Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zombie urist]

ZU: Let's assume you're scum.  One non-mafia player is taking the game by storm, and is considered by most to be not scum.  He has all ready found and lynched one of the mafia, and is suspicious of two more of your team, neither of them being you.  On the other hand, another nonscum player is adamantly defending another player, attacking anyone who tries to push him.  Who do you use the daykill on?

No one, because its not necessary.

ZU: If you were scum, what players wouldn't you want on your team? Why?

The new players because they are more likely to get lynched.

zombie urist:

...

These questions are bad.

Why?

Too broad and don't really help much.

On that note, I'm a mason.

Hmm... Captain Ford

[Captain Ford]

Hmm... Captain Ford

Are you going to explain that?

[Captain Ford]

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

[zombie urist]

I'm not certain, but I think you're scum claiming mason and not the other possibilities.

[Captain Ford]

You can't be stupid enough to actually think I meant that, so that must mean that you're intentionally misrepresenting what I was saying.

I made that statement following a paragraph that said "mason claims don't mean anything". Taken together, it means that statement was meaningless.

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

[TolyK]

Going through stuff again:
Replying "not quite" to "notquitethere" is kinda funny, but I've noticed that he didn't reply or take notice of my reply to him.

Not quite:
 Option 1's logic assumes the lynchee is a certified mason. If not, you could be either scum (who wants to even the votes to cause confusion) or just some townie who thinks the other person is more scummy.
 Option 3's "good" part also has a flipside - town move you closer to scum if you obviously bandwagon. Or, nothing can happen at all, which is basically the same as Option 2 except that you helped kill a fellow mason.
Hold on...
It's the townie who gets the passive protection, not the mason, so it wouldn't "potentially result(...) in a rebound-kill", rather "make you a higher-risk kill target, and make you a higher-payoff lynch target".

NQT, do you agree that your logic is not quite sound, as explained above? Also, forgetting "class perks" (mixing up who has protection) typically happens more to people who don't have that alignment, don't you think?

Since Phantom seems to be MIA, and since Capain Ford seems to be rocking in logic () I'll let him answer this question:

Phantom: What do you think about this statement: "People tend to give examples of what they'd do if they were of a different alignment than they really are (if they are asked), and tend to ask questions that put the addressed person into their alignment. The first part is to throw people off their scent, while the second part is to get suggestions on how others would play their alignment." What part is true (if any), and what part is logically incorrect (if any)?

[Toaster]

Two questions missed in one day- I need more caffeine.

Obolisk:

Toaster:  Let's assume you're a mason.  One of your masonbuddies has made a bonehead mistake, and is now under fire from most of the nonmasons.  The rest of the masons mostly ignoring him, instead scumhunting elsewhere.  It seems like you might be able to make a case against one of the mafia, but you don't have anything too convincing.  The day is closer to the end than you would like.  What do you do?

It depends on what you mean by "might be able to make a case."  Also, not sure how I'd know for sure someone was mafia.  Reading that as "someone I strongly suspect" I would likely present my case on both parties, then vote whichever one was more scummy, though with a bias against said mason buddy.


Ford:

You can't be stupid enough to actually think I meant that, so that must mean that you're intentionally misrepresenting what I was saying.

Everything you say, joke or not, will be analyzed here.

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

For example, this is an appeal to emotion.  You're trying to guilt him away from voting you instead of convincing him you're a bad person to vote.

Is it because you're not a bad person to vote and don't have an argument otherwise?  It just might be.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

Also, this is a knee-jerky OMGUS.  The double post makes you look just a bit panicky.

[notquitethere]

Going through stuff again:
Replying "not quite" to "notquitethere" is kinda funny, but I've noticed that he didn't reply or take notice of my reply to him.

Not quite:
 Option 1's logic assumes the lynchee is a certified mason. If not, you could be either scum (who wants to even the votes to cause confusion) or just some townie who thinks the other person is more scummy.
 Option 3's "good" part also has a flipside - town move you closer to scum if you obviously bandwagon. Or, nothing can happen at all, which is basically the same as Option 2 except that you helped kill a fellow mason.
Hold on...
It's the townie who gets the passive protection, not the mason, so it wouldn't "potentially result(...) in a rebound-kill", rather "make you a higher-risk kill target, and make you a higher-payoff lynch target".

