Print

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

[fillipk]

Vote Count:

Tiruin: (1) - BlackHeartKabal
FallacyofUrist: (4) - Deus Asmoth, Jack A.T, Juicebox, TDS
Oragamiscienceguy: 1 - Tiruin
GayArchaea: 1 - oragamiscienceguy
Jack A.T.: 1 - FallacyofUrist


6 to hammer

[Jack A T]

fillipk: Fallacy is voting for me.  TDS is voting for Fallacy.

juicebox: Redundancy from pairing may mitigate the impact of scum fakeclaims.  Sure, let's pair for N2.

You can pick the inspect target.

[FallacyofUrist]

FallacyofUrist, I'd like to talk to you a bit about what your statements today imply about your actions D1.

You have given no behavioural evidence against me today (in fact, you've put more effort into not giving any and justifying not giving any than most people put into giving evidence), and you have made it clear that your vote has nothing to do with my behaviour.  You have repeatedly stated that your sole reason for going after me today is your inspect.  You have established that your cause of suspicion is an inspect result (in this of all games) and that you "are not going at [me] because of [my] behavior."  Even when asked for your case against me, you gave no behavioural evidence and relied solely on your inspect.  So, my behaviour has not contributed to your suspicion of me.

In fact, you have made an amazing admission: you have not seen me do anything you consider scummy:

FoU: [...][2] Has [Jack] actually done anything that you consider scummy?

[2]: No. Not that I've detected, anyway. I'm going off my inspect, thank you.

The following is your claimed cause for inspecting me last night:

I investigated you last night, because you are an experienced player and I wanted to know if you were misguided town or plotting scum against me, my result was you being mafia.

You have been consistent in claiming that you inspected me because I was attacking you D1.  You have not mentioned anything indicating your inspect decision was influenced by evidence of scumhood.

Let's go back to D1.  Specifically, back to when you started the effort to get someone to make a case against me:

Jack A T: Please construct an argument from my perspective on why you and TDS are the scum team.
TheDarkStar: Do you think that from my perspective, it might be a bit suspicious that you and Jack have echoed each other's votes?

Nothing significant changed about the behaviour of TDS and I after this point D1: TDS did little more and I was on vacation.
You have made it quite clear that you have never seen anything scummy from me.  In addition, your inspect was not based on scummy behaviour, but just on the fact that I was attacking you.  With that in mind, these questions (particularly the second) stand out.

You asked me for a case against TDS and I, but not because you saw me do anything scummy.  You asked TDS about how suspicious it was that we voted for the same people twice (with my vote being second both times, I will note), but deny having ever seen me act scummily.

[1] Hm.  I wonder what could lead you to try to get your two assailants, one of whom you've stated you've not seen any scummy behaviour from, to go after an associational tell that you deny was a scumtell (at least for the second voter).  I wonder why you wanted a case constructed against an attacker you saw no scummy behaviour from.

[2] So, Fallacy, would it be accurate to characterize these questions as an effort to protect yourself from TDS and I first and foremost, and not as an effort to pursue your suspects?  If not, why did you ask the questions?
[3] Furthermore, would it be accurate to say that your two references today to background lurkers were made in significant part to protect yourself?

[1]: I figured that the case might incorporate evidence I had not detected.
[2]: See above for the question about creating a self-incriminating case. For the one about the echoing vote(oh look, you're doing it again), I was trying to figure out if it was viable evidence.
[3]: No, actually. If I'm lynched today, I'd like the lurkers to step up activity tomorrow... and the same if I'm not lynched. I don't want anybody to slip under the discussion, period.

[Jack A T]

Fallacy: Let's rephrase with emphasis, as you've completely dodged the point:
Why did you aim all of that specifically at your two assailants, keeping in mind that you did not suspect and had no evidence against at least one of the assailants?
Why did you want evidence specifically found against your two assailants?
Why did you go after your two assailants out of all of the people you saw no evidence of scumhood from?
Why was this whole push against your two assailants based on something you did not identify as evidence of scumhood and have never identified as evidence of scumhood?

Would it by chance be because you, like your faction, do not care about whether your target is scum, but do care about being attacked?

