Print

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

[Lenglon]

no, prime was ford, i count his replacement by when leafsnail showed up, not when ford asked for a replacement. secondary is dem, followed by day, followed by vector. shinigami seemed like town to me.

the best information i'm going to get about leafsnail will be from how leafsnail goes about questioning vector and how vector responds.  i also want to see dem and day finish their fight. both of those interactions are misssing a partner, so I'm waiting. also, I really should do a re-read, but i dont have the time to do it right right now. i'm focused on other things.

[TheWetSheep]

No questions addressed to me, and my targets are missing. This is disappointing.

Lenglon: Why Ford?

[Leafsnail]

Dem should probably be replaced.

1. Disagreed on account of him not being active at all: Yes he could just be logged out, but I don't think that's likely as he has shown up before as "active" without posting.  If he's not been active at all he very well could have forgotten about the game, meaning if we lynch the other scum we get a kill-less night.
2. That could only confirm him as town, and even then only if he wasn't overly scummy afterwards... I don't think Tiruin would stop the game just because of that.
3. Noted.  Your question was why we're not voting for Dem or Vector when our votes can be FAR more productively used to apply pressure to get reads on people who have replaced in.

1 is destroyed by points two and three.  Firstly, it is very poor moderation to allow a player's absence to confirm a player's alignment/ prevent a scum kill, and Tiruin wouldn't do it.  Secondly, I am not voting for Dem so your point is entirely invalid anyway.

2 is incorrect - confirming a player as town due to something that isn't a game mechanic is something you shouldn't allow as a mod.  Same for confirming as scum.  The idea that we could get a kill free night because the last mafia member is absent is simply incorrect.

3. The ultimate purpose of your vote is to lynch scum.  I formed cases explaining why these two people are scum, and not a single person has commented on them.  If you have no problems with my cases then you agree that they are scum.  If you have issues with my cases then you should bring them up.

Why were you calling for lynch votes when you thought we had 2ish weeks left?

Because lynching scum is the aim of this game and there is never a bad time to do it.

Could I get more detail on why that is not true?

I explained in points 1, 2 and 3.  The evidence led me to them, so I went after them.

Well, you cant really question them now can you?  If they're not here then you're questioning a wall, getting more and more suspicious of your target while allowing scum to run free.

This feels like a failure of the BM teaching process.  Part of mafia is questioning people, yes.  But ultimately you also need to get scum lynched.  If you spend the whole day "questioning" you will basically always lynch town.

Partly yes, but I'm more concerned about the way that you are tunneling the TWO people who are unavailable to respond, and the way that you are deflecting my case with bi-syllabic answers.  You have mentioned other people as possible scum, but you are only building cases on the two who aren't here.

There are two mafia members in this game.  Therefore I am going after the two people who appear to be mafia together.  There is no third mafia member I can go after.

Almost completely conjecture, and nothing that doesn't scream scum groping around for something to build a case with.

This isn't actually addressing what I said at all - you are dismissing it without any actual argumentation.  They key points I would like you to talk about, if you want to challenge my logic:
Dem: Why would Dem not vote for someone they believed to be the most dangerous player in the game?  Why did Dem vote to shorten the day when there was no real consensus over who should be lynched, and when what little conensus there was went towards a person they weren't voting?

My answer is that Dem was scum, and knew the cop was getting lynched.  However, Dem didn't want to be associated with that lynch.  Do you have an alternative answer?

Vector: Why did she keep voting someone even after her (sole) original reason for voting him was shown to be wrong?
My answer is that she realized he was the actual cop, and still had to die.

Why didn't she bring up Dem's strange willingness to shorten the day?  She mentioned that Dem was scummy earlier for "playing to the crowd", but when Dem brought up the shorten request she simply went along with it.
My answer is that she didn't want to bring up something so damning for her partner.

Looking back on it, I also don't like the "Cado's probably town and the actual cop but we have to lynch him anyway because ~reasons~" thing she's got going on either.  Examples:
In #409 she says that her gut says Cado is town but he should be lynched anyway because
In #443 onwards she says that the most likely scumteam is Ford/Dem, but doesn't bother to question them and instead keeps trying to get someone she thinks is town (and therefore possibly the only town power role) lynched

This is a problem because attempting to distance yourself from a lynch you are voting for is a scumtell.  Scum knows everybody's alignment, and thus they know when a lynch they are pushing is going to flip town.  This means that they may try to use "damage control", so that they don't look so bad after the person flips town.  I think that's what Vector was doing.  I certainly cannot see any justification for voting someone you believe to be the town cop from a town perspective.

[griffinpup]

TheWetSheep:  What do you think about the explanation Demdemeh gave me to explain his first lack of ability?  Is this excuse a valid enough one to constitute me unvoting him?  This post pretty much sums it up.

So, Demdemeh, if I could kind of wrap up your whole argument about your bad play before, it was just that?  You were just playing poorly, acting defensively, and not knowing how to push, and doing this not because  you were scum, but because you were merely inexperienced and, for lack of a better word, bad?  You've now improved your play substantially, and I do accept this argument for now.
Unvote

Thank you for the accurate and concise paraphrasing, griffinpup. That is precisely what I was trying to say.

