Toaster:
Major:
Heliman, I want to pick your brain next. What do you think the value is of a townie convincing someone else that he is indeed town-aligned? How much self-defense do you think is too much?
The value of a townie convincing someone else of his alignment is obvious and two pronged: it prevents the town from wasting a day on a bum lead and improves the chances that the next person they target will be a scum.
Putting my two cents in here. It does more than that - it may increase the townie's chance of being NK'd. It also allows the scum to pull out all sorts of WIFOM regarding the townie.
Could you give an example here? I'm not sure what you mean.
Also, tell me your opinion on this statement: The best thing a vanilla townie can do is convince scum they are the best NK target.
Now, I said this before:Bdthemag should be active/online about now. If he hasn't posted by the next time I do, he's over-lurking.
And he hasn't posted. BD, if you do not post in the 24 hours after this post is posted, I'm swapping my vote to you. Lurkers aren't good for town. Well, unless Heliman keeps being scummy. Then the vote stays on him.
I don't like this. It looks like you're setting yourself up to move your vote onto a target of convenience later here, and only scum wants convenient targets.
Onto the bad part. Most of my attack was based on you saying you're a goldmine of WIFOM - and that's apparently a misinterpretation. An attack without base is crap - and I think you've had enough pressure from me. I think you're scum, but until I can convince the town of that, Unvote. You've still got my FoS to keep you company though, Heliman. To clarify - I think he's scum - I just have no evidence, and if I push my reasoning further, it's going to hurt me, not him. If you want to attack him, by all means - go for it. Just don't quote me word for word.
--SNIP--
PRE-POST EDIT: I feel I should elaborate on my mindgame. I thought TKoE was scum. Overreacting and whatnot - but I didn't want to vote him on that, as it'd be a blatant bandwagon. I knew I could convince someone to vote him with enough questions, and I happened to get Heli with my first one. So Heli, I wasn't as sheepish as you thought.
This is very, very weak. You say you think he's scum, but you're afraid of how the attack will make you look so you drop it. Basically, you just admitted you're more interested in self-preservation than finding scum, which is very scummy. Scum want to avoid scum tells. Town wants to hang scum, and if they vote in a way that might be bandwagonny, so be it- the important thing is that you get your vote on scum.
If you vote someone you find scummy and you clearly articulate your reasons, no one is going to call it a bandwagon.
This post is also very questionable. Why are you going to great lengths to defend Heliman, someone whom very recently you were voting? You're doing it more here.
Okay. In order:
An example: Person A attempts to convince everyone he's town. He is. Person B is also town - but doesn't buy his story and continues to press him. The scum NK Person B. They then cry out: "Person A's only opposition was NK'd! Mighty suspicious!" And they continue to get person A lynched. Then all that went against him can just say that they were tricked by the scum.
Also you're the IC, so if this example is unrealistic, say so.
Onto question:
Well, it's not a clear yes or no, it's situational. The townie could do this to use WIFOM on the mafia - and (possibly) buy him another day of scumhunting, assuming he's not lynched. Alternatively, if the townie is the center of a bandwagon, he could do this to convince the town to lynch someone else, as he may be NK'd. If he IS NK'd, anyone who was quick to unvote looks suspicious, and if not, he looks suspicious and argh I could write 10 pages on this and not get anywhere.
Did you happen to notice that I said: "Unless Heliman continues to be scummy" And that I didn't vote him until a while after the 24 hours because Heliman was looking scummy? He was one of my other scumpicks - I just progressed to the next one after me pressure on Heliman didn't get anywhere. It was mostly a case of "Get in here or there will be consequences!"
It's not "Oh I'll look bad if I vote him", it's "Damn, no evidence. Better not cast a vote."
Also, mind pointing out exactly where I say self-preservation is higher than scum?
I
had sparse articulate reasons but they were based on a mis-interpretation. Voting without it would be a bandwagon.
For my response to bread, I typed up what I thought on each post. I didn't see anything solid in there - it wouldn't matter if it was Heliman or not, I made and stated my opinion on his arguements, not on who they're against.
On your second linked post, I have a habit of just adding my two cents in. See later in that post for an example, and earlier for a different one.
Onto
Bread:
Afternoon gents. I hope I've not gotten into too much trouble after I left- Oh dear. Well, off to the races!
Post 1: Yeah an RVS.
Post 2: He saw something suspicious and questioned it. Thoroughly. That deserves praise, not rolled eyeballs.
Post 3: The "U MAD?" has been explained. I put the idea in his head for that. It was also a pressuring vote, to see if he got angrier. He doesn't skip over Jim, look at the last section.
Post 4: The back and forth between him and Jim: His reason for the FoS gets taken out from under his feet - leaving him nowhere to go, hence "I don't know what to say." Also in there, he is not over-defending. He was questioned that many times, so he answered that many times.
Post 5: You're wrong. It's WIFOM. It's WIFOM out the wazoo, actually. I'm going to propose a scenario: Person A and Person B are questioning each other. Person C is scum. There's other town around. Person A then turns his attention to Person C. Person C ends up lynched. The scum COULD NK Person A - he's a good scumhunter. But they NK Person B. The remaining scum say "why wasn't Person A NK'd? He's the best scumhunter" and "Person A got Person B NK'd!". Person A calls them out as scum. The town has to decide whether the scum would simply bus an ally, (like the scum are claiming) or that thw scum has a plan, (that Person A is right). There's no evidence either way, and it's down to speculation.
Wow that was long.
Post 6: Ever think that Heli was suspicious of BD BEFORE he said as such? Also, his main scumpick goes MIA, so he has to start on a new person. You give him that person to start on - and he pressures.
