Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Rishi]

Uh, why did I agree to join a game with Rhinox? The best part about modding Rhinox is that you don't actually have to read his posts.

Will catch up in the next 24 hours or so. Can't believe we're barely in the game, and I'm already behind. Feh.

[RedCoyote]

hmmm... those are 2 options for sparking serious discussion. Another option is random votes, which huntress has not done.

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

And a question: Why are you not mentioning My Milked Eek, who also posted without voting?

See, this is what we're going to get into if we push the "omg you didn't conform to the RV". Hypocrisy, running around in circles...

Isn't the point of random voting to cause discussion to occur? Yeah, well, Huntress makes a good point, she caused more discussion than any other vote we had up there. She feels confident enough in her abilities to make that play and I absolutely respect that.

Would it be good discussion if I thought you were scum for refusing to RV, if you were actually town? Would that make me scum if I thought refusing to RV was a scum tell?

Also, what are you learning from this conversation?

Interesting.

I would argue that there is no clear distinction between good and bad discussion because they can go both ways at any given time (i.e. discussion over Huntress' non-vote -> soft suspicions on Huntress -> finding ways to build a case on her -> bandwagonning -> scum taking the bait??).

Just because an SK is possible, doesn't mean there is one...

I only bring this up because I think, despite this being true, it's very probable that there will be one.

I think so mainly because as I go through the roles it just seems like it would fit into the scenario pretty well.

It's very likely that we should be able to tell by tomorrow if there is an SK or not regardless though. There are no town killing roles on the list, so if two people leave us tomorrow night, then an SK would be the only answer to that problem.

A question for you Rhinox, since we're getting into the theoretical discussion anyways, what do you think of people who vote themselves during the RV stage?

---

I agree with BC on the fact that this discussion is mostly counter-productive

bionic refuses this label of his opinion, and I don't blame him. I haven't read anything similar to this in his posts, and I don't agree with the statement at all either.

---

If he's SK, he's done something that is very bad for himself.

I do not think there are grounds to make this charge. I'm not necessarily saying you are making the charge pops, but both you and Korts have basically implied it.

---

We have no conclusive evidence there is a serial killer, so scum would have no additional incentive at this point to direct the town to hunt for a phantom.

Although I both see the logic in this and agree with it, I have to ask if you are prepared to wager that there isn't an SK.

I mean, I want to keep bringing this point up because I think the town should assume there is an SK until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

[My Milked Eek]

Going to post something tonight.

[iamausername]

Oh noes, walls of text, my only weakness!

I'm guessing we're going to see a lot of them in this game. I'm going to do my best to be as concise as possible.

Oh, sorry about that. I read the following as what I said:

I don't enter every topic of conversation with a clear expectation on what might be gained from the information revealed.

I was simply skimming that part.

Don't like this. I didn't have a problem with Korts reading "this discussion is counter-productive" from "I plan on working as many new angles as I can think of, even if it means I might discuss a potentially useless point.", since I inferred much the same thing. So Korts excusing himself by saying "Oh, I skimmed" seems off. He's showing a lack of willing to stand by his statements in the face of criticism, which suggests he wants to avoid attention.

Unvote, Vote: Korts

[Rhinox]

He did post. Are you suggesting he posted without reading the dozen posts already in the thread? What makes you think he doesn't know the game had started?

There are a number of reasons to explain MME... the role PM's say to confirm in thread, thats what his did. Maybe he didn't have time right then to do more, but didn't want to get replaced for not confirming. If MME never posts again, and needs to be replaced, then that means he just flaked and his confirm post doesn't really mean anything. If MME returns, then I would like to ask him why he only confirmed in his first post, then disappeared for X pages/days.

Any discussion at this stage is grist to the mill. Whether it's good or bad can be information in itself.

This is true.

That's drawing conclusions, not discussing.

You sort of avoided the question... obviously, there would be discussion to follow if I came to a conclusion that you were scum for not random voting. I'll rephrase my question: Would discussion about you being scum for not random voting be helpful to the town, assuming you're town? Would you be able to draw any conclusion about your attacker, assuming he felt that not random voting was a scumtell?

No, I said I wasn't voting yet. MME didn't say that, but the result was the same, no vote.