NQT, do you agree that your logic is not quite sound, as explained above? Also, forgetting "class perks" (mixing up who has protection) typically happens more to people who don't have that alignment, don't you think

Yeah, sorry- got a bit side tracked. To clarify and reply:

The scenario assumes that it's this game we're talking about and not vanilla mafia and it's near the end of the week and you are a mason and a fellow mason is about to be lynched and you can save him back voting for a second person, forcing a last-minute draw. In this game, an absolute draw is decided in secret by the mafia. You're right that if you were to even up the votes then it might make you look scummy (I think that was Ford's argument), or it might make you look like town eager to prevent someone who they don't think is scum being lynched. But I think that as masons are the only non-scum that know for sure who is a mason or not, to the scum you will look most like a mason if you try and even out the vote at the last minute. Either way, because the scum know who they are, they're most likely to choose the mason to lynch rather than the patsy you voted for.

You make a good point that option 3 is likely to make you look like a bandwagoning scum to the townies, so maybe option 2 is the best.

This is a pretty convoluted counterfactual, but hopefully I'm making myself clear enough. As for the perk mix-around, this is only the second forum-mafia game I've played, so some misunderstandings are probably to be expected. I feel a bit safer and clearer now than I did before, if that's any consolation. Thanks for setting me straight, Tolyk...

[Tiruin]

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

[Dariush]

So many posts to read, so little time.

Dariush: What is your strategy?

For a start, vote you. Like this: Ford.

Dariush: Supposing you're a Mason, how would you act when compared to a normal townie in reference to that MK?

MK being...? I'll assume it's 'morningkill' and the answer is... do absolutely nothing. When I'm town, I'm hunting scum regardless of whether I know for a fact that some of the other people are town as well or not.

Dariush:  Would you be more likely to knowingly vote a teammate if you were a mafioso or a mason?

As scum. Voting a mason serves no purpose whatsoever. Throwing off a scumhunt by bussing a scummate may be subtly brought up later while you must rely on scumteam being sufficiently smart to even notice you voting that mason.

Dariush: Have you ever played a mafia game with so many other players? Would you say playing with 14 is more challenging than 9?

Yes, and even more. (I think the maximum was 16) No, I wouldn't, because having more people leaves more breathing space, regardless of your alignment.

No. Both townies and mafia have an incentive to claim mason. Masons can't tell which they are, so they should regard it as a nulltell. Masons could also claim it as a double-bluff, so a mason claim should universally be treated as a nulltell. Everyone has an incentive to claim it, and so it doesn't give anyone any new information.

On that note, I'm a mason.

Wrong answer. Anyone fakeclaiming mason will be suspected by a whole team of confirmed towns (masons, that is). Moreover, the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum. Finally, fakeclaiming while being town is just a bad idea in general.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

And now you're engaging in the worst flavor of hipocrisy. You say ZU can't be certain that you are scum, but you are certain that his vote is a lynch vote and not a pressure one. Why did you disregard the latter possibility out of hand?

ZU, why do you keep speaking in one-liners?

NQT, why did you vote DS twice in the space of two lines?

Tolyk, why do you think it's worthwhile to engage in RVS on 107th reply in the thread?

[Urist Imiknorris]

ZU:

I'm not certain, but I think you're scum claiming mason and not the other possibilities.

Would you like to share your reasoning behind this?

Tiruin:

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

What the hell are you even doing.

Tiruin: If you were mafia, who would you least prefer to have as your teammates?

Hmm, I guess it would be those who don't favor teamplay that much. I don't carry any favor towards anyone though in the least preferable section. Err, neither would I name names. Everyone is either neutral or favorable to me. How would this knowledge help you?

It helps me in the same way the knowledge gained from my question to Phantom helps me. But why won't you name names?

Also, what is with that new avatar? I missed your old ones.

Signavatar exploded, so I had to go back to a single avatar. I chose Trickster Mode Lord English for the sheer absurdity.

Dariush: You missed my question:

Dariush: Do you still stand by your notion that the BM-less newbies will be lynched first? (fake-edit: Also, how does it feel to be so popular?)

Also, what are your reads on notquitethere and obolisk?

Leafsnail: Could you please prod Edosurist and Phantom of the Library?

[Teneb]

Expect posts around this time for the rest of the game, just an FYI.

Deathsword

Copying questions others have asked you in the same game or those you have asked to others is extremely lazy.

Okay, I take your point: I will be a beacon of originality from here on in  . I still think it's better to engage as many people as possible.

No, I do indeed you were trying to buddy up with me, and then when I accused you of that together with a vote you were quick to vote me back. Why so jumpy, scum? Afraid you slipped and didn't cover up properly?

Nice try Deathsword, but you're reading far too much into things. I said "Scumbuddy Deathsword, help me out here!" as a joking quip to Tiruin: of course I wasn't seriously trying to address you, let alone buddy up. Your hyper-paranoid response seemed to warrant a pressure vote, but I wouldn't read too much into it as we're still in the random vote stage.

I am sorry, but didn't you throw a softball question at me asking for advice on how to play as scum?

Those questions are done with the intent of making the player trust you, to make them your buddies. And you took the opportunity to get some advice on how to play your role, since, looking at the BM, you didn't play as scum and thus never had advice from a scum IC.

It has been pointed out by another, but you really wanted to vote me, didn't you? What could make you so nervous as to keep voting me over and over in a single post? Being scum, of course.

Deathsword: You were awfully quick to jump on the bandwagon, weren't you?

You also jumped pretty hard when notquitethere named you in one of his posts. Seems like you don't want anyone thinking you're on a team.

And you were quite quick to jump on me for attacking NQT, weren't you? And just as quick to shift your vote to do an OMGUS.

NQT made a slip. When Tiruin accused him of buddying up to me, he immediately tried to diver attention by asking you a question, and then quickly shifting that question to Tiruin. He was quick to OMGUS me for a pressure vote and a mild attack, and now he is jumpier than ever. He is scum, and you, Ford, might be too.

[Leafsnail]

Sure, prods going out.

[Captain Ford]

Oh god, my head hurts so much it's not funny.

Toaster:

Everything you say, joke or not, will be analyzed here.

*sigh* I overreacted. It's safe to say that I'm on edge for reasons that have nothing to do with the game.

Taking my statement out of context ... really hurts. Damn it. I have an indescribable burning hatred for people that do that. It makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation when everything you say is twisted. It makes one feel powerless, and I regard it as the most underhanded thing a person can do to someone else.

I still feel my argument is valid, and that your certainty is only justifiable if you're scum. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

For example, this is an appeal to emotion.  You're trying to guilt him away from voting you instead of convincing him you're a bad person to vote.

Is it because you're not a bad person to vote and don't have an argument otherwise?  It just might be.

That's not the reason I brought it up. I realized that people were going to notice I was upset, and I wanted them to know why, because the reasons are immaterial to my alignment.

If you actually felt sorry for me, then I apologize. That was not my intention.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

Also, this is a knee-jerky OMGUS.  The double post makes you look just a bit panicky.

Yeah, it was. I was pissed.

And if you think I would panic because of a single vote, then you must have a very low opinion of me indeed.


Dariush:

No. Both townies and mafia have an incentive to claim mason. Masons can't tell which they are, so they should regard it as a nulltell. Masons could also claim it as a double-bluff, so a mason claim should universally be treated as a nulltell. Everyone has an incentive to claim it, and so it doesn't give anyone any new information.

On that note, I'm a mason.

Wrong answer. Anyone fakeclaiming mason will be suspected by a whole team of confirmed towns (masons, that is). Moreover, the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum. Finally, fakeclaiming while being town is just a bad idea in general.

I'm not wrong. Your argument is flawed.

You said "the sudden attention of those masons may incriminate them for scum." But if everyone simply ignores it, then that doesn't happen. Since paying attention to it hurts town, and everyone is trying to appear town, then logically everyone should ignore it. Anyone who doesn't is just playing poorly.

Let me put it another way:

1. You would have to be stupid to fakeclaim mason.
2. Both scum and town are equally likely to be stupid.
Ergo: Both scum and town are equally likely to fakeclaim mason.

If anything, town is more likely to fakeclaim mason simply because there's more of them.

