Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[PJ.]

Gieff, They game did not start and because Kloud has to say day begins. So it was still pregame. Also it was Simultaneuos to your /confirm.

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

[Dourgrim]

Actually, Panzer, mykonian's logic is sound, if a bit oddly stated. He says that GIEFF has information the rest of us don't (i.e. implying a role that isn't Townie) and is also going after mafia. Ergo, GIEFF can't possibly

be

mafia if he's trying to

lynch

mafia, and no one pro-Town would out themselves as a Cop or Doc or any sort of useful power role before the game even starts, ergo he must be the SK.

Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

[ting =)]

unvote. Vote:Panzerjager

For making a big thing out of a small thing.

[springlullaby]

Vote subgenius

because.

[Dourgrim]

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

FoS: springlullaby

[Goatrevolt]

I don't want to crucify SL for making a random vote in the midst of a small amount of actual discussion.

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious? How would a cop have information on 3 players before the game began? Why would a SK have information on 3 mafia members before the game began? How are you clearing GIEFF of being mafia under the assumption that he's "hunting mafia"?

Panzer: What are you basing your assumption that mykonian doesn't want to lynch mafia off of? Also, I can't tell if your last post is serious or not. Clarification?

[GIEFF]

ting, how serious was your vote for Panzerjager? Complete joke? Half-serious, half-joke? Completely serious?


For those who are still unclear: I picked three random names and said they were "obvscum" as a joke, and as a way to start discussion. I did not start the game with any information about who is and isn't scum.


So, to summarize your reasoning, Dourgrim:

• I haven't voted yet.
  
• I already had votes on me.
  
• I called you obvscum in pre-game.

Am I missing anything?

[PJ.]

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

[PJ.]

EBWOP: Ting, I'm propelling us out of Random Voting. I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing.

FoS:Ting

[Dourgrim]

Allow me to reply question by question, it helps organize my thoughts better.

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian

was

serious, so I explored the possibility.

How would a cop have information on 3 players before the game began?

He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's

unlikely

to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?

Why would a SK have information on 3 mafia members before the game began?

He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do

you

know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.

How are you clearing GIEFF of being mafia under the assumption that he's "hunting mafia"?

I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm

voting

for him, for cryin' out loud.

For those who are still unclear: I picked three random names and said they were "obvscum" as a joke, and as a way to start discussion. I did not start the game with any information about who is and isn't scum.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured, which is why that part of my above reasoning for voting you was labeled "OMGUS" and therefore wasn't serious. The other reasons stand, though, which I will now respond to (I don't know how to copy the bullets so I ad-libbed, sorry):

So, to summarize your reasoning, Dourgrim:
* I haven't voted yet.
* I already had votes on me.
* I called you obvscum in pre-game

Actually, it's because you

posted

and hadn't voted yet. It made you look like you were trying to avoid being accused of lurking without actually doing anything, and the posts you did make had no useful content in them. That made you a better candidate for a bandwagon than anyone else at the time, since I hadn't spotted anything else all that suspicious when I made that post.

For the record, I'm pretty much always this verbose when I play. I guess I prefer it to multi-posting. *shrug*

[dejkha]

We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

FoS: springlullaby

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

[MacavityLock]

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

[Dourgrim]

Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).

I wouldn't call it "overreacting," more like "reacting to something." As I just posted above, obviously the "obvscum" thing was a joke, which is why that part of my reasoning was labeled with an OMGUS.

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

Yes, I did think the same for her, but I also think there was enough of a discussion in the thread that the time for "joke votes" was past... but none of that was really enough to convince me, which is why I only gave her a FoS instead of moving my vote. Does that make sense?

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (who

still

has my vote). Besides, aren't we supposed to be eager to find scum? Or is it now considered better play to be passive in the thread and watch instead of actively hunting scum?

[mykonian]

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

But personally I would lynch the SK, as it gives you more mislynches. If GIEFF would be the SK, then we should go for him.