So... suppose I laid out a good case to lynch Player Y and voted. Player X comes along immediately after me and votes Player Y "for what Rhinox said". Player Y is then lynched. Are you saying that my vote and Player X's vote mean exactly the same thing and should be understood and analyzed exactly the same way, since the same result was reached (both players voting for a player that was lynched)?

Furthermore, there is an assumption to make if MME's post is the same as yours since the result is the same - that assumption is that MME was intending to not random vote, so solely confirmed. Your post requires no assumptions - you said you were not random voting. MME's intentions are not known. Yours are. You intended not to random vote. That is why I'm questioning your decision to not random vote, and not MME.

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

You said you weren't random voting, and you haven't voted yet... Generally, if you wanted to do something, you would do it unless something was physically preventing you, or unless you thought you shouldn't. So the only conclusions I can draw right now are A)You don't want to random vote, or B)You want to but you don't think you should.

[Rhinox]

oooppss... missed all of page 3 before posting...

Uh, why did I agree to join a game with Rhinox? The best part about modding Rhinox is that you don't actually have to read his posts.

Hehe that is true... I've been working really hard to be more concise in my posting though, so I think I've gotten a lot better since Meerkat Manor Mafia.

I only bring this up because I think, despite this being true,

it's very probable that there will be one.

I think so mainly because as I go through the roles it just seems like it would fit into the scenario pretty well.

It's very likely that

we should be able to tell by tomorrow if there is an SK or not regardless though.

There are no town killing roles on the list, so if two people leave us tomorrow night, then an SK would be the only answer to that problem.

A question for you Rhinox, since we're getting into the theoretical discussion anyways,

what do you think of people who vote themselves during the RV stage?

Regarding an sk, I wouldn't go so far to say its probable there will be one... thats kinda outguessing the mod, which is pretty much impossible since this is Vi's first modded game here (pretty sure). My point was, we should know tomorrow or at some point down the road if there is an sk to deal with, so why worry about it before we know? All this talking about an SK right now is only affecting the way the SK would play (if one exists) - giving the SK information on how to better play, and hurting the town (because the SK already has more information to play with than the town).

Regarding self voting, I hate that even more than not voting. Town has no business self voting because the only discussion that follows is whether or not that player is scum for self voting. Its a distraction to actually finding scum if you're town, and its a confusion tactic if you're scum - both anti-town. You can't catch scum jumping on your own wagon when you actually do something scummy intentionally - you never know if everyone really thinks it is a scumtell or not. Also, when you vote for someone, you should do it because you think there is a chance that person is scum - even a rondom vote. A player voting themselves, then, must think there is a chance that they are scum. A player would know if they are scum or not, so... yeah, self voting pretty much gets an automatic vote from me.

I mean, I want to keep bringing this point up because I think the town should assume there is an SK until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

No. Town should hunt scum only, until it is proven there is an SK. In one of my games (I think it was Meerkat Manor Mafia, actually), a scum player (CKD) pushed for the lynch of a town player (StrangerCoug) on the grounds that he was playing like an sk (the day before LyLo), even though there was no unexplained kill in the game. We lynched SC only because at that point, either SC or CKD were the final scum in the game. CKD self hammered the next day after SC was lynched town, and the town still won.

But my point is... unless there are sk kills, there is no reason to suspect an sk, nor hunt for one. If there are extra kills tomorrow, we'll know. If an sk doesn't kill to hide his identity, then ultimately that is better for the town since the game would be balanced for 2 evil kills per night (at least at the start), and by not killing the SK is guarenteeing that extra town roles will live longer.

Going to post something tonight.

Looking forward to it.

[popsofctown]

The +'s and -'s were the direct gains from BC's SK discussion, not including the resulting WIFOM assumptions that the player does or does not have that alignment since the action was partakened.

I don't know why Korts is voting me, i thought we were all trying to start discussion. Wasn't he the one saying one can even resort to jokes to get discussion going? I couldn't think of anything funny.

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't

want

to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I

won't

random vote, just not right now". Look, Huntress, cheetah thing, i dunno if you're town or scum, but if you keep the conversation around hairsplits i'm going to get confused and screw up the game. I don't know about anyone else's capacities for nonsense, i don't have much. So please, stop it.