For the one about the echoing vote(oh look, you're doing it again)

Jabbing a non-scummy attacker with your non-scumtell again, I see?  This would be a bit more convincing if you tried to claim it was a scumtell, but once again, you're unwilling to truly commit to your attack and take a solid position.

[juicebox]

Where did everybody go? Seems like it's just been Jack Fallacy, BHK and I_{and DA and TMS and TDS}

juicebox: Redundancy from pairing may mitigate the impact of scum fakeclaims.  Sure, let's pair for N2.

You can pick the inspect target.

I was thinking someone who hadn't been inspected yet, like maybe TMS or BHK

[TheDarkStar]

So there are 2 people not voting - GA and TMS.

GA/TMS: Who are you currently suspicious of? What are your reads right now?

[FallacyofUrist]

Fallacy: Let's rephrase with emphasis, as you've completely dodged the point:
[3] Why did you aim all of that specifically at your two assailants, keeping in mind that you did not suspect and had no evidence against at least one of the assailants?
[4] Why did you want evidence specifically found against your two assailants?
[5] Why did you go after your two assailants out of all of the people you saw no evidence of scumhood from?
[6] Why was this whole push against your two assailants based on something you did not identify as evidence of scumhood and have never identified as evidence of scumhood?

[1] Would it by chance be because you, like your faction, do not care about whether your target is scum, but do care about being attacked?

For the one about the echoing vote(oh look, you're doing it again)

[2] Jabbing a non-scummy attacker with your non-scumtell again, I see?  This would be a bit more convincing if you tried to claim it was a scumtell, but once again, you're unwilling to truly commit to your attack and take a solid position.

