xkcd

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:57 pm UTC

Ebwop: by 'glossy', I of course mean 'bloody'. Duck you auotocorrect!

by **t1mm01994** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:35 pm UTC

Tee hee @ DYAC, luckily they have left that part out in 3ds touchtyping.. But back to topic.
Yes, taking it slowly might help but if I were scum I'd be much more on top of things, making sure that for example if I picked ninja the pick goes to watcher. BF has done nothing of that kind.
And mn, I understand, it's a holiday period here, too. Just, it feels to me like you're becoming a bit too powerful. I'm thinking you might be my next biggest concern.

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:17 am UTC

Well, I'm glad that we're here worrying about me and Boomfrog instead of going for the easy targets. That was what I originally intended. I admit, though, that I was probably being a little silly about it, especially when I "accused" Boomfrog. As far as me being too powerful, I guess I understand that concern but I think that's something left to the reaction of other people rather than to the actual content of my posts. I certainly wouldn't mind people disagreeing with me, which, I might point out, is happening right now.

t1mm01994 wrote:Yes, taking it slowly might help but if I were scum I'd be much more on top of things, making sure that for example if I picked ninja the pick goes to watcher. BF has done nothing of that kind.

While I still think Boomfrog is the least likely to be scum so far, I think a little dose of skepticism is always healthy. I don't see how BF has done nothing of that kind. He's been a pretty strong voice, which I would expect from a veteran anyway. And if he was scum and chose strongman, then he didn't even need to do any steering. That said, I still think BF is the least likely to be scum and that GoP is our best canidate. Until he posts to defend himself though, I don't think there's a whole lot more to be said about that.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:26 am UTC

Argh, my post was eaten. First lesson of Mafia boys. Always Ctrl-A Ctrl-C your post before submitting (or previewing) just in case your long ass post gets eaten.

Anyway, quick summery. It is unfortunate that such a popular choice got made. If we weren't up against the deadline I probably would have tried to steer us back to cop. As it is, it is likely that a non-GoP scum is a strongman. Therefore I propose that we lynch someone else and the RBer targets GoP like a laser every night. If anyone else is scum the the RBer is likely useless anyway. If we lynch twice and get to D3 and the mafia hasn't made a kill then we know GoP is scum. If GoP is town then we've gotten a mostly confirmed townie.

If GoP is scum and picked strongman then I think he deserves the win. :p More importantly I think that is unlikely and an acceptable risk.

I like the content generation so far. I'll come back when I have more time to analyse for scummyness.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:40 am UTC

Interesting that everyone went for roleblocker.

Looking at the rules, Scum have no incentive to kill unless it wins them the game, or we NL the first night. If we NL the first day, scum could attempt a kill to make it 4-1, and force us to lynch the next day. If we lynch today, then scum doesn't kill until we lynch again. Then scum kills, and assuming no roleblock, wins. So we can either wait for scum to make the first move, and hope the roleblocker works, or we can get 2 shots at the lynch. 2 shots at roleblocking, or 2 shots at lynch.

Personally, with the way everything went, I'd prefer 2 shots at the lynch. It is likely that the Mafia is a strongman, immune to the RBer, which would invalidate the NL strategy.

As to who the scum is, I'm looking at timm and mostlynormal. BF's latest post makes me think town, and it was timm and mn who were pushing for RB the hardest.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:49 am UTC

Surely scum's incentive to kill would be to finish the game quicker so they need to make less content that can be analysed and could potentially give them away.

@BF: surely if we think we've got scum we should go ahead and lynch them. I see your point about any non-GoP mafia being a strongman, making our roleblocker useless, but that's no reason to bumb ourselves off.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:53 am UTC

The problem with BF's plan is that if GoP is town then scum won't make a kill and we'll lynch him, meaning we'll lose.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:38 pm UTC

I think I've been misunderstood then. If we lynch day one and day two (assuming no kill N1) then we are at three people and the scum is assured to attempt a kill. If the kill succeeds its one town left alive and scum wins. Therefore if we get to D3 then the roleblocker succeeded N2 and knows 100% who the scum is.

So we can play D1 and D2 assuming GoP is town and then lynch him on D3 if we get there. Then we get to lynch twice and the RB is confirmed town and GoP is either town or he will lose D3. So we only need to find one player who we trust.

