Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[Cabd]

Fucking sigh.

[Micc]

Yuck. This always seems to happen when I get lazy.

Time to re-evaluate with an open mind I guess.

[Micc]

My lynch pool is down to Micc and Hopkirk, with Papa Zito as the outside chance.

Let's talk about this. Why's Zito the least likely to be scum out of this group?

[BTD6_maker]

My lynch pool is down to Micc and Hopkirk, with Papa Zito as the outside chance.

Let's talk about this. Why's Zito the least likely to be scum out of this group?

That was not to do with mechanics. The reason I thought Papa Zito was least likely was because I personally Townread him.

[Micc]

Yeah, I'm asking you about that Town read. Do you still have it? Can you explain it?

[Hopkirk]

Zito is least likely scum for me too since his read/interactions with Chip played a somewhat significant part in my vote on Chip, and his arguments didn't look like bussing.

BTD still most likely, but it's possible Micc/Chip were hard bussing, so I want to reread Micc first.

[Micc]

I'm leaning towards BTD right now as well. 750 is a mess of a post but it caught my eye when looking back. There's a lot of evidence of BTD and Chip defending each other's stances, and some decent pressure being put on BTD from UCV. The pressure on BTD from UCV possibly explains the ignition on Night 2 despite not being the optimal path to victory for scum.

The votecount on post 494 is interesting.

Spoiler:

VC 1.6

The flight is departing.

Leading Wagon:
BTD6_maker (3) - Hopkirk, Micc, Papa Zito
northsidegal (2) - UC Voyager, CheekyTeeky

Micc (1) - Cabd
CheekyTeeky (1) - northsidegal


Not Voting: BTD6_maker, Chip Butty

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-29 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
CheekyTeeky has reclaimed their slot.
UC Voyager replaces TheThawClown! Welcome, UCV.

From here there's some response to the pressure from BTD that I don't think any of us were happy with then gets down a Cheeky vote and goes away for a while. Next comes the interactions between Chip and Zito which lead to Chip's flashwagon and eventual lynch. I can see that being Chip trying to move the wagon from BTD to Zito, but I'm not sure that really fits. NSG would be the easy counterwagon at that point, but maybe it wasn't viable for Chip because he had her as pretty town at this point.

[Papa Zito]

Clearly time for a reread.

[BTD6_maker]

Yeah, I'm asking you about that Town read. Do you still have it? Can you explain it?

I have explained it as being based on the interactions between Chip and Zito on Day 1. My main point was that there would not be much benefit in performing a scum theatre in that manner, with Zito making weak points to try to get Chip lynched but Chip giving refutations.

Anyway, UC Voyager was killed on Night 2. Someone primed them on Night 1, perhaps thinking that they are hard to lynch, and then killed them on Night 2, considering them a threat.

The person who killed UC Voyager did not want to clear CheekyTeeky. The default assumption in most games is that slots which do not submit actions do not perform actions. Thus, unless someone knew about the rules beforehand, they would be likely to think that it would clear CheekyTeeky and thus avoid it. When Day starts, they would want to make sure people knew the rules, knowledge of which would mean that CheekyTeeky was not cleared and was even the most obvious lynch candidate.

All this points to Micc. Of course the real scum could have been inactive at the start of the Day but Micc's actions at the start of the Day seem to be very consistent with scum who knew that once the rules were explained CheekyTeeky would be lynched.

VOTE: Micc

[Micc]

You're accusing me of deliberately taking advantage of the moderator's role and influence on the game to advance my win condition. Please stop with that crap.

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.

[Hopkirk]

@BTD: why would scum Micc do that (ask for clarification publically) instead of just asking Lycanfire by PM to publically clarify what he'd do at the start of the day?

[Hopkirk]

You're accusing me of deliberately taking advantage of the moderator's role and influence on the game to advance my win condition. Please stop with that crap.

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.

Why Zito is least likely of possible scum/why he was less likely to be bussing.

Firstly, Zito couldn’t have planned a bus since a.) his predecessor had a fairly consistent Chip town read, and b.) he subbed in so couldn’t plan it.