Apparently jokes are the only appropriate way of starting discussion Korts. A question for you: A cowboy rides into town on Friday. He stays in town for three days, no more. Then he leaves town on Friday. How is this possible?

[Korts]

Don't like this. I didn't have a problem with Korts reading "this discussion is counter-productive" from "I plan on working as many new angles as I can think of, even if it means I might discuss a potentially useless point.", since I inferred much the same thing. So Korts excusing himself by saying "Oh, I skimmed" seems off. He's showing a lack of willing to stand by his statements in the face of criticism, which suggests he wants to avoid attention.

On the other hand, what would you expect me to say if I had actually been skimming?

There are a number of reasons to explain MME... the role PM's say to confirm in thread, thats what his did. Maybe he didn't have time right then to do more, but didn't want to get replaced for not confirming. If MME never posts again, and needs to be replaced, then that means he just flaked and his confirm post doesn't really mean anything. If MME returns, then I would like to ask him why he only confirmed in his first post, then disappeared for X pages/days.

I don't like how multiple people jumped to the defense of MME. First pops, now Rhinox; I smell connections.

Here's a question, Rhinox: if someone posts, and keeps posting, without (randomly) voting yet also without explicitly stating the decision not to vote, would you start questioning

them

?

Regarding self voting, I hate that even more than not voting. Town has no business self voting because the only discussion that follows is whether or not that player is scum for self voting.

I completely disagree. vollkan makes it a point to self-vote frequently early on in games purely because it draws the opportunistic "OMGOSH SELFVOTER=SCUM" comments which are completely wrong. It also draws theory discussion on whether self-voting is good or bad or null; I think it's an entirely valid way to start off discussion if not done simply as a gimmick and without theoretical basis (i.e. Natirasha, UltimaAvalon).

I don't know why Korts is voting me, i thought we were all trying to start discussion. Wasn't he the one saying one can even resort to jokes to get discussion going? I couldn't think of anything funny.

Completely beside the point. If your defense for early game actions is going to be "I was just trying to start discussion" then you are effectively stalling discussion. Also, did you expect not to be called out for posting for the sake of posting when you yourself admitted to it?

Apparently jokes are the only appropriate way of starting discussion Korts. A question for you: A cowboy rides into town on Friday. He stays in town for three days, no more. Then he leaves town on Friday. How is this possible?

I'm guessing Friday is his horse

[Jahudo]

@Korts: After re-reading BC's post, do you still think that BC acknowledged or inferred that parts or the whole of the SK discussion was counter-productive? Does that affect BC's intention of the selective scumhunting event?

Korts excusing himself by saying "Oh, I skimmed" seems off. He's showing a lack of willing to stand by his statements in the face of criticism, which suggests he wants to avoid attention.

At first glance it sounds honest to me since the previous sentence appears to backoff from the point (sorry about that) and acknowledge a mistake has been made in reading (I read the following as…).

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I won't random vote, just not right now”.

Where did this first hairsplitter take place? I didn’t read it that way. Maybe Huntress can elaborate on how random her decisions have been so far because this:

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

She acknowledges the power of not random voting in creating discussion, which sound to me like something she knew about going into the game. So was this in fact a reason? Her initial claim to not random vote was not about reason or purpose according to her.

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

I wonder if this can even be accomplished before long because we are moving to serious discussion and a random/joke action could try to impede that.

I don't know why Korts is voting me, i thought we were all trying to start discussion. Wasn't he the one saying one can even resort to jokes to get discussion going? I couldn't think of anything funny.

Post 43 does not mean anything to me since it’s just one fluff post, but a player that continually acts disengaged will look anti-town even if they’re making discussion through jokes or theory or setup speculation.

[popsofctown]

Friday is his horse.

[Rhinox]

I don't like how multiple people jumped to the defense of MME. First pops, now Rhinox; I smell connections.

Its a stretch to calling what I was doing as defending MME... I was directly responding to Huntress' question as to why I did not question MME for not random voting as well as her. The post you quoted was my reason why, taken out of context.

Here's a question, Rhinox: if someone posts, and keeps posting, without (randomly) voting yet also without explicitly stating the decision not to vote, would you start questioning them?