Actually...  I guess I gave him his own explanation...  Oh well.  This is what he was trying to get at.

[Tiruin]

Vote standings:

• Griffionday(0) -
• Lenglon(0) -
• griffinpup(0) -
• Demdemeh(0) -
• TheWetSheep(1) - Vector
• Vector(2) - TheWetSheep,  Leafsnail
• Leafsnail(1) - Griffionday
• Not Voting(3) - Demdemeh, griffinpup, Lenglon

TheWetSheep has replaced Shinigami_King

Day 2 has begun and will end at June 6, 2013. [Thursday] 9:00 pm [GMT//UTC +8]

Extension requests: 0
Shorten requests: 0

3 votes needed to extend the day
4 votes needed to shorten the day

Praise be, for Think's LurkerTracker!


The light rays focus and converge on the runed tablet set into the floor by the Keeper as time passes by, and as the last rays fall on the object, it begins glowing in a red light-

"Oh by the Light am I letting this opportunity rest!"

One of you smiles and gestures an excuse before stepping up and breaking a nearby mirror with several swift kicks, holding the largest glass shard and utilizing it to angle away the light from the tablet.

"I figure being left alone would lead to that--they won't miss another mirror anyway. It's a loophole in the Keeper's words. Hah. While it won't stop the light from hitting the runes sometime later, its better than letting it hit now. Pretty smart idea, eh?"

"Yeah, but then you'll have to act as the mirror."

"What's that supposed to mean?"

"Stand still, and hold that thing up. Hope your arms can take it."

"...At least I'm doing something!"

The Day has been extended!

BM XLI: In which the Mod messes up the # needed to extend or shorten!

[Dariush]

* Dariush unbanishes.

It is usually good manners to remove the votes on and by the person being replaced.

* Dariush reselfbanishes.

[Leafsnail]

Can we have an indefinite extension until we have a full roster of players?

[Lenglon]

Can we have an indefinite extension until we have a full roster of players?

+1

[Griffionday]

Can we have an indefinite extension until we have a full roster of players?

+1

I'll get back to you about the other post later tonight.

[griffinpup]

Can we have an indefinite extension until we have a full roster of players?

+1

[griffinpup]

Also, Turiun, you may want to nerf your Spoiled Spectators.  Self banishing and unbanishing is definitely OP.

[Griffionday]

1 is destroyed by points two and three.  Firstly, it is very poor moderation to allow a player's absence to confirm a player's alignment/ prevent a scum kill, and Tiruin wouldn't do it.  Secondly, I am not voting for Dem so your point is entirely invalid anyway.

2 is incorrect - confirming a player as town due to something that isn't a game mechanic is something you shouldn't allow as a mod.  Same for confirming as scum.  The idea that we could get a kill free night because the last mafia member is absent is simply incorrect.

3. The ultimate purpose of your vote is to lynch scum.  I formed cases explaining why these two people are scum, and not a single person has commented on them.  If you have no problems with my cases then you agree that they are scum.  If you have issues with my cases then you should bring them up.

1. You are however building a mental scum team with Dem, so my point remains valid.

2. So the mod should randomly NK someone?  Is that standard procedure?  I must admit the thought never occurred to me.

3. Yeah no one's commented on the content of your cases; because, the people who can do so without having to resort to speculation aren't here.  Considering how you just replaced in, I consider the fact that you were so quick to build cases on just the two players who were away and not broaden your net to include players here who you can demonstrate how to better get reads on.

Why were you calling for lynch votes when you thought we had 2ish weeks left?

Because lynching scum is the aim of this game and there is never a bad time to do it.

Hmm... I consider spending time poking people to see how they jump more productive, but on the other hand I have yet to win a game so I guess I have to bow to your experience.

Could I get more detail on why that is not true?

I explained in points 1, 2 and 3.  The evidence led me to them, so I went after them.

Sorry, I was asking why you building cases on people who were gone and then voting them in order/likelyhood of them returning in time to defend themselves wasn't indicative of scum trying to rush a lynch against town.

This feels like a failure of the BM teaching process.  Part of mafia is questioning people, yes.  But ultimately you also need to get scum lynched.  If you spend the whole day "questioning" you will basically always lynch town.

And sticking your vote on someone who clearly said that they would be gone for a week is more likely to lynch scum?

There are two mafia members in this game.  Therefore I am going after the two people who appear to be mafia together.  There is no third mafia member I can go after.

So it's your advice to completely ignore the people who you don't see as the most likely scum but with whom you can interact, and tunnel people who aren't here?  Actually; why do you thing tunneling a good thing, when I've mostly heard advice to avoid it?

Almost completely conjecture, and nothing that doesn't scream scum groping around for something to build a case with.