Zito’s read on Chip naturally develops in 518-520-522-524-532-542. His criticisms of Chip also aligned with my earlier suspicions on Chip, so are legitimate rather than looking made up to bus. The alternative to town Zito would be Zito getting fed up with a partner and bussing him accidently (without expecting it to get a lynch), but that doesn’t fit since Zito keeps pushing the same points.

[Hopkirk]

The main reason I'm concerned Micc might have been hard bussing Chip is more related to Chip's posts than Micc's. Chip doesn't really respond to Micc's push in the same way he responds to Zito (with an actual vote), despite obsessing with Micc being about half the content of his posts. Yesterday I was thinking this made Micc lean more town, but if it's a one way bus (Micc pushing Chip but not Chip pushing Micc), that could explain why Chip's Micc read is weirdly inconsistent.

VOTE: Chip butty
Well none of that moved me away from wanting to see this wagon happen. I don't like his trajectory on me. He moved me from towniest among the active slots to being null simply by not posting for a day. I thought the creater of the setup thing was a joke at first but he reemphisised it without anyone else bringing it up and I can't see why he's letting that have an impact on his read.

My understanding of his point against hopkirk is that hopkirks reads are superficial and or lack deep analysis. Not only do I disagree with that I think I could accuse Chip of that same thing. Seems like more of his reads are activity based than anything else which I see as very superficial.

I still like the justifications around the initial push since they were the same as why I had Chip as light scum.

Seriously Chip. Put a vote into play.

Predit: haha, haven't you realized that Chip's go to method of reading people is that activity=Town, any sign of lurkyness=scum and absent=null.

The first line here is the main thing that made me a little suspicious in a reread, could be instructing a partner/trying to push him for a bus.

[Hopkirk]

Will do a reread BTD later, but he's currently my top scumread.

[Cabd]

I'm going to re-read and make my decision tomorrow. This is LYLO unless we get SUPER lucky and happen to lynch the townie who was primed, I think? I'll math it out.

[Micc]

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.

Just to be clear, I was looking for BTD to answer this. Not really sure it matters though. I've re-read and I don't have any interest lynching outside of BTD today.

predit: nah this isn't lylo. Five alive with at most one primed means that a mislynch and ignition leaves 3 player lylo tomorrow.

[northsidegal]

to play devil's advocate here - why does btd6 make a play that basically leaves him as the only viable lynch option for yesterday? assuming that btd6's 808 is genuine, why would he place himself in that position?

[Micc]

If he's genuinely clearing cheeky there then the game's solved from his point of view and I can't see him not noticing that.

[northsidegal]

If he's genuinely clearing cheeky there then the game's solved from his point of view and I can't see him not noticing that.

could you elaborate on that?

[Micc]

With 6 players alive and no one primed the earliest scum can win is after 3 mislynches. BTD acknowledged this in post 808.

Cabd being confirmed town, clearing cheeky based off the nightkill and knowing his own alignment leaves only 3 players left in the lynch pool. Three players in the pool and 3 mislynches to give is a solved game.

I think he would have gotten to that point in his analysis if he was genuinely clearing cheeky there.

[BTD6_maker]

With 6 players alive and no one primed the earliest scum can win is after 3 mislynches. BTD acknowledged this in post 808.

Cabd being confirmed town, clearing cheeky based off the nightkill and knowing his own alignment leaves only 3 players left in the lynch pool. Three players in the pool and 3 mislynches to give is a solved game.

I think he would have gotten to that point in his analysis if he was genuinely clearing cheeky there.

I know my own alignment, but the key point was that Town as a whole does not. Thus there were 4 non-cleared rather than 3.

You're accusing me of deliberately taking advantage of the moderator's role and influence on the game to advance my win condition. Please stop with that crap.

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.

That's not what I am doing. If the Mod had made their mechanics for randomising actions public, igniting (to frame CheekyTeeky) would still have been the best play. I am suggesting that it's

possible

that you asked the Mod about this and then put two and two together. I'm not saying it's likely. Even then, it raises the probability of you being scum above random as I think you are the most likely player, out of everyone here, who would have done that based on your Day 3 posts.

[Micc]

I know my own alignment, but the key point was that Town as a whole does not. Thus there were 4 non-cleared rather than 3.

