Open 104 - The New C9 - Game Over

[ScottHoward]

LETS ROCK AND ROLL BIOTCHES!!

[ScottHoward]

So,
Fonz claims that there is no information to gain from looking at the omg voters, as it was a pure policy lynch.
Scrutinizer feels looking at the voters is a good idea.
Surely everybody sees the conflict there. How can two msers familiar with standard msers procedure, have opposite views on this matter? Some will argue, as fonz has eluded to in his tirade (no offense fonz), that two logically thinking players can view an event and come to different logical conclusions and both still be town. I don’t believe that’s true at all. Ive shown that more often than not, at least one of the players was/is being deceptive.
Somebody is lying.
It is also odd that these two are not suspicious of each other based on the above. If I know im town, and another player has an opposite reaction than mine to a unique event, I would increase suspicion on that person, not dismiss it, and not ignore it.
Down the road, if we learn there were no scum voting for omg, there is a much better chance that fonz is town and scrutinizer is scum. Likewise, if there turns up one or more scum of those voters, then the reverse is true, scrutinizer is more likely town and fonz more likely scum. (if I need to explain why, let me know)
This is not guaranteed (that at least one is scum) of course, but its definitely something to keep in mind for use later, and its definitely much better than rand.

[StrangerCoug]

So,
Fonz claims that there is no information to gain from looking at the omg voters, as it was a pure policy lynch.
Scrutinizer feels looking at the voters is a good idea.
Surely everybody sees the conflict there. How can two msers familiar with standard msers procedure, have opposite views on this matter? Some will argue, as fonz has eluded to in his tirade (no offense fonz), that two logically thinking players can view an event and come to different logical conclusions and both still be town. I don’t believe that’s true at all. Ive shown that more often than not, at least one of the players was/is being deceptive.
Somebody is lying.
It is also odd that these two are not suspicious of each other based on the above. If I know im town, and another player has an opposite reaction than mine to a unique event, I would increase suspicion on that person, not dismiss it, and not ignore it.
Down the road, if we learn there were no scum voting for omg, there is a much better chance that fonz is town and scrutinizer is scum. Likewise, if there turns up one or more scum of those voters, then the reverse is true, scrutinizer is more likely town and fonz more likely scum. (if I need to explain why, let me know)
This is not guaranteed (that at least one is scum) of course, but its definitely something to keep in mind for use later, and its definitely much better than rand.

Interesting thing to think about, even with the disclaimer.

[darkdude]

Vote Count for Day 1

There are 19 Alive, so 10 to Lynch

Wall-E [6] (ScottHoward, M1KEMMIEMIEMKEMIKE, well-named, SiestaGuru, hewitt, zhaorx, )

matrix [2] (The Central Scrutinizer, Hitch, )
Hitch [2] (The Fonz, Sun Tzu, )
StrangerCoug [1] (Caboose, )
M1KEMMIEMIEMKEMIKE [1] (Mada, )
The Central Scrutinizer [1] (matrix, )
well-named [1] (norseman1066, )
hewitt [1] (atakdog, )
ScottHoward [0] ()
Sun Tzu [0] ()
The Fonz [0] ()
zhaorx [0] ()
Caboose [0] ()
Stef [0] ()
atakdog [0] ()
norseman1066 [0] ()
SiestaGuru [0] ()
oEJo [0] ()
Mada [0] ()

No Lynch [0] ()

Not Voting [4] (Stef, oEJo, StrangerCoug, Wall-E, )

[matrix]

Scott,

what are your thoughts on OMG's early role claim and subsequent short sharp rebuttal by oEJo now that we know OMG's vanilla role?

I am still trying to work out possible reasons for his play - the only one I can think of so far is that OMG knows he is vanilla and offers a opportunity to oEJo to co claim a Town role, were oEJo to accept his offer it would be more likely that oEJo was Scum.

Though if oEJo has any kind of clue he will quickly deny the claim regardless of role, which makes the ploy kind of worthless ??

Then again this is Eskimo we are talking about...

[norseman1066]

*knee-deep, knee-deep*

[The Fonz]

Peace offered

Taken.

Would you care to point me to where you think players have been softclaiming vanilla town?

[The Fonz]

So,
Fonz claims that there is no information to gain from looking at the omg voters, as it was a pure policy lynch.

Not no information. But not a significant amount yet. Players who support policy-lynching tend to do so as both scum and town, in order to ensure a consistent playstyle. There is, from what I've seen, a slight tendency for scum to shy away from policy-lynching town and toward policy-lynching buddies, but it's minor.

Scrutinizer feels looking at the voters is a good idea.

Being wrong does not make you scum.

Surely everybody sees the conflict there. How can two msers familiar with standard msers procedure, have opposite views on this matter?

Simple. One of the earliest lessons you learn as a newbie is that 'it is not a scumtell to disagree with me.' There's a player here called Vollkan, who I disagree with on just about every aspect of game theory. There's another, named Yosarian2, from whom I stole just about every concept I've employed that ever works. But Yos is still scum sometimes, and Vollkan is usually town.

What you're looking for is sincerity. You can argue with someone about theory, and you can work out if they genuinely strongly disagree with you, if they've overlooked something (hence, are mistakenly wrong) or are arguing their position in

Some will argue, as fonz has eluded to in his tirade (no offense fonz), that two logically thinking players can view an event and come to different logical conclusions and both still be town.