Yes, I would.

viewtopic.php?t=9032 - self voter AND a no-voter... after FoSing them both and questioning, I voted the self voter as a felt that was a bigger offense. After a long fight, the self voter agreed with me and would think more carefully before self voting in the future. Both myself, and the self voter were town, as was the player who didn't vote in the RVS. Another player, who said "vote mafiamann , because not voting in the rv stage can be a scumtell. Therefore this is no random vote." ended up being scum. *shrug* But it was not the intent of mafiamann to not vote to find scum, he was just a VI who got himself lynched D1 anyways. Town won this game. Rishi was the mod.

I completely disagree. vollkan makes it a point to self-vote frequently early on in games purely because it draws the opportunistic "OMGOSH SELFVOTER=SCUM" comments which are completely wrong. It also draws theory discussion on whether self-voting is good or bad or null; I think it's an entirely valid way to start off discussion if not done simply as a gimmick and without theoretical basis (i.e. Natirasha, UltimaAvalon).

SELFVOTER=NOT PRO-TOWN. regardless of the theory behind it, I'm always going to vote a self voter, and that does not make me opportunistic scum. There is a clear divide within the community about self-voting, and discussion about it and doing it only widens the gap, and distracts from the true purpose of the game. I'm on the "Town should never self-vote" side, and I play accordingly. Weren't you the one who said...

Rhinox, I disagree with you on the issue of random votes. They should be taken just as seriously as normal votes, otherwise any pressure they represent is non-existent, which is counter-intuitive. The power in random votes is exactly the fact that they are in essence the same as any well-reasoned vote, the sans reason part aside. Random votes can lynch, as they should.

...about random votes? actually, all votes should be seen as a serious vote to lynch someone. A self-voter, then, is wanting to lynch themselves. Intentionally mislynching a known townie = scummy, which is why no town player should ever self vote, and is why every player who self votes will also earn my vote.

[bionicchop2]

A lot of good new material today and I will try to read it all closely later. I do want to comment on this since it grabbed my attention.

A self-voter, then, is wanting to lynch themselves. Intentionally mislynching a known townie = scummy, which is why no town player should ever self vote, and is why every player who self votes will also earn my vote.

I think you are falling into a logical trap here.

1. In order for the action of a self-vote to be anti-town, the player needs to be town.
2. If you vote the player and state the action is anti-town, you are then voting someone you believe to be town and yourself acting in an anti-town manner.
3. If the player is mafia and voting for them self, they are acting pro-town and anti-mafia.

You can see the circular nature and where this is going. By your logic, you should be getting votes if you vote a self-voter for the reason of their action being anti-town.

You are also making a jump to say any vote is an intent to lynch. As you saw in our newbie game, I will use my vote in quite a few ways and not always have an end goal of lynching. Did your random vote have the intent of lynching? I know mine did not.

[SpyreX]

Ohh goodness another game starts with a self-vote spurring madness.

I'm out with work meetings all day, I'll try and post something of substance later on / tomorrow.

[bionicchop2]

Ohh goodness another game starts with a self-vote spurring madness.

Actually nobody self-voted and I probably should not have made my last post debating the theory of self-voting.

[Rhinox]

I think you are falling into a logical trap here.

1. In order for the action of a self-vote to be anti-town, the player needs to be town.
2. If you vote the player and state the action is anti-town, you are then voting someone you believe to be town and yourself acting in an anti-town manner.
3. If the player is mafia and voting for them self, they are acting pro-town and anti-mafia.

I think that logic is false. Mafia's goal is to gain a majority of the town, but the mafia's goal is not "lynch the town players". Mafia do all sorts of things with their votes, such as intentionally bussing - and bussing is not typically considered anti-mafia, yet according your logic it should be. Mafia also get other ways to eliminate town (i.e. nks). My logic is also not circular, as you suggest. I do not say a townie self-voting is anti town, so self-voting is anti town (that would be a logic fault as you point out) - I say a townie self voting is anti town, so a townie acting towards fulfilling their win condition

would

should never self vote. Therefore, any players who self votes

is

would be scum

if townie players would stop self-voting

.