I'm liking a 2/3rd chance to win the game. ^.^ (assuming GoP is not a strongman)

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

Ok I'll try and summarise our options, partly as a way to clarify them to myself. If I cock up somewhere please point it out.:

Plan 1: We kill the scummiest player every day and roleblock the second scummiest.
Pros: we have complete control over at least two deaths.
Cons: confirming a towny will be harder (as any non-GoP mafia are likely to be a strongman). Chance is not on our side D1. If mafia kill both nights then we reach lylo on day 2. We either lose our best/most towny player to Nk or have a 1:3 vote on D2.

Plan 2: we kill the scummiest player who isn't GoP, who we roleblock. If there're no nightkills we lynch GoP.
Pros: we retain power over at least two deaths. If there's a nightkill then we have a confirmed towny. Otherwise we kill the two scummiest players ATM.
Cons: if there isn't a nightkill and GoP isn't scum then we've effectively lost on day 2. The scum only has to avoid a day 1 lynch. If there is a nightkill then there's nothing to stop a false claim and the whole game rests on GoPs judgement.

Plan 3: We NL until there are three of us left, then lynch the scummiest.
Pros: we get decent odds on the last day.
Cons: we have no control over who dies. We're likely to lose our best/least scummy players. Game could stagnate and scum would win by default. Our roleblocker becomes pointless.

None of these plans are paticularly fool proof. I'm personally leaning towards the first one, because it has the least drawbacks. Plan 2 is too easy to circumnavigate and plan 3 is just ridiculousy flawed.

Please point out any points/ tactics I've missed here.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

And the prize for spotting the misunderstanding of BF's plan goes to... Me!

That said, even if we wait for a hypothetical D3 to kill GoP, that plan's too risky for me. A lynch in a 2:2 situation is too dangerous. Also, GoP will never be confirmed town. Either he's mafia or he will the first to be NKed. a confirmed towny is too powerful for scum to risk.

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Anyway, quick summery. It is unfortunate that such a popular choice got made. If we weren't up against the deadline I probably would have tried to steer us back to cop. As it is, it is likely that a non-GoP scum is a strongman.

It's ironic, isn't it? The most popular choice is the one that get's chosen, yet at the same time it's least likely to be useful if everyone is assumed equally likely to be scum. That said, I don't think we should rely so heavily on GoP not being a strongman. Though he couldn't have anticipated your plan, his post could've been deliberately flawed in order to turn us off to the idea of cop. A large part of the reason I voted roleblocker was because cop didn't seem very defensible to me after my post attacking GoP's plan.

@ The Masked Gecko: I'm not sure what you mean by a 2:2 situation.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:31 pm UTC

I meant 3 townies versus one scum. I was in a hurry and didn't think as much as I should have :oops:

by **Gopher of Pern** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:40 pm UTC

I'll make this easier on you: I'm confirmed town. I am the roleblocker.

This will leave us in a good position. We lynch at 3-1 odds today. If scum doesn't kill, we lynch at 2-1 odds tomorrow. If we've still failed, I have a half a chance at roleblocking scum. Now, with this scenario, scum might well attempt a kill on me N1, as that will leave them at 2-1 odds tomorrow, with no roleblocker. In that case, I'm wondering whether it is worth announcing my RB target. If I die, then my target is town, or strongman. If I don't, my target is scum, or scum didn't kill. Of course, they could kill someone else, but that leaves me as kingmaker.

BTW, scum, please counter claim. That would give us the win!

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:07 pm UTC

Well that certainly makes it easier. At least in some ways. Roleclaiming could make you a target, since you're confirmed anyway now. If you die tonight then we won't be able to use you N2. I don't see the point in announcing your target. Not only does it give no real information about alignment (Strongman or confirmed townie/Scum or mafia just didn't kill), but announcing it before the night would give scum a chance to react (like withhold their kill to try to make someone else look scummy).

I guess we should start considering other lynch targets. Timm seems like the most scummy at this point since he joined in on the roleblocker vote with little justification. I guess the same could be said of The Masked Gecko but his vote didn't count anyway so that's a little confusing. Boomfrog at least expressed reservations. And let me remind those of you concerned about the amount of people voting for roleblocker that that's no reason to find me scummy. I clearly stated my reasons for voting how I did, I didn't ask others to pile on the votes.