[1]: No.
[2]: Could just be a coincidence, that's what I'm thinking. If it were to persist on later days further, then maybe I might go at you bout it. If I was alive. So... thing that could be a scumtell if it persists, but not if it's only a few times.
[3]: Not like I had much against anybody else.
[4]: I wanted to know if the person leading the charge against me was scum or town. See my inspect on you for my following up on that.
[5]: Why go after anybody, then? Going after somebody is better than going after nobody.
[5.1]: Yes, I no lynched on day one. That was because I didn't find it likely anybody was going to be lynched, at least not for a long, long, long... long... time.
[6]: See 2.
~~~

[Tiruin]

Where did everybody go? Seems like it's just been Jack Fallacy, BHK and I_{and DA and TMS and TDS}

Hyeaaaah ._. About that. I've a thesis and exams already happening and I blargh'd on telling it here ._____.
That said, I plan to investigate FoU (or whoever was that other dude who got Mafia other than me and Jacques), Jack, and whoever else got Mafia as a result.

...I'm still with the idea that us 1-power people are sane!

Also I am ok with moving my vote to hammer (if people do want to end the day like that) but I've to read up on the context ._. As far as my impression goes...I see a gap between people voting more based on their night results, and people basing their ideas based on how people act in the day.

Also(2x) can I request a repost of a summary of the nightplan, made in order to deter a fixer (or what was that term that I used earlier that says 'give lie result on this person'?) and recheck on everyone?

[GayArchaea]

So, what kind of third party are you?

It has taken me some time to decide this, but I think I can still win even if I tell you this.

Lyncher,

In part due to the fact that I have a 1-shot revive, I fully plan on surviving until MyLo or Lylo to then pursue my win condition. Although there is a possibility that my wincon is replaced with that of a typical town wincon, you should still count me as anti-town if you want to determine how close the game is to LyLo; because I might, you know, decide that my lynch target is far more worthy of my vote than any of those scum types you need to kill. also if I do happen to have my wincon changed, I will still pretend that my lynch target is alive in order to fool scum into thinking I'm their ally.

That doesn't mean you should lynch me. You simply don't need to, and It will take two days to do so, so that means that you are essentially losing 2 chances to lynch the scum that you need to. changing the potential position (assuming a 3 scum team {though after doing this math, I'm thinking a 2 scum team is more likely}, Me not getting shot in the night, that somebody is lynched each day, that there are no vigilantes, and that my lynch target is among the surviving townies.) 2 days from now to be like this:

2 Townies lynched - 2 Scum lynched
(S,S,S,L,T,T,)  -  (S,L,T,T,T,T)
Scum wins - Mislynch and then I might become a Kingmaker, (still losing)

to something like this:

2 Townies lynched
(S,S,S,T,T,T,T,)
Lylo

I also need to make sure that there are an odd number of people, So I really do regret that No lynch vote I cast back in D1, which might've cost me the game.
So in order to ensure that there are an odd number of people, No Lynch,

BTW, If FallacyofUrist gets one more vote, and nobody wants to drop the hammer on him, Please prompt me so that we can move on with the game.
I will only be extending this gesture until one player has been revealed (via roleflip) to be scum. Then, because I am concerned that there is a 2 scum team in this game (or that there might be a vigilante to balance things in favor of the town), I'm more concerned that you will win before my target is dead.

Do not ask who my target is. I'm thinking that, unless a vigilante decides to shoot my target, I'm guaranteed to act in favor of scum when LyLo happens. 

[Tiruin]

So, what kind of third party are you?

It has taken me some time to decide this, but I think I can still win even if I tell you this.

Lyncher,

AHA, THIRD PARTYYYY!
...So who is OSG?

Do not ask who my target is. I'm thinking that, unless a vigilante decides to shoot my target, I'm guaranteed to act in favor of scum when LyLo happens. 

Wait-uh...the lyncher generally has no idea about their targets' alignment, and following your ideas--since you are a ROLE cop rather than an alignment cop, that is why I've been @_@ at you and OSG lately. :^

...Also why not, on you telling your personage out? As far as I recall, that's not directly against your wincon, so you aren't violating Asimov's 3 laws your wincon by telling it in public. Of whom that person is, too, that can act as our lynch target for today as we're more decisive (or at least me :V) on information. I still have to read up on the whole FoU thing but a skim didn't roll over my impression on him as warranting my vote...although I am partly biased because I've been thinking my vote more to gain information (hence partly why I suggested 'why don't I get lynched instead' pretty seriously back there).

Also what's all this about a vigilante? o_O
Maaan did I miss a lot to read on.

[juicebox]

So, what kind of third party are you?

It has taken me some time to decide this, but I think I can still win even if I tell you this.

Lyncher,

In part due to the fact that I have a 1-shot revive, I fully plan on surviving until MyLo or Lylo to then pursue my win condition. Although there is a possibility that my wincon is replaced with that of a typical town wincon, you should still count me as anti-town if you want to determine how close the game is to LyLo; because I might, you know, decide that my lynch target is far more worthy of my vote than any of those scum types you need to kill. also if I do happen to have my wincon changed, I will still pretend that my lynch target is alive in order to fool scum into thinking I'm their ally.