You are also making a jump to say any vote is an intent to lynch. As you saw in our newbie game, I will use my vote in quite a few ways and not always have an end goal of lynching. Did your random vote have the intent of lynching? I know mine did not.

That statement was in response to Kort, who said every vote, even a random one, should be seen as a serious vote with a threat of following through to a lynch. If that is true, it should extend to self-voters - that a self vote is a serious vote with a threat of following through to a lynch. You may place a vote for a number of reasons, but there must be the threat of it going to a lynch, or else the vote is pointless. Players who vote by saying "vote: player Y just for pressure" should also be

lynched

slapped with a raw fish.

[Rhinox]

Ohh goodness another game starts with a self-vote spurring madness.

Actually nobody self-voted and I probably should not have made my last post debating the theory of self-voting.

Well, you and Korts are the ones who wanted to talk about theory...

[bionicchop2]

Comments on RC # 51:

Just because an SK is possible, doesn't mean there is one...

I only bring this up because I think, despite this being true, it's very probable that there will be one.

I think so mainly because as I go through the roles it just seems like it would fit into the scenario pretty well.

The concept of a semi-open setup is that we know what roles are possible. In some setups (F11) we know the probability of each role. In this setup, we do not know the selection process the moderator used, so we have no idea of the probability. Did he put all 'scum' roles including SK into a hat and pick 3? Did he have a SK hat which included 1 sk and a few town roles? We know nothing that would indicate the probability for us.

It's very likely that we should be able to tell by tomorrow if there is an SK or not regardless though. There are no town killing roles on the list, so if two people leave us tomorrow night, then an SK would be the only answer to that problem.

This is a bit of stating the obvious. An extra kill confirms a SK. A single kill leaves us where we are today.

We have no conclusive evidence there is a serial killer, so scum would have no additional incentive at this point to direct the town to hunt for a phantom.

Although I both see the logic in this and agree with it, I have to ask if you are prepared to wager that there isn't an SK.

I generally don't wager on anything I don't know the odds of (unless you are talking about low-risk, friendly wagers). I don't see what you hope to get out of this question. I can see one way mafia members could come to a possible faulty conclusion regarding the presence of a SK, but other than that I don't see how you can conclude it is probable we have one.

I mean, I want to keep bringing this point up because I think the town should assume there is an SK until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

I always try to function under worst-case scenarios. In this game that would be 3 mafia and 1 SK based on the role PMs (mafia is 2-3 members from the wording).

[bionicchop2]

No. Town should hunt scum only, until it is proven there is an SK. In one of my games (I think it was Meerkat Manor Mafia, actually), a scum player (CKD) pushed for the lynch of a town player (StrangerCoug) on the grounds that he was playing like an sk (the day before LyLo), even though there was no unexplained kill in the game. We lynched SC only because at that point, either SC or CKD were the final scum in the game. CKD self hammered the next day after SC was lynched town, and the town still won.

It is slightly odd you don't see SK as 'scum' and you see hunting one type of player against the town's win condition as more valuable than the other. It also indicates you would be able to identify the difference during the game.

Both SK and mafia are working against the town win condition. If a SK was called 'solo mafia', would that change anything?

=============

Ohh goodness another game starts with a self-vote spurring madness.

Actually nobody self-voted and I probably should not have made my last post debating the theory of self-voting.

Well, you and Korts are the ones who wanted to talk about theory...

I am perfectly content to discuss any theory which is relevant to the game we are playing. Since nobody self-voted, the topic isn't going to uncover anything except how players feel about self-votes. Discussing RVs and SKs is fair game IMO. I admit I got caught up responding on the self-vote topic which is why I made the statement you just quoted.

[OhGodMyLife]

Oh god, my life. I should have realized what I was getting into signing up for another game with Rhinox and Jahudo.

Now, onto the more important matters.

Unvote, Vote: Korts

Your pops vote stinks of "throwing the book at him looks protown," and since that one questionable infraction you voted him for I haven't seen anything else from you which looked in any way like you're really trying to determine his alignment.

Also, this:

I don't like how multiple people jumped to the defense of MME. First pops, now Rhinox; I smell connections.

Is totally bogus. You're either trying to stark a witch hunt on MME, or one of those three players {MME, pops, Rhinox} is in your scumgroup and you're already laying false connection trails to townies.