In purely logical problems, you are correct. However, we are not dealing with a purely logical problem. It makes no more sense to say that all players must agree on what is the correct path to tread in a mafia game than to say that there is a single, logically deducible, set of policies that a government must pursue. Players attach different weights to different actions, have different levels of risk aversion, different willingness to take the meta into account (some people think that lynching for town-harming play when you don't believe the player in question to be scum is ever acceptable- some people believe anyone caught lying about their role has to be lynched as a deterrent. There are smart people on both sides). A can look at B's play and think he's just a newbie making newbie mistakes, B can feel that he's scum trying to hide behind his newbie status.

It is also odd that these two are not suspicious of each other based on the above. If I know im town, and another player has an opposite reaction than mine to a unique event, I would increase suspicion on that person, not dismiss it, and not ignore it.

It's not that unique. Again, the question of whether to policy-lynch comes up in a significant number of games, and people always disagree, and it never splits down straight town/scum lines.

Also, Wall-E and I do not have the same information on which to base evaluations of OMG.

Down the road, if we learn there were no scum voting for omg, there is a much better chance that fonz is town and scrutinizer is scum. Likewise, if there turns up one or more scum of those voters, then the reverse is true, scrutinizer is more likely town and fonz more likely scum.

Disagree. The vast majority of town wagons have neither no scum, nor all the scum, on them. One scum pushing a particular line has little predictive value for what the rest of a group will do. This is particularly true when there are multiple town wagons available.

[Hitch]

If fonz is mafia here, I'll eat my shorts.

[Sun Tzu]

For the folks playing along at home, Hitch just spewed Fonz = town.

[Wall-E]

everybody should note that walle is proving over and over again that he isnt reading the thread closely, if at all.
some examples:
1. his vote for zazier
2. claims Hewitt is suns #1 suspect
3. claims nobody other than sun had given reasons for their votes on him.
4. hasnt answered questions posed to him in the thread

now, this might not be extremely damning by mser standards, but it should be.
he is posting without knowledge of the thread content and this can not be considered "good for the village" which apparently is a big mser suspicion trigger.

he is pressuring others to give their reasoning for their votes, which is fine. its the way it should be, BUT, at the same time, he is voting for omg as a matter of policy. a weak reason at best from the guy who is shitting on other peoples reasoning.
he says he will prove suns reasoning to be bad, but hasnt even attempted to as of yet.

his "I'm not going to presume to be able to read this game nearly as accurately as some others I've read" reaks of scum making excuses in advance has to why he isnt finding scum. this will be even more scummier if walle is usually regarded as a fine scumhunter.

and just now, says hes "happy with" his omg vote because omg accused him of sucking. omgus is a show of arrogance, correct? so walle, the guy who in this thread said "Arrogance != scummy. The sooner you discover this, the better a player you'll be. ", is voting for omg because omg voted for himself, and is now happy about it because omg is arrogant.
does anybody else see the contradiction?

why is walle not lynched already?
wtf are we waiting for?

SC: While I see no specific questions here (aside from the rhetorical ones) I will address this post, since you seem to prefer if I do.

everybody should note that walle is proving over and over again that he isnt reading the thread closely, if at all.
some examples:
1. his vote for zazier

How does my random vote prove I have not read the thread? I've already said once that I even had a small reason for the vote. Can you specify?

2. claims Hewitt is suns #1 suspect

No, I interpreted something one way, then found out the player himself has a different policy.

3. claims nobody other than sun had given reasons for their votes on him.

I claim nothing of the kind. Quote me please.

4. hasnt answered questions posed to him in the thread

Name one.

As to "accusing OMG of sucking..." ...OMGUS is defined in the wiki. Read it.

[Sun Tzu]

By the way, mafiascum players aren't necessarily more serious than poggers:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9947

[well-named]

How does my random vote prove I have not read the thread? I've already said once that I even had a small reason for the vote. Can you specify?

I subbed in for zazieR before you voted.

BTW Sun I think we all knew fonz was town anyway

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sorry for the continued lack of content... for a while there I was considering replacing out... but I'd rather not slow the game down any more than it has been. I know how a game can get murdered by multiple replacements.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm still trying to come up with a case of my own instead of just following The Fonz.

[norseman1066]

Well obviously the WN Wagon is not going anywhere (just as is this thread) so in an effort to move everything along

unvote Well named-----vote wall-e

BTW Well Named IGMEOY

[well-named]

Never gets old

[Wall-E]

How does my random vote prove I have not read the thread? I've already said once that I even had a small reason for the vote. Can you specify?

I subbed in for zazieR before you voted.

Does this somehow negate my random vote?

[well-named]

As I recall, the criticism was that you weren't paying attention, as evidenced by the fact that you voted for someone no longer in the game.

YMMV

[Wall-E]

I'm thinking scott is a townie, and a good scum hunter imo.

People should now converge on either WallE, Matrix or myself.

caboose, mada, atakdog,oEJo, StrangerCoug, Wall-E, this means you.

Clearly an attempt to garner town points here. It's in the vein of atakdog's post about how helpful I'm being in "bridging the gap." It looks like opportunistic buddying to me.

[Wall-E]

That criticism is something that I myself pointed out in my first post in the thread.

[Wall-E]

The fact that OMG is a vanilla townie gives us information.

Who was on his wagon?

This post smells bad.

[Wall-E]

What does YMMV mean?

[well-named]

your mileage may vary.

[The Fonz]

I was convinced it was 'you make me vomit.' :Evil: