Print

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

[Captain Ford]

Now...this is really confusing. Why would you vote on ZU without any conclusive information  - how is he scum? Ford

The closest to the lynch how? By having zero votes, which is certainly more than your three, Ford?

Are you basing off your vote on ZU simply because he was active during the tiebreak? By that logic, you and NQT should be scummier, since you posted during the tie.

Jesus christ. It's like none of you even read.

zombie urist   Last active right before broken tie.

His last activity was less than 2 minutes before Leafsnail posted the lynch result (Toaster can verify this). That's all the time Leafsnail would need to fill in Tolyk's name and color and hit post.

The next closest was notquitethere, and his last activity was 10 minutes before. I obviously can't report my own, since looking up my last activity is itself activity.

Obviously, there's no concrete evidence, but him being the closest to the lynch is my reason for voting him.

And I already mentioned why I don't necessarily think the information is reliable. If you really thought that was a lynch vote. Then, well ... I give up. You people are just too stupid for me, I guess.


Deathsword:

First of all, how the hell does posting make us scummier? Explain that.

From a strategic point of view, it is much more profitable for scum to lynch an active player than a lurker, since it would remove a possible threat. As such, unless scum was really idiotic, Ford would be the best target for the tiebreak, not TolyK. The only reason scum would choose the lurker is if the other target was scum. Thusly, it can be quite easy to deduct one of the possible scum. Ford.

They might have killed Tolyk because they were more certain about my alignment than his. Or they may have thought they could easily push a lynch on me the next day, as you're now trying to do. Statistically, I am not any more likely to be scum than anyone else.

In any case, it's pure WIFOM, and you're a complete tool if you really believe what you just said.

You keep attacking me with shitty reasons and shitty logic. I'm pretty sure the only reason you want me dead is because I pissed you off, and apparently that means I'm worth killing even if you can't raise a decent case to save your life.

[Captain Ford]

EBWOP: Oh hey, Dariush said it too!

The main reasons for this vote is that if Ford wasn't scum, scum would have basically zero reason to lynch Tolyk, since he could easily be lynched at any point due to his lurkatron.

That's bullshit and you know it. Hell, you're proving it right now. Why lynch me then when you could just lynch me now? Two for the price of one!

Like I told Deathsword, if you believe that, you're a complete tool.

[Captain Ford]

EBWOP2: Oh. Now I can articulate it.

The best reason for scum to pick Tolyk? It denies the town an informative lynch. It's why you still want to lynch me. You don't have any more information now than you did yesterday.

Deathsword: NQT was right about that. And you FOSed him for it. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[zombie urist]

Speculating on why someone was NKed leads to WIFOM.

Though if we're playing this way, I do think that NQT is scummier for his insistence on lynching inactives.

[Captain Ford]

...that's such a terrible way to play this game.

And it's one of the issues that is normally solved by having a night phase. I realized before the game started that the tie breaker created this opportunity, so when it happened, I knew what to look for.

I didn't bring it up, but since it's being used against me, I'm certainly not going to ignore it. Objective evidence is a lot more powerful than a giant heap of "scumtells".

[notquitethere]

Toaster

1.  Whoever broke the tie had to be online between Leaf's two posts to send in the tiebreaker.

2.  A suspicious eye should be cast toward the person who made the tie.

I'm not convinced this meta-game way of playing is the way forward, after all, the scum could have called in the hit in advance at any point since the last day or so, or if leafsnail is correct and the deadline was a day earlier than some of us thought, then the scum could have conceivably done it then. But I like your ace detective skills and scumhunting moxy, and you may have something there on the tie-breaking, though obviously Ford has a strong incentive not to let himself hang. Though, in breaking the tie he gave power to the scum- which could be interpreted as weakly pro-scum, but maybe we shouldn't get carried away with this line of reasoning.

Ford

Killing off a lurker isn't going to improve our majority. It'll stay exactly the same.

But killing off BOTH lurkers...  ah, uh, I can see why people might think that over-zealous, but I've explained why it's a pro-town move. (Lurkers prevent lynches, lynching is the only way to win). That said, convincing anyone that getting rid of lurkers is a good idea (despite the fact that it objectively is) seems to be a non-starter as ideas go, so I'll continue hunting scum regardless.