That doesn't mean you should lynch me. You simply don't need to, and It will take two days to do so, so that means that you are essentially losing 2 chances to lynch the scum that you need to. changing the potential position (assuming a 3 scum team {though after doing this math, I'm thinking a 2 scum team is more likely}, Me not getting shot in the night, that somebody is lynched each day, that there are no vigilantes, and that my lynch target is among the surviving townies.) 2 days from now to be like this:

2 Townies lynched - 2 Scum lynched
(S,S,S,L,T,T,)  -  (S,L,T,T,T,T)
Scum wins - Mislynch and then I might become a Kingmaker, (still losing)

to something like this:

2 Townies lynched
(S,S,S,T,T,T,T,)
Lylo

I also need to make sure that there are an odd number of people, So I really do regret that No lynch vote I cast back in D1, which might've cost me the game.
So in order to ensure that there are an odd number of people, No Lynch,

BTW, If FallacyofUrist gets one more vote, and nobody wants to drop the hammer on him, Please prompt me so that we can move on with the game.
I will only be extending this gesture until one player has been revealed (via roleflip) to be scum. Then, because I am concerned that there is a 2 scum team in this game (or that there might be a vigilante to balance things in favor of the town), I'm more concerned that you will win before my target is dead.

Do not ask who my target is. I'm thinking that, unless a vigilante decides to shoot my target, I'm guaranteed to act in favor of scum when LyLo happens.

A couple of things here.

First off, can you please not write in navy? It's a bit hard for me to see.
Second, none of what you said makes me want to help you, especially these lines:

Although there is a possibility that my wincon is replaced with that of a typical town wincon, you should still count me as anti-town if you want to determine how close the game is to LyLo; because I might, you know, decide that my lynch target is far more worthy of my vote than any of those scum types you need to kill

Do not ask who my target is. I'm thinking that, unless a vigilante decides to shoot my target, I'm guaranteed to act in favor of scum when LyLo happens.

It seems like you're trying to blackmail us into helping you, which frankly makes me not want to help you

Third: A no-lynch at this point doesn't sound like a good option to me, especially when there's someone acting scummy. 

[FallacyofUrist]

I still have to read up on the whole FoU thing but a skim didn't roll over my impression on him as warranting my vote...

Eh? This surprises me slightly, what with 4 other people bandwagoning me. Might I know your reasons for me "not warranting your vote"?

[Jack A T]

I was thinking someone who hadn't been inspected yet, like maybe TMS or BHK

juicebox: BHK sounds good.  I'm a bit wary about inspecting TMS, mostly because TMS asked to be inspected tonight.

Also(2x) can I request a repost of a summary of the nightplan, made in order to deter a fixer (or what was that term that I used earlier that says 'give lie result on this person'?) and recheck on everyone?

Tiruin: Nightplan, as far as I recall:
*TMS won't inspect tonight, and wants to be inspected.
*BHK is inspecting you.
*Some people are inspecting one member of their three-person list or something.
*Juicebox and I are inspecting BHK unless something changes that.
*Something something plan?
*Stuff happens N2, things occur as a result.

GayArchaea: Wouldn't no-lynching today mean that the game-ending lynch would leave an even number of players?  Think 5 person LYLO: lynch your target and you get 4 players remaining at endgame.
This day is dying, and it's dying without quite enough players on any target.

Let's try to fix that.

Everyone: There are five people with votes on them: Tiruin, Fallacy, OSG, GA, and I.  Even discounting BHK's Tiruin vote (accidentally left on, I guess?), there are a few different lynch targets people are interested in.

Those of you who are voting: please explain why your proposed lynch is the best of all proposed lynches.  Include engagement with the other cases.
Those who are not voting: please explain why you are not voting.  Include engagement with the various cases.

I'll go first:
I'm not reiterating the case against Fallacy unless someone asks for it: I've already filled too much space with that.  Instead, I'll make a few arguments and comparisons.

There is a lot of talk about lynching primarily to gain mechanical information.  I understand part of where this is coming from: the cop and non-cop stuff is a messy puzzle, and if we solve it in time, we have a good chance of victory.  That being said, I do not see good reason for our wish for information to be the main guide for our lynch.  In practice, it does little to guide us (most potential lynch targets are about equal in informativeness, with how the inspects were spread, and we have little idea what info we would get from an OSG lynch), and at the same time, it actively misguides us.

By that, I mean that info-lynching drives us away from our core goal: lynching scum.  We only have a few chances to lynch scum, and we've already thrown one away.  Charging after someone we don't see as having an above-average chance of being scum just to gain information means we have an improperly high chance of lynching town (hurting us) without even gaining much more information than we would if we went after someone we thought was scummy.  In fact, the weaker positions on scumhood for a pure info lynch may very well leave us with less information: much the same mechanical info as otherwise, but worse daygame info.  Perhaps it would work as a fallback, but if we need a fallback from lynching likely scum, we've screwed up.