Post 7: Caution is a scumtell. Recklessness is a town tell. This is not guaranteed however, as I'm always cautious, for example. Being cautious as to where your vote goes is scummy play. Hell, I'm trying to be more aggressive and I still don't vote everywhere.
Post 8: The "King" of mafia said it's unreliable. And IIRC, that he think's it's not the best method. He didn't say the method was horrible and never to use it. He wants you mad right? And he has it.
Post 9: You claim he is only using a list of scumtells - I daresay all his arguements against me aren't scumtells alone.
I don't think these are too strong.. I tried to read these as if bread was town, but they still aren't too strong.
#1: If I left it off, people would question me about why I left it off.
#2: I suppose so. It's just the continued "Well I think you didn't say what you mean" after that had me predisposed against it. Looking back isn't always 20-20.
#3: And yet, afterwards, even after being rebuked about it, he tried to use it again. It makes no sense why, unless he was really desperate for a leg to walk on for getting a townie lynched.
#4: :I I don't no what to say.
See how much of a bullshit answer that is when you get called out? Yeah.
#5: But that example is slightly invalid. I would 100% of the time say person A wasn't targeted, because if he targeted a townie, the second scum could just bandwagon, and use the same evidence A did. Remember what the ICs said. The best scum is one who looks like he's scum hunting. As such it follows that a scum could play follow the leader for a quick ride of pretend scumhunting, which is why when somebody asked me about who I would protect as doc, I said the second best scumhunter, because they would be a danger with no tactical use, so the scum would want them dead.
#6: No, not really. He had completely slipped under notice, until I saw there were only 7 people posting. As for the MIA point, what are the odds a lurker could be weeded out by one vote when it was pretty effective until I finally saw it.
#7: I tend to agree, although there are times when the positions switch. Nobody wants to be the one who places the vote on a townie which the scum can then pounce on.
#8: You're right. He earned my ire. And now every word he posts will be considered for how it could or couldn't incriminate him further. And I never said it was completely useless, just less than useful.
#9: I didn't mean to imply that was all he was using, I was just trying to point out how poorly that would work out, and how he could better himself.
-SNIP-
Aaaaand.... back to Seph. I got to that line from the fact that IIRC, most if not all of the things he's attacked others of he's been guilty of himself.
Onto your list first.
1: Yeah. Agreed.
2: I'm glad you see it that way.
3: He was insanely suspicious of Jim for a 'slip'. He continued pressure until his evidence was destroyed infront of him.
4: Hehe.
5: While you have a point - I still say that if the scum were persuasive enough, they could convince the town that Person A was scum. Unlikely - but possible.
6: With every one of my (early) posts I checked to see what people had said, and who had posted. I know I was suspicious of BD before I mentioned it. I was also suspicious of you before I said as such.
7: Yeah, those lines aren't words to live by, just a basic measure. I tried getting that across with my example, but eh.
8: Try to keep your cool though, raging left right and centre doesn't help town.
9: It would work out poorly, and as such he didn't do it.
And your final line:
Looking back:
He pushes TKoE for raging. He's kept his cool (at least in his posts) so far.
He does use a little wifyiom on me. This is where you're partially correct.
He pushed BD for lurking. He's been active.
He pushes me for not explaining an FoS - he explains all of his. (That I've seen)
He votes me for attempting to spearhead a bandwagon. He hasn't done that either.
Bread, can you make sure your voting reasons are valid before you actually vote? Take the advice of an IC before me on this matter though.
Heliman:
What if you were going after two people at once?
Actually, I was planning on going after two people at once before egg asked for another extension. I was planning on seeing what happened if I linked Egg and Major as partners because major seemed hesitant to vote him when he first pressed, and made no comment at all about the caps-lock. Oh well.
I may not have callout out the caps lock specifically - I did say he looked suspicious and that I wanted him to answer everyones questions.
But hell, there's crap like that going around for the three of them (breadbocks, Heliman, major_sephiroth), and it could just as easily be them flubbing around.
Flub, flub, flub,
But seriously now, back to Toaster:
Heliman: Fair enough.
Be careful when creating scum teams early. Without any flips, be sure your target is scummy by his own merits, and not due to others. For example, Major S is making you look scummy by defending you so hard, but I'm ignoring that until his alignment is revealed as otherwise I don't really have anything on you.
His buddying is definitely off key, but the thing is I still can't get why he would do this if he was scum.
If he's scum trying to make me look scummy for a lynching by being overprotective, then he's only going to get himself lynched first, and if he flips scum it wouldn't matter if I get lynched the next night or not, because it would ultimately pro-town. And if he's a semi-barnacle town defending me, he should know that it's not like I need any defense from breadbocks, who hasn't even made a clear argument yet.
I know that looking too deep into the motivations of scum ultimately leads to a WIFOM scenario, but I can't see his reasoning behind all this.
Toaster, Any ideas?
Or would you care to tell us yourself Seph?
I make myself look SO SCUMMY with my scum logic expeditions but here's another one:
If I were scum, I'd buddy you to cause - exactly what's happening. I'd only go for it if I'm willing to sacrifice myself, but both Toaster and Jim are saying you're scummy by association to me. If I were scum and flipped as such - they'd pressure you. And with the two IC's pressuring you, the other beginners would trust them, and pressure you as well.
My intention was not to protect you from bread, but to poke holes in his arguement. As I say earlier in this post, I've been suspicious of bread for a while too, so I'm going to make sure any case he uses against anyone is damn sound before I consider listening to it.
Woo not ninja'd!
Author
Topic: Beginners' Mafia XXII [0/6, 1/3], POSTGAME: Mafia Won! (Read 73727 times)