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.Panzerjager wrote:Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.
Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over
-
-
MacavityLock Impin' Ain't Easy
- Impin' Ain't Easy
- Impin' Ain't Easy
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: August 14, 2008
Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer.-
-
Dourgrim Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Posts: 875
- Joined: February 12, 2003
- Location: Elkhorn, WI
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.dejkha wrote: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).
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?dejkha wrote: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?
I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (whodejkha wrote:FoS: Dourgrimbecause this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.stillhas 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?[size=75]The point of the journey is not to arrive...[/size]-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake therePanzerjager wrote:@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.
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 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: September 20, 2008
- Location: New York
My mistake. I thought you meant Geoff's reasoning was OMGUS.Dourgrim wrote: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.
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).Dourgrim wrote: 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 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.Dourgrim wrote: I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (whostillhas 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?"You say that all my posts are stupid like a motherf***ing SOB. I'm sick and tired of your constant BS." - Zwet to me.
"Fuck you... You're a pompous, ignorant fool, dejkha, and I don't appreciate your incessant badmouthing of me." - Zwet-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
I had a whole post typed up, but I want to ask mykonian a question first:
Were you serious with your first post?
I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.dejkha wrote: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.-
-
Dourgrim Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Posts: 875
- Joined: February 12, 2003
- Location: Elkhorn, WI
Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.Goatrevolt wrote:
I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.dejkha wrote: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.[size=75]The point of the journey is not to arrive...[/size]-
-
dejkha Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: September 20, 2008
- Location: New York
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.Goatrevolt wrote: I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town."You say that all my posts are stupid like a motherf***ing SOB. I'm sick and tired of your constant BS." - Zwet to me.
"Fuck you... You're a pompous, ignorant fool, dejkha, and I don't appreciate your incessant badmouthing of me." - Zwet-
-
GIEFF Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: October 15, 2008
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?MacavityLock wrote:
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.Panzerjager wrote:Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer.
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.
--------------------------
Dourgrim wrote: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?
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:Dourgrim wrote:
Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting."Goatrevolt wrote: Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?
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.Dourgrim wrote:... 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.
Vote: Dourgrim-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
GIEFF Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: October 15, 2008
-
-
Goatrevolt Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Pond Scum
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: May 17, 2008
- Location: Blacksburg, VA
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
Dourgrim Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Posts: 875
- Joined: February 12, 2003
- Location: Elkhorn, WI
(boldingmine for emphasis)
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.GIEFF wrote:At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUSbased 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?
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.GIEFF wrote: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've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for voteGIEFF wrote: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?andlurker analysis later.
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.GIEFF wrote: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?
Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.GIEFF wrote: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 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.GIEFF wrote: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:
Dourgrim wrote:... 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 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.GIEFF wrote: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'm happy with my vote.[size=75]The point of the journey is not to arrive...[/size]-
-
kloud1516 Executioner
- Executioner
- Executioner
- Posts: 700
- Joined: May 27, 2008
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 aboveLast edited by kloud1516 on Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
GIEFF Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Internet Superstar
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: October 15, 2008
That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.Dourscum wrote: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).
What additional knowledge would be gained if you looked back a few days down the road and saw that I had random-voted for, say, springlullaby? Do you still think that I am just posting to avoid accusations of lurking?Dourgrim wrote: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.
It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.Dourscum wrote:Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.
And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.Dourgrim wrote: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.
You have done so ONCE before your latest post, and you did not do so until you were questioned about it by Goatrevolt.Dourgrim wrote:I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke
- Post 33: You don't say you think it's a joke.Dourgrim wrote:And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.
- post 37: You say that there are other explanations; you don't say that you think they are true. In fact, you call mykonian's logic, which if serious would assume my post was NOT a joke, "valid."Dourgrim wrote: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...
- post 45: The first time you say you think it was a jokeDourgrim wrote:
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.Goatrevolt wrote:Goatrevolt wrote:
Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?
Did I miss something? You gave three reasons originally. When called out on the third of them, you claimed it was a joke, and that we should have realized it was a joke, and you obviously were just using your other two reasons. Now that your second reason (convenient band-wagon) no longer applies (I don't have two other votes on me anymore, and another player has MORE votes than I do), you say you are still happy with your vote.
And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.