That said, you haven't actually accused me of fakeclaiming. Which is smart, because you'd either be lying or stupid if you said you knew for a fact what my alignment was. (If you want me to explain that one too, just ask. It's also not wrong)

There, I just gave you three good reasons for why mason claims are bullshit and should be ignored, and your argument only helped to prove my point.

Sidenote: And even if you don't agree with it, it's what I believed when I wrote it, which means that it can only mean exactly what I said it means. If you think otherwise then you fail at thinking.

zombie urist: Let me put it another way. Unless my argument is flawed, the only way you could be certain I'm worth lynching is if you're scum.

Without an explanation from you, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to. That makes you a better lead than Deathsword by a mile.

And now you're engaging in the worst flavor of hipocrisy. You say ZU can't be certain that you are scum, but you are certain that his vote is a lynch vote and not a pressure one. Why did you disregard the latter possibility out of hand?

First off, do you scumhunt by adding, "but there might be another explanation" to the end of everything you say?

ZU didn't ask me anything, and he didn't investigate any other suspects. How the hell was I supposed to take it?

It sure looked an awful lot like he was trying to convince others to lynch me based on a misquoting of something I said.


Tolyk: I saw your question, but my brain is hurting. I'll answer it when I'm feeling better.

Deathsword: I'll get back to you too.


Now let me be clear about this:
- The mason claim was facetious. It was not made in full seriousness. You should consider my alignment unclaimed.

[Phantom of The Library]

Blarg, apologies for the lateness, I was packing up to head back to campus yesterday and spent today getting there and moving back in and didn't see that the game had started.

Phantom of the Library: In your opinion, which side has the advantage in this game?

Data says that scum have the advantage as in most games, although it's more slight than usual.

PotL: If you were mafia, who would you most prefer to have as your teammates?

You, Tiruin, Book if he was still in the game, and Toaster since he isn't. I've seen you all play and I know I can get along with all of you well and you're all fun to talk to.

Not that I would have a choice about Tir, as we already know that he's scum. 

Phanton:  Assume you're a mason.  How heavily would you grill your fellow masons to dissuade the mafia that they are a fellow mason and therefore safe to kill?

Phanton isn't here, but as his neutral good twin, I can speak for him.

Probably about the same as everybody else that I don't see as scum, too much grilling and I risk getting them lynched by accident, too little and it looks suspicious. 

Phantom: How do you think the lack of chats will affect the game?

It'll have two effects:

One: It will balance out the game a little in favor of the town as the scum won't clearly be able to communicate who they want to kill to each other, resulting in a bit more chaos and less information for them, which is all the better for the town.

Two: It'll make the game more boring. Chats are one of the best part of mafia.

Phantom: In analysing other player's posts would you find distancing or buddying up more suspicious?

Distancing, I've never seen a scum player actually try to buddy up to somebody.

Phantom: What do you think about this statement: "People tend to give examples of what they'd do if they were of a different alignment than they really are (if they are asked), and tend to ask questions that put the addressed person into their alignment. The first part is to throw people off their scent, while the second part is to get suggestions on how others would play their alignment." What part is true (if any), and what part is logically incorrect (if any)?

Depends on the person, some might do one; others might do something different. I've seen it go either way with about an even split. Although newbies do tend to try to get suggestions more often, even if it doesn't relate to their current alignment.





notquitethere:

notquitethere, why the arbitrary lynch condition? Also, if you're not quite there, where are you?

The condition isn't arbitrary: just an incentive to get people to post.

Or, it's a good way to try and get in a free lynch as scum.  Most people already policy-lynch lurkers, so this has no point.  Besides killing a someone for no reason other than living in a different timezone.

Unvote

Deathsword

NQT: Are you going to keep asking the same question to more than one player, or are you going to try and make some original ones? Also, nice attempt to buddy up to me, scum.

It's efficient to get more than one person's perspective on the same issue, or do you disagree? If you'll look, I've asked everyone at least one question and most of them are different, which is more than can be said for some players. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my friendly joking with Teruin as an earnest attempt to buddy up. Was that a deliberate twisting of the truth, Deathsword?

Why the OMGUS?


Tiruin:

On that note, I'm a mason.

You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?

What the hell are you even doing.