Print

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

[ed boy]

Unvote

ed boy, do you suspect McArathos?

I'm slightly suspicious of UristMcArathos. I only voted for him because he had not posted yet. When I first wrote my post, it was targeted at billybobfred, but he posted as I was typing, so I redid it for Urist. As for Urist's voting for me, I'm not surprised, as I handled billybobfred's quite badly. There is also the reactionary possibility, as he is the only one to vote for the person who voted for him (so far).

That's interesting, because you appear to be voting him without asking him anything. I mean, now you're asking him something, but that's probably because I reminded you about it.

Well, I asked him a question in my first post, as well as just then.

The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible. I'm going to wait to see if anybody else changes their votes, but if nobody does (or, if those who do target them towards those who haven't been voted for yet), then I'm going to consider you and UristMcArathos a lot more suspicious. My bad answer could also be considered an excuse to co-ordinate votes on me, as other players (such as Flandre) did not seem to consider it very suspicious at all.

What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?

I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).

In short, I'm suspecting both him and you right now, but that could easily change.

But you weren't suspicious of me until I voted you?

Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.

IronyOwl, if you were a roleblocker, who would you be blocking tonight?

Depends on who's dead. backtobasesix is a good target for being a blatant lurker, though; depending on how things go, you might top that list for scumminess.

[/quote]
Except that the roleblocker is a scum player. The roleblocker has no interest in blocking other scum.

The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.

BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.

When I said a fast game, I meant fast in terms of number of rounds, not total time from start to end.



IronyOwl, If you could remove voting ability from one person for the rest of the game, who would it be?

zombie urist, if you were scum, would deliberately let yourself get killed if it meant that your buddy was likely to go one and win?

Flandre, if someone was about to be lynched, and they claimed that they were a townie with a role, could you believe them? What would you ask to verify this?

Jim Groovester, if choosing who to kill off today was your decision alone, who would you choose?

Right now, backtobasesix, because he hasn't done anything. While everybody else is trying to feel their way into the game of mafia, he isn't for some reason.

But keep in mind that if you were to kill off someone other than backtobasesix, backtobasesix's suspicious actions could easily see him/her still considered a target of suspicion and get lynched the next day. Are you sure you would go for him/her?

Urist_McArathos, if you were offered the option to eliminate three random townies to expose a scum, would you do it?

OrangeBottle, if you were to choose one person to sacrifice to stop the scum kill this turn (that is, if you were to choose who the scum kills), who would it be?

[Orangebottle]

OrangeBottle, if you were to choose one person to sacrifice to stop the scum kill this turn (that is, if you were to choose who the scum kills), who would it be?

I'd have to go with Backtobasesix. He's not contributing much, if anything.

[Max White]

Votecount

Flandre[1]: zombie urist
Urist_McArathos[0]:
billybobfred[0]:
ed boy[1]: IronyOwl
backtobasesix[2]: Orangebottle, billybobfred
zombie urist[1]: Jim Groovester
Orangebottle[1]: Flandre
Jim Groovester[0]:
IronyOwl[1]: Urist_McArathos

Not voting: backtobasesix, ed boy

The day will end Monday, the 22nd, 4:00 pm forum time. You need 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.

[Jim Groovester]

Jim Groovester, if choosing who to kill off today was your decision alone, who would you choose?

Right now, backtobasesix, because he hasn't done anything. While everybody else is trying to feel their way into the game of mafia, he isn't for some reason.

But keep in mind that if you were to kill off someone other than backtobasesix, backtobasesix's suspicious actions could easily see him/her still considered a target of suspicion and get lynched the next day. Are you sure you would go for him/her?

I have no idea what you're trying to get at. You don't seem to be getting at anything at all.

Of course if somebody is scummy and they somehow avoid the noose one day they'll likely be up for it the next. How is that a concern I should be worried about if somebody becomes more scummy than backtobasesix?

[zombie urist]

zombie Why so apologetic? You do understand part of scumhunting is to pressure people into making mistakes, right?

I only apologized once and that was because I missed a post. Yes, but what are other parts of scumhunting? 

zombie, what are your thoughts on backtobasesix?

I think he should start asking questions instead of just answering them. I don't think he's focused on the game right now.

zombie urist, if you were scum, would deliberately let yourself get killed if it meant that your buddy was likely to go one and win?

Probably. It really depends on who my partner was and how skillful he is. I don't know how I can "deliberately let" myself get lynched without doing something really stupid.

[Toaster]

Weekends are no excuse!  Get active!

[Jim Groovester]

Unvote, backtobasesix.

Now I shall tell you my lesson about activity.

You need to be active because you need to be able to show yourself as town. A good town will be as active as possible because he knows that the more he gets out there the more he can be seen and the more other people can see him and read him, and most importantly for everybody, get read as town. A member of the town should be as transparent and open as possible, i.e., he should be available to answer questions quickly and honestly so that when it comes time for everybody to choose their votes, he won't get chosen.

It's every town's responsibility to avoid looking scummy so that they don't waste time getting mislynched.

You're not really doing anything and I'm worried about what your alignment could be because you haven't taken the effort to get out there and show me that you're town. So, I resort to hanging you.

The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.

BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.