"...given the lack of sudden deaths in the last week, scum can be deemed as likely as town to be lurkers." - How do you equate not using their daykill to not being active? Isn't it much more likely that after losing two of their number, they're much more hesitant to try it themselves? Especially considering they have no idea who their teammates tried to kill?

You misinterpret what I wrote, though probably not intentionally. If people were dying regularly then we could rule out the possibility that the scum are lurkers; I didn't mean to suggest that the lack of activity on the behalf of the scum meant that they were more likely than not to be lurkers. If you read what I actually wrote, I merely said that the scum were just as likely as anyone else to be lurkers.

And Phantom isn't lurking. He's requested a replacement. Those are not the same thing. His inactivity is now solely due to not having a ready replacement, and not due to any fault on his part. Calling on everyone to lynch someone who won't fight back seems inexcusably lazy.

It's functionally the same thing: these players aren't playing the game and are making it harder for the town to make effective lynches. Of course I'd much rather we had a replacement, but it's been over a week and there are now two players in need of a replacement and still nothing. If town don't lynch then we will lose.

Dariush

This looks more like a lazy attempt to get out of scumhunting than... well, than anything else. Because that's exactly what is it, NQT. For someone who claims to be thinking of everything in logical terms, you sure missed a gaping hole in your theory that lynching lurkers merely erases the possibility of them getting replaced and stopping being lurkers.

That's true enough, but we've been in need of at least one replacement for over a week now. I'd much rather active replacements got in, but it's not looking like it's happening any time soon. But rest assured sweet Dariush, I will continue to actively hunt scum as well.

Tiruin

Query on lynching lurkers: @Dariush & NQT: What makes them different in this type of game? If you see someone lurking, in this situation with the players as such, to what feel of alignment do you think they are and how?

Does lurking essentially mean scum? Why or why not?

Lurking doesn't mean they're scum. Any given scum is as likely as anyone else to be a lurker, but given that town outnumber scum by such a huge number, the likelihood of any given lurker being scum is slim. It's just numbers. I posited that we should get rid of the two non-players as it's easier to muster 5/6 active town against a threat than 6/6 active town.

Also, guess what? Scum are at a total disadvantage here. More later.

You're absolutely correct. Is that a matter of lamentation?

DS

Are you going to keep voting people up for replacement instead of scumhunting?

Well it was merely my opening post after the lynch went down, so give me time. I've explained clearly why it's in our best interests to get rid of lurkers and of course if these players are actually going to be replaced then I wouldn't vote for them off the bat, but I don't have faith that they are going to be replaced any time soon.

How the fuck we do not have anything to use on scumhunting? Re-read your own post, more specifically the part I quoted, and tell me there isn't anything we can use to scumhunt.

I reread it. The conclusion was: either scum made a random pick OR Captain Ford is scum. Okay, admittedly there is a small piece of scumhunting information we can get from this. If we lynch Captain Ford and he's not scum then we'll know that scum made a random choice (or else they did it so that we'd lynch Ford). Are you suggesting we lynch Ford for an information lynch?

ZU

Speculating on why someone was NKed leads to WIFOM.

Though if we're playing this way, I do think that NQT is scummier for his insistence on lynching inactives.

I was merely suggesting a strategy that would best enable Team Town to win. It was a suggestion not an insistence. Can I have a counter argument? Or are you just saying this is a terrible way to play but I'm going to play this way, zombie urist?

Obolisk
You're being awful quiet. What's your take on the death of poor TolyK?

[zombie urist]

Its terrible cause its not fun.

Also, the best strategy to win is scumhunting. I don't see how lurkers stop lynches.

[notquitethere]

I agree with you that metagaming is terrible and not fun- so why do it?

Yes but how does scum hunting help us win? When it leads to the successful lynching of scum. How can we lynch scum? By getting a majority against them. People who don't vote prevent us getting a majority against the scum. People who don't vote stop successful lynching of scum. Do you get it now?

We may seem secure in our absolute majority now but the scum will whittle us down even if it takes weeks to do it.

[zombie urist]

I've kinda given up.

Lurkers don't prevent us from getting a majority since they don't vote either way.

[notquitethere]

I've explained already why they do, but for your benefit I'll run through the maths again. At the moment there are 10 players: 8 active and 2 inactive. Let's assume, worst case, that the inactive players are town. This means in order to lynch scum we need all 6 active town players to agree on a target. Not going to happen, right? Now imagine we get rid of the two non-active players. Now we only need 5 out of the 6 active town members to agree on a target. Still not ideal but much easier, right?