---

RE: SK discussion. On day one, there is nothing to gain for town from discussing the possibility of an SK. I have yet to see any way for town to successfully divine who an SK is on day one of a game, without even knowing if there is one, and the faction who has much more of a vested interest in offing an SK as early as possible is the scaredy-pants mafia who don't want to get crosskilled.

Particularly the fact that the theoretical SK is the

only

possible source of dead mafia during the night,

and

this SK gets one shot kill immunity, this particular line of discussion is what makes Tar's "selective scumhunting" tell not just a buzzword.

[bionicchop2]

RE: SK discussion. On day one, there is nothing to gain for town from discussing the possibility of an SK. I have yet to see any way for town to successfully divine who an SK is on day one of a game, without even knowing if there is one, and the faction who has much more of a vested interest in offing an SK as early as possible is the scaredy-pants mafia who don't want to get crosskilled.

Particularly the fact that the theoretical SK is the

only

possible source of dead mafia during the night,

and

this SK gets one shot kill immunity, this particular line of discussion is what makes Tar's "selective scumhunting" tell not just a buzzword.

1. I question the validity os saying there is nothing to gain from discussing the possibility of a SK. It has now opened the door for several comments which may end up giving clues to alignment (or they may not, but at least the chance is there). Comments range from saying we shouldn't hunt for SKs, we shouldn't talk about them, we should hunt them the same as mafia. It has also generated the first signs of accusations about players wanting to discuss SK.

2. I will state again that I have trouble seeing how hunting for an SK would actually differ from hunting for a mafia player on D1. Since we have no alignment info, we cannot connect players to each other and we can only go based on 'scummy' play. Since both mafia and SK would be against the town, their motives on d1 IMO would be similar. There would be differences I imagine, but there would be more similarities.

3. I will also state again that discussing a SK is not the same as hunting the SK and I feel the discussion could open up information about mafia and SK.

RE: Tar's "selective scumhunting" :

How valid do you think something like this is in a game of experienced (even the new players are far from ignorant) players? Yes, if you could clearly identify somebody displaying the traits described, it should be considered. By simply having this 'tell' mentioned 3+ times in the first 3 pages we have basically made sure no scum would make the mistake of focusing on a SK. I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.

[OhGodMyLife]

Bringing up the SK in the absence of evidence for an SK's existence

is

focusing on the SK. If the scum are going to make the mistake, they already have. No doubt because of the ensuing discussion they'll be more careful for the rest of the game.

[Rhinox]

It is slightly odd you don't see SK as 'scum' and you see hunting one type of player against the town's win condition as more valuable than the other. It also indicates you would be able to identify the difference during the game.

Both SK and mafia are working against the town win condition. If a SK was called 'solo mafia', would that change anything?

oooh...sorry, my bad: "No. Town should hunt

scum

the primary mafia faction

only, until it is proven there is an SK

or second mafia faction

. fixed. I meant to type mafia. of course sk are scum.

However, to answer the first part of your question, I don't see hunting for an sk as beneficial to the town until it is known there is an sk. We KNOW there is mafia. It would make no difference if the SK was called solo mafia - I wouldn't hunt for a second mafia family in a game were 2 mafia families were possible, if there were no kills that pointed to their presence.

I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.

Well, it is my belief that talking about an sk will do nothing but remind the sk (if in the game) that we're aware that an sk is possible and we're looking for sk tells/slips... This would cause an sk to play more cautiously, and possibly alter the way an sk would play in a way that would make an sk harder to find. Just as you say the selective scumhunting attack is no longer valid for the rest of the game, anything that would be discussed about sk tells, or how to find an sk, would make that tell invalid as well. That is why I was originally suspicious when you asked me how I would recognize an sk. It seems like it would be eliminating opportunities for an sk to slip up.

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

Oh god, my life. I should have realized what I was getting into signing up for another game with Rhinox and Jahudo.

I promise I won't fake tunnelvision on you this time... unless I think you're scum

[bionicchop2]

However, to answer the first part of your question, I don't see hunting for an sk as beneficial to the town until it is known there is an sk. We KNOW there is mafia. It would make no difference if the SK was called solo mafia - I wouldn't hunt for a second mafia family in a game were 2 mafia families were possible, if there were no kills that pointed to their presence.