Also, if any scum out there wants to counterclaim, go ahead. It's not like it'd lose you the game or anything . :wink:

by **t1mm01994** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:28 am UTC

I really, truly do not see how claiming day 1 with no votes on your head could ever be the right thing. Sure, there was some suspicion on your head, but you weren't bound to get lynched anywhere soon, anyway. Now you have to guess a 1 in 3 chance or you'll die, given that your claim is true.
But then again, if your claim is false, that'd make the claim really stupid, given there is no real way to win for you anymore.
Therefore, I'd tend to believe this. This is really contradicting in my head, I'd love to suspect you for doing something that, in my head, is quite strange, but I really shouldn't.
This allows us to look for other scummy targets: in this case, I'd be happiest with TMG. Didn't show up to vote for the power role, and only came in after the votes were already counted, and didn't contribute all that much to the thread.
If you think I'm scummy: You can always save me for day 2, if you want to kill me that badly... Just, let's get rid of someone else first

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:54 am UTC

I'll defend myself tomorrow. I've shown far too many times that I shouldn't type when tired.

by **t1mm01994** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:58 am UTC

To be fair, I'm typing this when tired (1:57 in the night) and somewhat drunk (4 beers and very lightweight). Still, it's pretty much all I have to say and I'm fully responsible for the contents of that post.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:15 am UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:If you think I'm scummy: You can always save me for day 2, if you want to kill me that badly... Just, let's get rid of someone else first

This is not a helpful thing to say. Try defending against the charge by addressing it. What was going through your head as you voted for strongman?

t1mm01994 wrote:I really, truly do not see how claiming day 1 with no votes on your head could ever be the right thing.

At first I thought exactly this, I was all ready to come in thread and chastize GoP. But thinking it through, if he had claimed D2 then scum could have counterclaimed, and GoP would have been VERY suspicious, as a scum GoP pretty much has to claim roleblocker D2 or convince town to not follow my plan or RBing him. So I think ha actually made the right choice here. Still, I'd have made the claim later in the day as it does take some pressure off scum. Anyway, TMG was the only one opposed to my plan, and with poor reasoning at that so I'd like to hear his defense.

by **t1mm01994** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:23 am UTC

For one, I didn't vote strongman, I voted roleblocker. Alas, when I had to pick roles, at the start I said that with cop and watcher we'd have 1 shot of properly using the ability, and 2 lynches, and that's game. RB and doc could prolong that. I liked RB more because doc cant claim because he'll die that night. So, RB seemed like the best choice, considering the bandwagon on Cop a short time before that...

by **Gopher of Pern** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:51 am UTC

I claimed early, because I knew whatever I said would have you people jumping on me further. Though I am still looking at those who said I was scummy.

t1mm01994 wrote:For one, I didn't vote strongman, I voted roleblocker. Alas, when I had to pick roles, at the start I said that with cop and watcher we'd have 1 shot of properly using the ability, and 2 lynches, and that's game. RB and doc could prolong that. I liked RB more because doc cant claim because he'll die that night. So, RB seemed like the best choice, considering the bandwagon on Cop a short time before that...

Since when was there a bandwagon on cop? Cop is hands down the best ability out of all of them - it is only because of the high potential for godfather that it might not be the best pick. I was the only one to vote for cop. Don't understand how a bandwagon on cop, if it even existed, would mean RB is best.

by **t1mm01994** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm UTC

If many people intend to pick cop, that might very well mean that we have a godfather between us, which means that we shouldn't pick cop.
Of the other 3 abilities, I deemed RB the one with most perspective, so I voted for RB. And cop gives a 1 in 3 chance of success. That's not the best one can do, I believe... I think RB does better than that, or only marginally worse.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:34 pm UTC

Ok, firstly my weird late vote. I neglected this forum due to increasing revision before the start of college. One morning, during breakfast, I checked my emails and found one telling me I had a pm telling me that I needed to post soon or be replaced. I panicked and rushed of a post to confirm I was still playing, as well as to get my vote in before the deadline closed. I was going to justify my decision later. Once I'd posted I reread the preceding posts quickly and discovered I'd missed the deadline.
I know this behaviour looked unusual to everyone else but I can't see how drawing attention to myself in that way was scummy (except the wine that always goes with any non-scummy behaviour).

Boomfrog said:
Anyway, TMG was the only one opposed to my plan, and with poor reasoning at that so I'd like to hear his defense.

