Since I want to always be honest, each time I reveal my role (or something about it) in a game of Mafia is going to be a remarkable event. I have been imagining some special situations where I'll do it and that will make that particular game very memorable... So, obviously, I want the stimulus for revealing (a part of) my role to be coming from the inside - if I answer questions about my role or participate in mass claims (i.e., when the stimulus comes from the outside), everything special about my revealing my role will be lost. And that will make the game less interesting for everyone, I think.

By "the right questions" I meant any question that does not break your playstyle, and I would expect you to answer the vast majority of those questions. The question "Do you have a protection role?" does not break your playstyle, so I would expect you to answer it. The question "Who would you vote for right now if you absolutely had to vote?" does not break your playstyle, so I would expect you to answer it.

I will answer questions from G&H if:
1. G&H answers the questions that don't break the honest playstyle, or
2. Someone else asks me the same question.

[redtail896]

Now, I understand suspicion of Zach (I have my fair share). But there are a few points in shotty's case there that I can't let slide by:

Here he says that Vigs should kill people they are unsure about... NOOOO Vigs should kill people they have an anti-town or scum read from, only scum wants a Vig to blind fire.

I'm inclined to believe that this is a vig strategy disagreement and not necessarily scumminess. I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster).

Then he blind votes me with no reason other than
"Die"

You had just claimed scum. Now, I think this is a dumb vote, and you can certainly argue with the logic of his reason, but to say that he had

no

reason is disingenuous.

So you want to blind lynch someone? Only scum would want that Zach. Lets the vig take care of him if he must die. You have no indication that he is scum. You will never get G&H to claim so don't try or you will always be trying to lynch him.

Zach is far from the only person suggesting or supporting a policy lynch on G&H. You may disagree, but why is it scummy. And why not call the others out on it?

Ok so now a new wagon appears and what does Zach do???? He jumps on it, and his reason is that we are close to dead line, and killing a towny is better than killing no one at all... Here is when I knew he was scum.

He didn't know that Elleran was town. I didn't know Elleran was town. Nobody on the wagon (except the mafia obviously) knew that Elleran was town. And having a lynch is preferable to no lynch.

And Zach have you claimed yet? Just wondering, cause you are so interested in everyone else doing it.

He claimed not a PR like everybody else yesterday except you and G&H.


G&H: I did not ignore your questions. I merely didn't answer them. I wanted to hear what you had to say first. Thank you for giving us some of your reads in your previous post. I encourage you to continue. I do feel that, due to the unique circumstances of this limited massclaim, your claiming of PR or not PR would not be against the code that you've described. In addition, if you

are

a doctor (or other protective role), it's incredibly important that we know that fact, and adjust the situation accordingly. I implore you to consider this as an exception to your normal refusal to claim.

Although I respectfully disagree with your playstyle (I'm trying to be respectful, so please don't be angry), I am unwilling to lynch you based solely on it. However, I think you do encounter the problem that, by the time you have informed the other players of your playstyle differences, the game has already begun and their only choice is to accept them or lynch you (more likely than not, lynching you will be a net negative for the team). I don't see an easy way around this problem unfortunately, but I believe that it's something to think about.

Now, on to your questions.

redtail896, on Day 1 you interrogated AlmasterGM quite a lot; now you have listed some notable things about Zachrulez's behaviour. In this context, what do you think of Hoopla's suggestion that EXACTLY ONE of them is a mafioso?

As I've previously said, while I agree with most of Hoopla's logic concerning examining the Elleran wagon on D1, I'm unsure of some of her conclusions. If we examine the D1 bandwagon and remove AGar (confirmed town), shotty (very likely town), myself (obviously), and Hoopla (shakier theoretical ground here, but let's accept it for the moment), then we are left with gonnano, Zach, and Almaster. Of these, we're pretty sure that 1 or 2 are town.

Off of that wagon, we have G&H, KKN, ConfidAnon, and VRK. Basically, I think Hoopla is paying too much attention to the first 3, and not enough to these 3. In particular, I think that ConfidAnon suffers from many of the same problems that Zachrulez does.

Also, when discussing the votes from Day 1, you mention that Hoopla considers gonnano an innocent townsperson. What about you? Do you have any thoughts on gonnano you'd like to share?

On day 1 I thought that gonnano was a bit fluffy in his contributions. The biggest element of his play was his anti-AGar case, which I have problems with (yes, I know that that's much easier to say in retrospect). Despite his claim, I think that he

was

tunneling AGar for a good chunk of D1, even while voting Elleran.

The thing I'm most noticing about his day 2 play is that he hasn't posted much analysis, even in his longer posts. Most of it is playstyle and theory discussion with you, G&H (to be fair, I'm guilty of some of this too), and a vote on VRK that hasn't seen much, if any, followup.

[gonnano]

What kind of followup would you like me to make, redtail? Unless I'm missing something, VRK's posting since my vote for him has been limited to the playstyle and theory type of discussion that you criticized me for. The points that I made in my vote post still stand, and I think the fact that no one has refuted them says a lot.