[dejkha]

I wouldn't call it "overreacting," more like "reacting to something." As I just posted above, obviously the "obvscum" thing was a joke, which is why that part of my reasoning was labeled with an OMGUS.

My mistake. I thought you meant Geoff's reasoning was OMGUS.

Yes, I did think the same for her, but I also think there was enough of a discussion in the thread that the time for "joke votes" was past... but none of that was really enough to convince me, which is why I only gave her a FoS instead of moving my vote. Does that make sense?

I see. To me, even if it is past random voting, I think "just because" is an obvious joke vote. I would understand if you thought she should've been serious about the game at this point, since that could be a minor scumtell (more so depending on how serious she is or isn't for the rest of the game).

I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (who

still

has my vote). Besides, aren't we supposed to be eager to find scum? Or is it now considered better play to be passive in the thread and watch instead of actively hunting scum?

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

[Goatrevolt]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

[Dourgrim]

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.

[dejkha]

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.

[GIEFF]

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

I agree that lynching a SK is better than lynching a mafia. But why do you think Panzer is the most likely to be SK?

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.


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

Actually, it's because you posted and hadn't voted yet. It made you look like you were trying to avoid being accused of lurking without actually doing anything, and the posts you did make had no useful content in them. That made you a better candidate for a bandwagon than anyone else at the time, since I hadn't spotted anything else all that suspicious when I made that post.

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS based on my obviously-joking "obvscum," but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Let's go over them.

• I hadn't voted yet.
  I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.
  
  None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?
  
  I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

• I already had two votes on me.
  How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting."

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke? It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

Vote: Dourgrim

[mykonian]

A related question; why have people assumed that if I really did know who the mafia was, that would make me SK? That assumption makes no sense to me.

yeah, yeah, I know. Craplogic and such.

unvote

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

[GIEFF]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

So I take it your above post is a "yes" to Goatrevolt's question, mykonian?

[Goatrevolt]

I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:

Were you serious with your first post?

So I take it your above post is a "yes" to Goatrevolt's question, mykonian?

I'm a little confused in that regard myself.

[mykonian]

it is a no, of course. It was a random vote, and it is a random vote. It had the nice thing that it was the second vote on a person, maybe someone was so nice to put a third one on. (yes, you are a nice person dourgrim )

[Dourgrim]

(

bolding

mine for emphasis)

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS

based on my obviously-joking "obvscum,"

but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Yes. I agreed that the "obvscum" comment was a joke, and I intended the "OMGUS" I used in my original vote post to indicate as much. However, this seems to be in doubt now, see the other bolded text below.

I hadn't voted yet. I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.

I didn't know anything about the script you're talking about, and since I've never played a game with you before, I have no way of knowing that you don't like random voting on Day One. I will, however, accept responsibility for not doing my research and reading up on the games you've played in the past to find voting patterns (or lack thereof). I used to do that quite a bit when playing with people for the first time, but I don't have that sort of free time anymore.

None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?

I've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for vote

and

lurker analysis later.

I already had two votes on me. How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

These are not separate ideas, they're one and the same. The two votes on you doesn't make you more likely to be scum, but they do make you slightly easier to bandwagon than someone with only one vote, and bandwagons on Day One can be a useful tool to provoke conversation... which, by the way, it did.

I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke?

I would have thought this would be obvious by now: I was comfortable with my vote because of the first two bulleted points, and I had agreed that the "obvscum" thing was a joke... which you seem to deny and confirm in the same breath.

It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

I didn't lie about it... matter of fact, I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke... or was it, GIEFF? You can't seem to decide.

I'm happy with my vote.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count I

Panzerjager

(3): Goatrevolt, ting=), MacavityLock

GIEFF

(2): mykonian, Dourgrim

mykonian

(2): Beyond_Birthday, Panzerjager

Dourgrim

(1): GIEFF

militant

(1): subgenius

subgenius

(1): springlullaby

ting=)

(1): militant

Not Voting:

dejkha

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Please notify me if there is a discrepancy in the list above