I was opposed to you'd plan because: at that time I thought GoP was scum and leaving him alive seemed too risky; information gained would be murky at best, misleading at worst; there were too many ways for scum to circumnavigate it. I admit that I originally misread which day you would have lynched him and I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote 2:2. Other than those I can't defend against accusations of poor logic until you're more specific.

That's now irrelevant anyway. I'm willing to accept GoP's status as roleblocker for now and, unless blocking himself serves some greater purpose, your plan won't work anyway.

I'll leave it at that for now and I'll update my views on my suspicions either tonight or tomorrow, when I have time to reread the thread again.

by **Mostlynormal** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm UTC

So I reread the thread and here are my thoughts:

T1mm: Little content so far, this was explained pretty well, so neutral about that. He voted for roleblocker saying he genuinely agreed with me, which could be a genuine townie sentiment or a strongman scum. His justification for his vote seems all right to me. Neutral, probably strongman if he is scum.

Boomfrog: Most of his posts have been pretty townie, but upon rereading I found the way he talked about his vote a little strange. He didn't really give much justification and seemed torn between cop and roleblocker, which is understandable considering there's no way to really tell. But what I find weird is that he later says that he would've tried to steer us back towards cop if not for the deadline. If so, why didn't he vote cop? That would have left us at a tie and given cop some chance of being picked. It's almost like he's saying that the good choice would've been cop, even though he voted roleblocker. This could be because he's a strongman who took advantage of the majority for roleblocker and later tried to make it look like he didn't really want roleblocker in order to keep the suspicion about the majority vote off of himself. Slightly scummy, but definitely not godfather.

The Masked Gecko: His posts have been mostly neutral, but I don't understand why he doesn't justify his vote now, if he made it planning to justify later. His vote was past the deadline, but he should still be able to say why he voted for roleblocker as opposed to something else. Pending judgement, basically neutral.

by **BoomFrog** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:18 am UTC

Mostlynormal wrote:Boomfrog:
...
But what I find weird is that he later says that he would've tried to steer us back towards cop if not for the deadline. If so, why didn't he vote cop?

That's a good point, and I explained this better in the post that got eaten. What I ment was, with the knowledge that TMG wanted to vote roleblocker I would have changed to Cop and tried to persuade one of you to change to cop as well. If the deadline hadn't been comming up so soon we could have had another round of "I would vote X" instead of actual voting and I could have reevaluated the metadecision of trying to win democratic RPS.

Looking at your list you put me as slightly scummy and TMG and T1mm as neutral. So are you saying I would be your prefered lynch right now?

TheMaskedGecko wrote:I was opposed to you'd plan because: at that time I thought GoP was scum and leaving him alive seemed too risky; information gained would be murky at best, misleading at worst; there were too many ways for scum to circumnavigate it.
...
That's now irrelevant anyway.

It's not irrelevent, the plan is useless now, true. But your response to it is still interesting and worth discussing. Unless GoP was a strongman the information gained would have been solid. If he had been RBed N1 and N2 and the game wasn't over D3 then he would have been definitive scum. How is that murky? If he wasn't a strongman then keeping him alive wouldn't have been risky either.

Anyway, don't get too cought up in defending yourself. I'd like to hear who you think is scummy and why.

I think everyone (except GoP) should make a little scummyness list to make things perfectly clear. Mine is as follows:

Scummy end
TMG
T1mm
MostlyNormal
GoP (obvilously)
Towny end

by **Mostlynormal** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:14 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:That's a good point, and I explained this better in the post that got eaten. What I ment was, with the knowledge that TMG wanted to vote roleblocker I would have changed to Cop and tried to persuade one of you to change to cop as well. If the deadline hadn't been comming up so soon we could have had another round of "I would vote X" instead of actual voting and I could have reevaluated the metadecision of trying to win democratic RPS.

That sound's mostly reasonable. Iterative democratic RPS sounds like an interesting situation. I wonder if it could be fleshed out? Maybe there are three agents, one of which has already chosen some decision A from three choices A B and C. The other two want to not choose A. Each round everyone votes, and if A is chosen the one agent gets a point and if not the two others get a point. Except nobody knows the score until the end. I wonder what the strategy would be for the two agents, and how it would change as the number of "town" agents increased, or as the number of "scum" increased. Anyway, I'll have to think about that. For now, I need to get back on track.