As for the other potential lynches:
*BHK's Tiruin vote has lost its reason for existing, and I'm pretty sure Tiruin's town.
*GayArchaea is not town, certainly (I'm surprised that question worked), but he and OSG say he has a one-shot revive.  GA's right: with that, he's not worth lynching yet.  Besides, I'd rather hit Mafia.
*Being neither a jester nor Tiruin, I'm not going to back my own lynch.  Fallacy does not even have a case against me, and his cause for lynching me is that he got a Mafia inspect on me (in this of all games) and that it will help him (quite specifically him) determine his sanity.  There is no cause to believe any inspect result is accurate right now, and Fallacy has given no reason why anyone other than him should want me lynched.  This isn't even an optimal information lynch.
*The core point against OSG, expressed by all the players who have gone after him through the game, is that he claimed seven powers.  This isn't unbelievable and he was open about it (and seemingly surprised that it was abnormal).  I find it hard to call that worth a lynch.  Tiruin gives a bit more:

Spoiler: Tiruin's main stuff against OSG (click to show/hide)

I'm of the opinion that YOU should be the lynch target, for organization rather than outright scum-points (as my only suspicion of you is your MANY POWAHS in contrast to the rest of us). a key telling point is that we ALL are probably cop-likes, so that may be a lead towards the nature of the game itself.

Why I say OSG is a probable target is because he can both PROVE HIMSELF AND GA (because the latter, if town, should resurrect OSG if his flip is town).

I revive (once) out of pure hatred of Scilians. deterring the Mafia from silencing me in the middle of the night, or from hanging me upon a tree in order to distract us for at least another day. If I were any good at hunting scum, how could this possibly harm our chances of winning?

That's not what I learned, GayArchaea. My relelation said that youcan revive once out of pure hatred. (period) It seems that you just tacked that extra part on. If you have no other powers, why are you afraid of being silenced in the middle of the night? hmm!?

Oh dear, good sir.
How come you never mentioned that beforehand :v Aaaaaand only now are telling more of those details? :^

What provokes that blue part to have credibility in your eyes?

I'm pretty sure much of Tiruin's reason for wanting OSG lynched, aside from the seven powers, is built on confusion from skimming too much in too little time.
OSG had already mentioned and discussed the details Tiruin thought were not mentioned before (in fact, that was why they were being discussed), two players (Deus and GA) had already claimed not to be cop-likes, GA's revive is a self-revive only, rolecop is generally used to refer to ability inspectors, GA has not claimed rolecop...pretty much all that's left, as far as I can tell, is Seven Powers!!!!.
Tiruin: Please correct me if I'm mistaken about your cause for backing an OSG lynch.

Simply, I see Fallacy as having a chance of being scum significantly above the baseline, and I see no other good case.

fillipk: Please prod TMS, OSG, Deus, and BHK.

[origamiscienceguy]

Since Deus claimed to be a non-cop-like, I think I'll inspect him tonight.

[Deus Asmoth]

I wonder if it'd be a good idea to get several people to investigate GA tonight? He's claimed third party already so we know what he should turn up as, so it'd be a useful tuning fork to figure out who is actually paranoid, naive or accurate.

In any case, my case on FoU is based on his clear bias against Jack, who he's admitted that he has no actual reason to think that he's scum, even asking other people (and Jack himself) to raise possible scum points against him to use in a case. The only solid reason he's given is that he's following his claimed inspect result despite being one of five different (and contradictory) claimed inspect results. Add to that that he was trying to make a case on Jack since day one, and it seems more like he's gunning for the person he thinks is most likely to be useful in finding scum than trying to find scum himself.

For the other cases:
- GA: I'm honestly in favour of lynching him ASAP. Assuming FoU is scum, GA is going to be doing everything he can from tomorrow on to prevent us lynching any more of them unless he has more information on the scum team's numbers than we do. Not to mention the fact that he's outright stated that he'll be siding with scum in the case of LYLO.

- Tiruin: There doesn't seem to be much of a case against her at the moment. I'm leaning towards town on her at the moment. If FoU flips scum, I'd say that she's more than likely town since the optimal scum play at the moment is probably bussing (or maybe I'm just treacherous by nature).

- Jack: The case here would be based entirely on confirmation bias if there was actually any evidence brought up to support it. There isn't even that, so I'm not sure what to call it. In any case, the only reason given for the lynch is so FoU can find out if his result was accurate or not, which is basically a random lynch in this setup as far as I can see.

- OSG: He's claimed seven powers. I don't think that's a scumtell. Being a rolecop rather than a standard cop could be a pointer towards scuminess, I guess. Given that he's shared it rather than fakeclaiming an alignment inspect and keeping the role results to himself, though, I don't think it is.

(Bonus) BHK: Is fixated on OSG's seven powers claim. I think that if he were scum he'd probably have dropped it after seeing it wasn't gaining traction, so I think he's probably town.