On an unrelated note, sitting on this vote of mine isn't doing town any good. Unvote.

So backtobasesix, how did you manage to not realize that the game had started?

I don't like this.

You drop whatever thing you were doing with ed boy for reasons you don't make clear, and instead, you jump on the popular case that the two ICs started and endorsed. Why?

Weekends are no excuse!  Get active!

Yep, they're not.

Get to work, people. You're not going to catch scum doing nothing.

[IronyOwl]

To add to Jim's lesson, I'd like to point out that it is also the duty of all town to be active because otherwise you're not helping. Scum aren't going to catch themselves, and if you refuse to look for them you're just being dead weight in a game that assumes you won't be.

I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).

This seems... scummily elaborate and technical. You start by more or less saying "scum would want to vote the same target soon after one another," point out that it's only really a scumtell if it keeps happening, and then get derailed into how that wouldn't apply to power roles. That last part in particular feels like rolefishing or nervous banter, but the whole thing seems flavored that way.

Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.

Why would I need reasoning to vote you with a question?

But yes, third vote without a good reason for it is noteworthy, at least.

Except that the roleblocker is a scum player. The roleblocker has no interest in blocking other scum.

Derp. I'm accustomed to more open-ended setups.

Hard to say, then. Would probably go with my gut, if I got any leanings that way. Otherwise probably Jim or backtobasesix, if neither was my partner. Jim because he'd likely want to confirm the other IC, backtobasesix because, since he's lurking and being useless, he'd probably have no idea what to do and thus action an IC.

IronyOwl, If you could remove voting ability from one person for the rest of the game, who would it be?

Ooh. Tough one. Nobody strikes me as so utterly incompetent that I don't want them to be able to do anything anymore, and similarly nobody's been scummy enough that I'm sure they should be neutralized. I guess I don't have an answer, actually; if I had to pick someone, probably backtobasesix because evidently he's not going to play the game anyway.

[billybobfred]

The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.

BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.

On an unrelated note, sitting on this vote of mine isn't doing town any good. Unvote.

So backtobasesix, how did you manage to not realize that the game had started?

I don't like this.

You drop whatever thing you were doing with ed boy for reasons you don't make clear, and instead, you jump on the popular case that the two ICs started and endorsed. Why?

I dropped the ed boy thing because I didn't really know what I was doing with it. He was overly numbery, I told him why that was bad... That's all I had. To be frank, he's doing exactly what I would do if I didn't already know why it was wrong, so I can't really see it as that scummy.

As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.

[Max White]

Backtobasesix's post history shows that he may not have had time to be as active as some others, as such a reminder PM has been sent.
This will not be an official prod and will not count towards prod count.

[Reverie]

I will need to read through the thread again to see the bigger picture. In the meanwhile: Unvote Orangebottle.

Flandre, if someone was about to be lynched, and they claimed that they were a townie with a role, could you believe them? What would you ask to verify this?

It depends on whether I was among those who thought that person was scummy, and even then I would be a little doubtful about their town-ness. Although it might be good strategy if the target was about to get mislynched (attempting to draw the real scum into wasting their night-kill on him), it appears as though he/she were trying to wriggle out of the inevitable (which is an act some would undoubtedly consider scummy in itself, and I would consider more likely).  In my opinion, an act of self-preservation comes more naturally than sacrificial play, so I am inclined to believe the former.
In questioning the target, I would ask him/her to elaborate on what he/she was attempting.

What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?

I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).

ed boy: Have you considered that the scum might want to seperate themselves to avoid detection, and as a result, intentionally vote for different players? Also, what do roles have to do with anything? The scum with the role could share intel with his/her partner, and that would be preferable for the both of them.

[Orangebottle]

zombie, what are your thoughts on backtobasesix?

I think he should start asking questions instead of just answering them. I don't think he's focused on the game right now.

You mean he should stop doing exactly what you're doing right now? Why aren't you scumhunting Zombie?

[Reverie]

As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.

The game has started a while back, so I am sure that if this were the case, he would have found out about it already. He could have forgotten that he was playing, even. The weekend was pretty sleepy, so we might hear from him tomorrow. Hopefully.

[Urist_McArathos]

Sorry about my disappearance; work was extremely busy, and as such I couldn't post from my phone during the day, as I have been, and was too tired to post when I got home.  I'm reading now, and will attempt something before I go to sleep.

[Urist_McArathos]

ed boy:  Of course not, that's a terrible idea.  We would be down to four townies and one scum by day's end, and the next morning it would be three town.  If we mislynch, we go to three townies, then two the next day because of the NK.  That situation is known as LYLO.  It'd be pretty easy to mislynch too: four dead townies who contributed nothing in terms of suspicions or cases, then the remaining three have to figure out who among them is scum.  Town mislynches frequently enough as it is.

I'm starting to wonder about you; your questions are bizarre ones, and seem poorly thought out at best (this one in particular takes but a moment of consideration to reveal its an atrocious choice for Town, and would be a stupendously overpowering scum ability).  I also wonder why the FoS on IronyOwl; Why are you getting that suspicious of the Owl? Do you have any reads on anyone else?  If so, what are they and why aren't you questioning them?  If not, why not just vote for Irony at this stage instead, if that's your only suspect.