I guess the biggest issue I am having is that everybody is making hunting for these different types of scum as mutually exclusive. How would you know if a player you thought was scum was primary or secondary mafia?

I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.

Well, it is my belief that talking about an sk will do nothing but remind the sk (if in the game) that we're aware that an sk is possible and we're looking for sk tells/slips... This would cause an sk to play more cautiously, and possibly alter the way an sk would play in a way that would make an sk harder to find. Just as you say the selective scumhunting attack is no longer valid for the rest of the game, anything that would be discussed about sk tells, or how to find an sk, would make that tell invalid as well. That is why I was originally suspicious when you asked me how I would recognize an sk. It seems like it would be eliminating opportunities for an sk to slip up.

I can see your point here. I didn't expect you to make a point by point outline on SK play though. I do know from your play in the ongoing game that you aren't just going to outline your full thoughts and you are cautious of what information you reveal.

On the flip of all that, if we do determine there is a SK, I think these first 3 pages of players expressing opinions on if we should / should not hunt for a SK (even though that was not the original topic) will prove to have a good chunk of information. If we had waited until we knew one existed, it may have been too late for town.

[Korts]

Friday is his horse.

Is that all you have to say?

Let me help. Did you admit to posting for the sake of posting? Why did you post for the sake of posting? Why did you admit to it?

@Korts: After re-reading BC's post, do you still think that BC acknowledged or inferred that parts or the whole of the SK discussion was counter-productive? Does that affect BC's intention of the selective scumhunting event?

No, I don't think BC acknowledged that anymore. The selective scumhunting point still stands since he was the one who brought the topic of how to catch the SK up.

SELFVOTER=NOT PRO-TOWN. regardless of the theory behind it, I'm always going to vote a self voter, and that does not make me opportunistic scum. There is a clear divide within the community about self-voting, and discussion about it and doing it only widens the gap, and distracts from the true purpose of the game. I'm on the "Town should never self-vote" side, and I play accordingly. Weren't you the one who said...

Anti-town doesn't equal scummy. Why do you think scum would have more motivation to self-vote? What would they achieve by that? If you agree there's no motivation either way, why do you insist on voting for it, since it's a nulltell?

Players who vote by saying "vote: player Y just for pressure" should also be lynched slapped with a raw fish.

This I agree with. But do you really think an anti-town action should be punished with a lynch if it is clear that it is not scummy (as in scum have no more motivation to do it than town)?

But enough with the theory.

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

Your pops vote stinks of "throwing the book at him looks protown," and since that one questionable infraction you voted him for I haven't seen anything else from you which looked in any way like you're really trying to determine his alignment.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "throwing the book". And by the by "since that one questionable infraction" there has been no relevant posting from him so I really don't see how I could've followed up on the "questionable infraction". You talk like this game has been going on for considerably more time than it actually has, and the focal point you make against me is weaker than my brother's biceps (he's a sociology student for reference).

Also, this: <quote> Is totally bogus. You're either trying to stark a witch hunt on MME, or one of those three players {MME, pops, Rhinox} is in your scumgroup and you're already laying false connection trails to townies.

Alternatively, I believe in transparency and keep my thoughts in-thread instead of in-head.

How valid do you think something like this is in a game of experienced (even the new players are far from ignorant) players? Yes, if you could clearly identify somebody displaying the traits described, it should be considered. By simply having this 'tell' mentioned 3+ times in the first 3 pages we have basically made sure no scum would make the mistake of focusing on a SK. I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.

Ugh. I guess we should stop scumhunting so that we don't uncover more potential slip-ups for the scum.

[popsofctown]

Friday is his horse.

Is that all you have to say?

Let me help. Did you admit to posting for the sake of posting? Why did you post for the sake of posting? Why did you admit to it?

What walks on four legs at first, then at two, and then finally on three?


I'm trying to make a point. My make-talk post was no more unuseful than jokes made during the RVS, which you seem to encourage. Just like i would admit to telling that joke to get talk going, i'll admit the other post was trying to get talk going. I don't lie about what I'm doing when i play town.