----------------
If you think Dourgrim is a "nice person," why don't you think MacavityLock is? He put the third vote on Panzer, for reasons I don't find satisfactory.mykonian wrote: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 Smile)-
-
PJ. Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: somewhere better than you =*
@MacavityLock: It is inherently scummy to be mentioning SK before Day 2 unless the setup is open. We have no clue that an SK even exist so townies shouldn't be hunting for them.
Also, I'm not saying leaving the SK alive is elite strategy, but hunting him specifically takes emphasis off mafia and him being alive takes emphasis off our power roles.
One other thing, on the mention of information(also another reason why mykonian is scummy)The only person who knows the SK exist is the SK so wouldn't mykonian calling someone SK on the first few pages hint to him having info about the SK?Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
PJ. Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: somewhere better than you =*
-
-
PJ. Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: somewhere better than you =*
-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
-
-
PJ. Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: somewhere better than you =*
-
-
Dourgrim Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Yep. Again.
- Posts: 875
- Joined: February 12, 2003
- Location: Elkhorn, WI
I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.
Yes, I believe it is. (See my thoughts on joke posts below.) In addition, since then the reasoning for my vote has evolved somewhat based on your reactions. I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.GIEFF wrote:But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it?
This I agree with 100%, although I do have to try to remember that not everyone has as much access to the boards as we seem to.GIEFF wrote: Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.
I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?GIEFF wrote:It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.
Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).
This is correct. However, your reaction to my original point makes me think that this is quite a bit bigger a deal to you than I would expect from a pro-Town player on Day One.GIEFF wrote:And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.
Regarding post 33 (and your later reference to post 45): This might be a sign of me being away from the game for too long, but doesn't "OMGUS" usually signify a joke vote? My memory of the term is that it indicates something no more serious than "bah." My intention with using the term was to indicate a lack of seriousness. *shrug*
Regarding post 37: I intentionally was noncommittal because, *gasp*, I wasn't committed! And, assuming all posts in the thread can be taken at face value, mykonian's logic could have been correct. He has since admitted it wasn't anything more than a joke vote, but the logic itself wasn't completely baseless, just its application.
Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.GIEFF wrote:And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.
As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken. Also, you are right that my goal of a bandwagon has seemingly changed directions. However, your reactions as a whole still leave me with a bad taste in my mouth... I'm going to think about this, give it a bit of time to digest, and come back to my vote tomorrow.[size=75]The point of the journey is not to arrive...[/size]-
-
dejkha Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: September 20, 2008
- Location: New York
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.
As for whether it would be better with a SK dead or alive, while he could end up killing scum, I think going against the combined NK's of a SK and Scum are far worse since the town loses once they lose all members. Obviously vanilla townies being without night choices, lower the chances of survival.
But I think it would be best not to worry about a SK until we know if there's one in game."You say that all my posts are stupid like a motherf***ing SOB. I'm sick and tired of your constant BS." - Zwet to me.
"Fuck you... You're a pompous, ignorant fool, dejkha, and I don't appreciate your incessant badmouthing of me." - Zwet-
-
PJ. Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Hell in a Cell
- Posts: 4601
- Joined: January 5, 2007
- Location: somewhere better than you =*
Every role as specific tells. SK play different then Mafia. Mafia hid as a group, SK plays more like a Doc.dejkha wrote:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.
As for whether it would be better with a SK dead or alive, while he could end up killing scum, I think going against the combined NK's of a SK and Scum are far worse since the town loses once they lose all members. Obviously vanilla townies being without night choices, lower the chances of survival.
But I think it would be best not to worry about a SK until we know if there's one in game.Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.-
-
Beyond_Birthday Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 903
- Joined: June 14, 2008
Dammit! Foiled again!GIEFF wrote:The joke is on you; my blood-sugar is low.
...You bastard... *Throws knife at Ting*ting =) wrote:You guys have just made me google "blood in coffee."
Apparently, putting menstrual blood in coffee is a hoodoo love spell.
*eats jelly, sitting with my knees to my chest.*
Unvotes
Note: Haven't read far, but I just got a fourth game, so I am going to come back and respond later. Sorry for the delay, but I am tired.ShowI'm coming up on Infra-Red
There is no running that can hide you
Cause I can see in the dark
Town: 5-2
Mafia: 1-2-1
Neu~: 0-0
6-4-1
"quit making me prove your points." ~Phayt AKA TheSkeward
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.