BoomFrog wrote:Looking at your list you put me as slightly scummy and TMG and T1mm as neutral. So are you saying I would be your prefered lynch right now

Well, after your last post you don't look very scummy. But at the same time, neither do TMG or timm. All TMG did was be inactive the first day, which he explained, and argue against your plan with less than perfect reasoning. Considering that the last person we attacked for poor reasoning (and he was experienced too, which is something TMG doesn't have against him) turned out town, that seems pretty shaky in its validity as a scumtell at the moment. That said, him explaining his line of thinking can't possibly a bad thing, and I'd still like him to justify his vote, deadline or not.

As a side note, I'd like to see timm do an analysis post before I can really form much of an opinion on him.

Basically, I don't really think anyone looks scummy at the moment. To answer your question about preferred lynches, I couldn't talk in those terms but if I absolutely had to chose someone to lynch before your post, I would've chosen you, and now I would choose TMG, but I really wouldn't feel confident about either of those at all. I can give you my scummyness list in terms of who I think is most scummy looking as opposed to least, but I think we need a lot more information before we can come to a decision.

Scummier
The Masked Gecko
Boomfrog (your defense was reasonable, but I've still got my eye on you)
Timm
Gopher of Pern (duh)
Townier

by **t1mm01994** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:27 am UTC

I'm getting quite concerned about MN's behaviour, to be very honest. His "most scummy" has flown from TMG to GoP to me then back to TMG. It'd seem like he's just trying to kill whoever is most likely to get killed at that moment.. Which is usually a scumtell.
I'm still pretty happy with BF, as he's doing what he does best, with the difference that he is now a veteran player; that, I can accept.
TMG does somewhat ping me for the reasons I mentioned before, but I think I'd like to do something about the flying votes of MN first.
Added to that, if MN is scum, he's Strongman for pretty high odds. For TMG, we really don't have that much information; I think he's our best attempt at blocking the NK atm.
For now, my scumlist would be, town to scum,
Gopher of Pern
BoomFrog
TheMaskedGecko
Mostlynormal.
Is there a deadline, and if so, when is it?

by **webby** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:04 pm UTC

Yes, I gave you a week from role selection - 7pm AEDST Wednesday, which is 3 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes from now. (Note that this may be late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning for some timezones, so don't make the mistake of thinking you have until Wednesday).

Votals:
NONE

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:I agree, in as far as if I was mafia I would choose either ninja or godfather. However I think that the role blocker would be more useful, as it's easier to pick the person you think is scum than the one you think that they are going to kill.

It's hard for me to explain the vote I made because a) I haven't been keeping notes and b) The discussion and my thoughts moved on since then. Frankly I can't remember. However this quote ^ seems most likely to explain why I voted roleblocker. It made sense at the time and would do still if not for the almost certain chance that we are dealing with a strongman.

BoomFrog wrote:It's not irrelevent

Sorry, irrelevant was the wrong word. The correct ones at the tip of my tongue (or possibly my fingers). I was trying to clarify that this was a discussion about my logic instead of your plan. Speaking of which, the only reliable information that could be gained from your plan would be if GoP was town and there was an NK. That would have left us with a confirmed town but they would almost certainly be dead (confirmed town is something too powerful for mafia to risk).

Ok, Player analysis. Here we go

BoomFrog: He's suggested two plans so far. I've liked neither, the first (NL until scum kill two of us) because it gives the scum too much power as well as the obvious problem of an NL taking away any information we could gain from votals; the second because scum could usurp it easily and through off any information we could've got from it. I also agree with mn that his confession that he would've tried steering us back to cop but he didn't change his vote. All three of these things are consistent with a hypothetical scum BF.

GopherofPern: his roleclaim seemed odd but after giving it some thought it does make sense. It avoided the problem of him appearing to false claim tomorrow. It also avoided a band wagon forming which would be easy for scum to hide in, leaving us on D2 with a dead town. As I said before I'm willing to believe him for now, if only because I doubt he'll be alive tomorrow.

mostlynormal: I don't know. I'm not get anything. His most scummy player has gone from GoP to T1mm to BoomFrog to me. Could be scummy play or just someone changing his mind based on the latest information. Pre-vote almost all his posts mentioned that he preferred roleblocker (or doctor). This could be a strongman trying to swing our opinions. However, said posts seem logically sound and internally consistent. He posts much more than anyone which is normally a towntell. Or maybe he's mafia trying to avoid the most basic of scumtells. Agh! He's surrounded by more wine than an italian off-license during a festival dedicated to grape-based alcoholic beverages!

t1mm01994: Short posts but we've been over that. Originally against Roleblocker then seems to be convinced by mn. The only reasons he's given for me being scummy are my early lack of posts and strange vote despite my defense. His "kill me tomorrow" defense holds no water. Nothing really makes me think he's scum.