Have you ever been Town in 3 player lylo and all of a sudden scum votes you and the other player doesn't hammer. This is the same thing. 1 other player in the pool with 1 lynch available is no different than 3 other players in the pool with 3 lynches available. Lynch everyone in the pool who isn't you and the game is over.

That's not what I am doing. If the Mod had made their mechanics for randomising actions public, igniting (to frame CheekyTeeky) would still have been the best play. I am suggesting that it's possible that you asked the Mod about this and then put two and two together. I'm not saying it's likely. Even then, it raises the probability of you being scum above random as I think you are the most likely player, out of everyone here, who would have done that based on your Day 3 posts.

First off, igniting to frame cheeky can never be the right play. It doesn't get scum any mislynches closer to winning the game. Secondly, you absolutely are accusing me of asking how the moderator would handle missed actions over the night period and then intentionally abusing the moderator's flawed system to my advantage. That's gross and no scum win is worth that. This isn't debatable.

[BTD6_maker]

I know my own alignment, but the key point was that Town as a whole does not. Thus there were 4 non-cleared rather than 3.

Have you ever been Town in 3 player lylo and all of a sudden scum votes you and the other player doesn't hammer. This is the same thing. 1 other player in the pool with 1 lynch available is no different than 3 other players in the pool with 3 lynches available. Lynch everyone in the pool who isn't you and the game is over.

I know what you are talking about. I did realise that, but the same objection applies. A 3P LyLo is not a guaranteed Town win, for the same reasons that this was not a guaranteed Town win.

That's not what I am doing. If the Mod had made their mechanics for randomising actions public, igniting (to frame CheekyTeeky) would still have been the best play. I am suggesting that it's possible that you asked the Mod about this and then put two and two together. I'm not saying it's likely. Even then, it raises the probability of you being scum above random as I think you are the most likely player, out of everyone here, who would have done that based on your Day 3 posts.

First off, igniting to frame cheeky can never be the right play. It doesn't get scum any mislynches closer to winning the game. Secondly, you absolutely are accusing me of asking how the moderator would handle missed actions over the night period and then intentionally abusing the moderator's flawed system to my advantage. That's gross and no scum win is worth that. This isn't debatable.

Firstly, while it doesn't get scum mislynches closer to winning, it is still beneficial as it means that scum still wins in two mislynches if Cabd protects once or a primed Townie is lynched. If you had just primed as normal, you would not win in two mislynches if Cabd protected or a primed Townie was lynched. Secondly, I was not accusing you. Accusing you is saying that you did it. I said that it is possible. Indeed, for it to be completely impossible that that is what happened, I would need something like the Mod explicitly confirming that no one had privately asked to clarify rules, and we don't have that Mod confirmation. Thirdly, this would not necessarily be "abusing the moderator's flawed system". Framing kills are a part of Mafia, and mechanics may make a particular kill work very effectively as a framing kill. Suppose the Mod had declared their system of resolving Night actions for empty slots before the game. In that case, igniting to frame CheekyTeeky would be no different from any other framing kill. If something gives you an advantage because of the system, that's not necessarily abusing the system. For example, suppose a Mod includes a Cop and a Doctor in a very early game, when Follow The Cop is not well-known. To then suggest Follow The Cop is not abusing the system. I suppose you may count asking the Mod as abusing the system, but then that leads onto my fourth point. There are many ways it could have happened other than you deliberately planning it from the beginning. You could have had experience with Lycanfire. Is he known for using this system of Night action resolution? If so, guessing that that might be the case in this game and then framing CheekyTeeky would not be abusing the system, as it would be essentially the previous case. Other possibilities include that you had not planned the framing when you asked and then afterwards decided to ignite (after all, asking that question doesn't mean you should be forbidden from igniting). You seem to be suggesting that I am saying that you definitely did this, whereas I am actually saying that, in essence, there is a non-zero, though probably small, probability that someone here ignited to frame CheekyTeeky because of some reason (not necessarily specifically asking the Mod with the intent to abuse the system) and that I think it is most likely to be you if it happened. After all, it has to be most likely to be someone.

[Micc]

I mean you brought it up as a non zero possibility and then voted me with that being the entire case, so I do think it's an accusation. It's gross.

[Micc]

And there's a huge difference between follow the Cop and intentionally planning night actions around getting an advantage from the unintended consequences of poor moderation policy.