[drmyshottyizsik]

And Zach have you claimed yet? Just wondering, cause you are so interested in everyone else doing it.

Not a protective role.

Read the thread, please.

This is not a claim, this is saying hey I'm not a doctor.

[gonnano]

what claim did you think Zach was referring to? All he's expecting G&H to do is say doc or not doc.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Well I think he should full claim

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vel-Rahn Koon, once again, I'll agree with gonnano that a mafioso doesn't HAVE TO lie. Let's imagine a mafioso in a particular game who, from reading the thread, gets the feeling that Player X looks the most suspicious. So the mafioso says that and might even vote for Player X. Technically, the mafioso would know that Player X is an innocent townsperson but from reading the thread the mafioso finds Player X the most suspicious. So if the mafioso says "I find Player X the most suspicious", wouldn't that be honest?

This is nitpicking and I'm willing to let it go. It's not getting us towards the goal of lynching scum.

Also, Vel-Rahn Koon, recently I have been wondering about you. In the beginning you were quite active; you weren't willing to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - good things. But you have been relatively inactive lately and you still haven't answered my question whether your comments towards ConfidAnon are also valid for Zachrulez. It seems to me like you're somehow avoiding to comment on Zachrulez.

Sorry G&H, can you link me to the post please. I'll be happy to answer it and at the same time I'll provide more of my read wrt Zach.

[Hoopla]

Right, we have four days until deadline. The game is stalling. We have enough collected suspicion for Zach to claim and there is no point waiting until 24 hours until deadline for him to claim, as that gives us NO time to readjust or discuss his claim if necessary. Because we are not going anywhere, and I don't see any other viable wagons (other than G&H, but he won't claim anyway), I'm going to request him to claim.

ZACH: CLAIM IN YOUR NEXT POST

Seriously, we need to get on with. This game is stalling badly.

[AlmasterGM]

Ugh, so many walls of text.

And in that one post and a few others, Almaster. You've been nothing but rude. You could have said that in a much more civil way.

Fine, I'm being rude. I'm extremely annoyed by Good and Honest and so long as it doesn't cross "the line," I'm going to continue to be that way. Personally, I think the REAL rude one in this game is him, since everybody else here is playing as optimally as they can to win, whereas he is just playing to satisfy his own selfish desire to enjoy a "Good and Honest" playstyle.

And again, exactly how have I been defending anything that has been asked of G&H? Do I hate it when three or more townies decide that they aren't going to answer someone's questions, thus limiting discussion, thus limiting the places I can look to find scum? You better believe it. The whole point of that is limiting conversation is scummy, and if not only scummy, it is most certainly anti-town.

I'll answer the questions, but I don't see how the "anti-town" sentiment doesn't apply with double the magnitude to Good and Honest. His playstyle is JUST AS IF NOT MORE anti-town, but you keep saying that "I can see where he's coming from," and things like that. Why is he allowed to have this self-declared meta but I'm not?

AlmasterGM, I might not have done exactly what you wanted me to but I still shared thoughts which were related to your question. You, on the other hand, continually neglect my questions/comments towards you.

You refuse to vote, which is OBJECTIVELY anit-town. I'm refusing to answer your questions, which you say is anti-town. Just because your username is Good and Honest doesn't excuse you making plays that are bad for the town. The reality is you are playing this way because you think it's more fun. Why can't I say "it's more fun to not answer G&H's questions," and then never answer them? What's the difference between those two?

And don't come back here and tell me you are contributing in different ways. I don't care. Refusing to vote is still anti-town because it doesn't let us do wagon analysis, which as Hoopla has demonstrated, is a large part of the game.

Regarding your comments towards me - did you actually look at my three other games, which I have linked to? In my opinion, the things you say I'm doing (or not doing) here are the same things that I've done (or not done) in my previous three games. If you find something about me in our current game which is different from my other games, you're welcome to say that.

I don't care what your meta is, you deserve to be lynched Day 1 in every single game you ever play in until you stop with this nonsense playstyle.

About my "Good and Honest" playstyle - "good" means that I don't want to do "bad" things (this is mostly related to potential games where I'd be a mafioso); "honest" means that I don't want to lie - and later in post #456 you yourself state about me: "he supposedly can't lie". So I don't know what you're saying "No, no, no" to concerning my playstyle.[/quote]
What is a "bad" thing? Personally, I think your refusal to vote and the other rediculous aspects of your playstyle are "bad," as does

everybody else in the game.

Also, AlmasterGM, you insist that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me. First of all, if a player is defending another player, does that really reveal something about their roles? Second, even if certain posts by Kid Know Nothing can be counted as "defense", I think some of redtail896's posts can also be counted as "defense". Yet you have stated more than once that Kid Know Nothing is "defending" me but haven't said anything about redtail896 "defending" me. Why are you using such selectivity?

Because Kid Know Nothing is chainsawing. I have already explained why this would be an apt move between you two if you were scumbuddies.



ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

[redtail896]

ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

Please explain to me why Zach is scum and ConfidAnon is not. I think CA has flown way under the radar here for essentially playing the same game that Zach has.
VOTE: ConfidAnon
Want to come out and play?