Scumlist from scumliest to townmost:
BF
mn
t1m
GoP

by **t1mm01994** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:mostlynormal: Agh! He's surrounded by more wine than an italian off-license during a festival dedicated to grape-based alcoholic beverages!

That quote is the main reason I'd like him dead; He clouds stuff, which is not what we can use best. It's also pretty siggable.. Ah well.

by **Mostlynormal** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:47 pm UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:
TheMaskedGecko wrote:mostlynormal: Agh! He's surrounded by more wine than an italian off-license during a festival dedicated to grape-based alcoholic beverages!

That quote is the main reason I'd like him dead; He clouds stuff, which is not what we can use best. It's also pretty siggable.. Ah well.

I think sigging the quote would be a pretty big scumtell. It'd be like if your told your banker they'd make a good con man and they took it as a compliment O.O
I don't see how I've been clouding stuff. Sure, I've excercised caution. I kept my options open about the role selection and I made sure we considered alternatives to things we were going for too eagerly. But that, if anything, is a towntell.

t1mm01994 wrote:I'm getting quite concerned about MN's behaviour, to be very honest. His "most scummy" has flown from TMG to GoP to me then back to TMG. It'd seem like he's just trying to kill whoever is most likely to get killed at that moment.. Which is usually a scumtell.

You're really misrepresenting me here. Since when was my "most scummy" on TMG before it was on GoP? And it's not like I was trying to kill them. I voiced my suspicions and they all responded reasonably in a way that not only looked townie but adressed my concerns. So I moved on to my second most suspicious and so on. Let me remind you that your most scummy has "flown" from GoP to TMG to me. Should I consider that a scumtell? No, it was only reasonable for you to change away from GoP, and TMG has recently given a satisfactory defense. The problem here is that no one is looking too scummy, and we're sort of stuck in a rut talking about the voting patterns from part one. I think it's too easy for scum to just parrot back some widely accepted reason for voting roleblocker and get off easy. We need to move on to something else. I guess I know at least one question I can ask. Timm, why did you consider changing suspicions a scumtell when there were plenty of reasons to change and you yourself were changing?

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

Mostlynormal wrote:...GoP is our best canidate...

Mostlynormal wrote:...Timm seems like the most scummy at this point...

Mostlynormal wrote:So I reread the thread and here are my thoughts:

T1mm:... Neutral, probably strongman if he is scum.

Boomfrog: ... Slightly scummy, but definitely not godfather.

The Masked Gecko:... Pending judgement, basically neutral.

Mostlynormal wrote:...Scummier
The Masked Gecko
Boomfrog (your defense was reasonable, but I've still got my eye on you)
Timm
Gopher of Pern (duh)
Townier

This is mn's changing most scummy list. I can't see a point before this that he calls me scummy (besides the mental, accuse everyone post). As I say above, I'm more inclined to see it as changing his mind due to new info. t1mm sees it as opportunism.

by **t1mm01994** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:33 pm UTC

Mod, could you please prod or even replace BF and GoP? A game with 2 new players, one junior player and 2 experienced players makes very little sense if the experienced players don't post.
The fact that GoP is confirmed town makes this even more true; it can't be strategical lurking.
It's very tempting to ragevote BF, as I'm not fond of unannounced lurkers, but we can't really afford a mislynch so I'll continue where I left off.

MN, you've spent an awful lot of characters on saying "Gee, I don't really know who's scummy. If deadline was now, I'd vote X." Not only does this not contribute much, it makes it very easy for scum to hide by not giving their opinion, but much rather react on yours.

by **webby** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:13 pm UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:Mod, could you please prod or even replace BF and GoP? A game with 2 new players, one junior player and 2 experienced players makes very little sense if the experienced players don't post.

Boomfrog - 8 posts, 4 in each part of the day. Last post a bit under three days ago. A little less than average, but I don't consider it unacceptable inactivity yet given the three days included a weekend.
Gopher of Pern - 5 posts, 3 in the first part, 2 in the second part. Last post 3.5 days ago. This isn't in the replacement category, but the usual guide is that going 72 hours without posting is a little too much. Will prod if he doesn't post today.