This isn't actually addressing what I said at all - you are dismissing it without any actual argumentation.  They key points I would like you to talk about, if you want to challenge my logic:

-snip-

I don't want to challenge your logic for two reasons:

1. I don't see any problem with it a case, yeah it's based on conjecture, but I've no issue with using conjecture to apply pressure.  It also has several points I really want to know their answers to.  My problem is that it is conjecture, your case rests on the assumption that people play perfectly; which considering the point of this game is wrong.  I want to get their accounts for their actions before I lynch them, as if their answer for why they weren't perfect doesn't make sense or feels off then I'll feel justified in lynching them.

2. What you are asking me to do is create scenarios in which their actions make sense for town, which isn't something I want to do as that jeopardizes my ability to view their answers to your case impartially.  As it's your case I can't structure the pressure to set up scum bait so I'd really rather avoid handing them ways to manipulate me.

[Leafsnail]

1. You are however building a mental scum team with Dem, so my point remains valid.

No it doesn't in any way.

2. So the mod should randomly NK someone?  Is that standard procedure?  I must admit the thought never occurred to me.

The mod should not end the night until either the player returns or there is a replacement.

3. Yeah no one's commented on the content of your cases; because, the people who can do so without having to resort to speculation aren't here.  Considering how you just replaced in, I consider the fact that you were so quick to build cases on just the two players who were away and not broaden your net to include players here who you can demonstrate how to better get reads on.

Secret: all scumhunting is speculation.  If you aren't prepared to speculate then you will literally never get anything done unless the scum comes out and confesses their guilt.  Furthermore, if someone is putting together a lynching case then you should weigh in on it.

In addition, if you look back at when I accused Dem it wasn't at all obvious at that point that Dem had vanished off the face of the earth.  I questioned Dem fully expecting an answer, and there was no way I could magically predict that they had vanished rather than had taken a little while to realize that the night had ended.  And while Vector had announced a week break, I did't see that as a problem because a) she'd been posting a bit anyway up till when I posted and b) she could answer those questions when she came back in a week.

Hmm... I consider spending time poking people to see how they jump more productive, but on the other hand I have yet to win a game so I guess I have to bow to your experience.

To explain my point in more detail: trying to get someone lynched as scum helps you get reads, generally more than just pressing someone does.  Partly because they know you're serious, and partly because you get to see how everyone else feels about lynching that person (at least, you do if the game isn't totally consumed by apathy).

Sorry, I was asking why you building cases on people who were gone and then voting them in order/likelyhood of them returning in time to defend themselves wasn't indicative of scum trying to rush a lynch against town.

See above - I didn't realize Dem was gone (I don't think anyone did at that point) and expected a response from Vector at some point.

And sticking your vote on someone who clearly said that they would be gone for a week is more likely to lynch scum?

If they performed actions indicative of being a mafia member?  Yes.

So it's your advice to completely ignore the people who you don't see as the most likely scum but with whom you can interact, and tunnel people who aren't here?  Actually; why do you thing tunneling a good thing, when I've mostly heard advice to avoid it?

No.  It's my advice to go after the people you think are scum.  I guess I could ask some timewaster questions to people I don't think are remotely as suspicious as Dem or Vector, but I don't think that would be hugely helpful.

I don't want to challenge your logic for two reasons:

1. I don't see any problem with it a case, yeah it's based on conjecture, but I've no issue with using conjecture to apply pressure.  It also has several points I really want to know their answers to.  My problem is that it is conjecture, your case rests on the assumption that people play perfectly; which considering the point of this game is wrong.  I want to get their accounts for their actions before I lynch them, as if their answer for why they weren't perfect doesn't make sense or feels off then I'll feel justified in lynching them.

2. What you are asking me to do is create scenarios in which their actions make sense for town, which isn't something I want to do as that jeopardizes my ability to view their answers to your case impartially.  As it's your case I can't structure the pressure to set up scum bait so I'd really rather avoid handing them ways to manipulate me.

These are both fair points, but if you feel that my cases have merit then I don't get why you're voting me.

[TheWetSheep]

Griffinpup:

TheWetSheep:  What do you think about the explanation Demdemeh gave me to explain his first lack of ability?  Is this excuse a valid enough one to constitute me unvoting him?  This post pretty much sums it up.

So, Demdemeh, if I could kind of wrap up your whole argument about your bad play before, it was just that?  You were just playing poorly, acting defensively, and not knowing how to push, and doing this not because  you were scum, but because you were merely inexperienced and, for lack of a better word, bad?  You've now improved your play substantially, and I do accept this argument for now.
Unvote

Thank you for the accurate and concise paraphrasing, griffinpup. That is precisely what I was trying to say.

Actually...  I guess I gave him his own explanation...  Oh well.  This is what he was trying to get at.

I see this as a pretty null-tell explanation. I mean, it could be true and he could be town, but it could just as easily be scum explaining away his scumminess with lack of experience.


Isn't the policy for inactive scum that the scum IC dictate the nightkill?

[griffinpup]

Also, TheWetSheep, didn't Griffionday come out as second-scummiest when you gave your reads of everyone?  You could be pressuring him right now.  Why aren't you?