Each week that scum can manipulate play into a draw is a week closer to town losing. Now do you get what I'm saying?

[Tiruin]

Hey, what about we proclaim more activity by gambling eh?

Masons are Town.

Town are town.

Scum are scum.

The third paragraph has underpowered scum- they can't chat their way to freedom and have a Mason-kill. Anyone else and they forfeit their lives instead.

Town. These guys outnumber everyone, and even with the whole mason team dead, its like a BM of 5:2 when we come upon that matter. Granted, there are no NKs when it goes to that point so its a game of logic since then.

Masons. These guys know other town-aligned, but how do we convince town and scum that they're hinting correctly? That's one big problem I see.

Now, we have a whole week to settle a lynch or wait for a daykill. Chances are, mislynches are higher with the rate of suspicion going around.

Votecount please, Mod.

Yes but how does scum hunting help us win? When it leads to the successful lynching of scum. How can we lynch scum? By getting a majority against them. People who don't vote prevent us getting a majority against the scum. People who don't vote stop successful lynching of scum. Do you get it now?

I detect a major error here.

Yes but how does scum hunting help us win?

> When it leads to the successful lynching of scum.

Yeah, scumhunting helps in all ways possible. It gives reads on other people, and also aids in their judgement. You're stating a favorable endpoint, but only reached when the facts (or at least the most probable ones), are cleared out by the process stated.

Meaning: you're forgetting that scumhunting helps clear others of being scum. Did you forget that NQT?

[zombie urist]

we dont need all 6 to agree, just that most to agree. this only becomes a major issue near lylo pfp

[obolisk0430]

Tiruin, you've been fishing for people's alliances ever since the game began. Why? How does that help you? How does it help the town win?

Let me await obolisk's statement before giving in a (somewhat) controversial post.

Yo Tiriun.  I'm still waiting for this shit.  Deathsword for the reasons I have stated earlier.

[obolisk0430]

Damn preview/post thing. 
NQT: you asked how I see TolyK's death.  I see it as the remaining mafia being a lot more careful.
DS: you asked what my feels are for everyone in the game.  Right now, I think you and Tiruin are scum.  Now that we have this:

NQT:  There are two more things you forgot to mention as things to get from this lynch.
1.  Whoever broke the tie had to be online between Leaf's two posts to send in the tiebreaker.
2.  A suspicious eye should be cast toward the person who made the tie.
Captain Ford fits both those criteria.  I'd ask you why you picked TolyK, but it's pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to lynch yourself.

I'm thinking if one of you isn't scum, it might be Captain Ford.  Everyone else seems pretty null to me.

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

I detect a major error here.

Yes but how does scum hunting help us win?

> When it leads to the successful lynching of scum.

Yeah, scumhunting helps in all ways possible. It gives reads on other people, and also aids in their judgement. You're stating a favorable endpoint, but only reached when the facts (or at least the most probable ones), are cleared out by the process stated.

Meaning: you're forgetting that scumhunting helps clear others of being scum. Did you forget that NQT?

I think you over-state how good people are at reading supposed tells. The only solid information we get is from lynching and seeing who gets voted for the lynch and, if scum are lynched, who the scum voted for. By all means we should ask questions, question motives and so on to give a lead on who we should probably lynch next, but the only concrete info comes from kills. By your same reasoning, if we should be in the business of clearing names and getting a read on people, how are meant to do that with non-participating players? I'm beginning to think your reluctance on this point is because you're on the same team as at least one of the lurkers.

ZU

we dont need all 6 to agree, just that most to agree. this only becomes a major issue near lylo pfp

All us active players at the moment have to agree on a target if we're to lynch before the deadline. There is the other kind of lynching: allowing the clock to run down to the end of the week and killing whichever sap has the most votes. There are two problems with this kind of lynching: first, as we saw with TolyK's death, it's easy for scum to manipulate their voting to wind up in a draw which gives the other players very little information; second, the longer the 'day' stretches on, the easier it is for players to get confused in a whirl of accusations and counter-accusations. Before Nerjin and Imiknorris self-destructed do we really think anyone would have suspected them over any of the other players?