Normally I wouldn't extend the deadline in this scenario - it's not as if any players have disappeared, so it's not up to me to put pressure on them, but because this is a newbie game I'll give you 48 hours extra. No further extensions will be granted unless I need to replace a player.

Deadline is now in a little under 81 hours from this post.

by **t1mm01994** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:46 pm UTC

Thanks for the swift reply.

I figure I'll have to redefine my "active".... *sigh*

by **Mostlynormal** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:16 am UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:MN, you've spent an awful lot of characters on saying "Gee, I don't really know who's scummy. If deadline was now, I'd vote X." Not only does this not contribute much, it makes it very easy for scum to hide by not giving their opinion, but much rather react on yours.

I don't see the problem with this. I don't know who's scummy because there's not much to go on, and I know if I don't say anything there will continue to be not much to go on. So I say what little I do beleive. The problem with scum reacting to opinions seem unaviodable, because if anyone voices an opinion scum could react to it, but if no one voices an opinion then we've got bigger problems. That's why it would be considered a scumtell to spend the game only reacting to other people's opinions.
If you'd like I can go through TMG's list and spell out for you why I made those changes, but that seems pretty unnecessary to me. Also, you still haven't answered my question.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:26 am UTC

Of course it can be strategical lurking. I am confirmed town, and I would like everyone elses opinion before I say something, so as to to influence too much.

I have pretty much made up my mind though.

by **BoomFrog** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:46 pm UTC

My daughter has been sick since Sunday. I plan to make a substantial post tomorrow.

Thanks for the lenience

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

Just a heads up that, due to real life, I'm unlikely to have Internet access tomorrow and very little time on Thursday. As far as I can work out the deadline's Thursday night so I'll hopefully make a post before then.
In case I do miss the lynch and am (understandably) accused of avoiding votes so my voting pattern can be analysed, I would like it to be known that I was about to vote BoomFrog ATM. However, as he's just said that he will make a post tomorrow, it would seem a little unfair to leave a vote like that lying around with the chance that I might not be able to change it in time.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:23 am UTC

Vote: Mostlynormal

There isn't much separating everyone. This is really just a gut feeling.

I was going to declare my RB target, but there isn't much point. It only helps if I die during the night, and with scum having a good chance of being strongman, the information will only confuse people if I did actually pick scum. If I don't die, we will be in a very good position, because it is very likely that I roleblocked the person, and so we can simply lynch them tomorrow.

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:55 am UTC

Alright, I'm going to try and pick this up where I left it off. First of all, @GoP: I think holding back your opinion is not the best idea considering things have stagnated. If there were multiple scum you could try and see who is connected to your suspect, but in the case of one scum, you are either right and we win, or wrong and we need more info on other people. So I think if you stated your opinion you could have generated more discussion.

Anyway:

MostlyNormal was first to vote for a town skill, and also spurred discussion a lot when it was stagnating. I am still confident that he is town.

TMG has been improving lately, and I'm seeing him a bit more neutrally. I was getting ready to vote for T1mm by elimination so I did a reread:

t1mm01994 wrote:It's very tempting to ragevote BF, as I'm not fond of unannounced lurkers, but we can't really afford a mislynch so I'll continue where I left off.

I don't think scum would be so bold to admit something radical like this. This seems like genuine stream of consciousness. - townie

t1mm01994 wrote:
TheMaskedGecko wrote:mostlynormal: Agh! He's surrounded by more wine than an italian off-license during a festival dedicated to grape-based alcoholic beverages!

That quote is the main reason I'd like him dead; He clouds stuff, which is not what we can use best. It's also pretty siggable.. Ah well.

This is a bad reason to vote someone, especially in a one scum game. - scummy

t1mm01994 wrote:I'm getting quite concerned about MN's behaviour, to be very honest. His "most scummy" has flown from TMG to GoP to me then back to TMG. It'd seem like he's just trying to kill whoever is most likely to get killed at that moment.. Which is usually a scumtell.

I disagree with this, I think MN has changed his opinion for reasonable reasons every time. - scummy

However, it'd be pretty bold for noob scum to try and lead a lynch on someone. Scum generally hangs back and tries to follow the crowd. So it's townie in a weird way.

I think I'm going to have to go with my original instinct. I also don't like that TMG was going to go for the lurker lynch (me) and has been very followery besides that.

Vote: TheMaskedGecko

Who is online