Print

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

[billybobfred]

billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?

Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.

What's EDWODP? I didn't see it in the list of abbreviations.

Edit By Way Of Double Post. Most people leave out the D, from what I've seen, but it means the same thing.

[Urist_McArathos]

It may be a worse ratio, ed boy, but it puts the town at LYLO in VERY short order with only a single mislynch, and the loss of three perfectly good people before they have any chance to make their arguments or air their suspicions.  The scum can only kill one per night, so under a normal setup they need a couple nights before we're in that kind of bad shape, all the while having to face SEVEN people working to find them.

Also, having a live teammate means there are more chances to see if someone is receiving advice or the like, which can be useful in finding scum.  If we wipe out the scum before we can watch their behavior, that entire form of reading disappears.  I stand by my assertion that it is one of the worst things I think Town could do to themselves.  It would take two straight days of mislynches AND a NK to lose that many townies, without the benefit of two productive days of full scumhunting from so many people.

Your statements about Town not having the same information is blatantly false.  The ONLY time Town has access to different information than one another is IF there is a power role, and even then ONLY if that power role has had a chance to act.

All vanilla townies have access to the same information: what they read in thread.  Even if both Town power roles were active, five town would be vanilla and have access to the same information.  Town has a much greater incentive to coordinate votes: to lynch scum.  Without a majority of votes on scum, the scum don't hang.  Scum can only ride suspicions  on Town players and gently nudge them over the line by adding a vote, so there's less incentive for them to coordinate votes on the same target since all votes are scrutinized, and scum DO have something to hide.

You still didn't answer my question: why are you suspicious of backtobasesix?  I asked if you had any other suspects and why, yet you only threw out the one lurking player without even bothering to mention lurking as a factor.  You could definitely add something to the discussion by posting your own feelings and questions on the matter, as I did.  Nobody had mentioned the poor quality of his posts before, I'd like to think I added a new dimension to the case on him.  Who's to say your suspicions won't shed a similar new light?  You also STILL haven't told me your suspicions of IronyOwl, which I wanted to hear.  Do you have anything to work on?  Do you have a case against Irony?  Or are you just trying to appear Town?

I don't like your bizarre questions, which I feel contribute little to nothing in the way of finding scum.  I don't like your refusal to voice your suspicions or press those you suspect (particularly in the case of IronyOwl, who answered your previous post and you chose not to pursue ANYTHING).  I also don't like how most of your last post was defense and explanation, with only a clarification question tacked on at the end.

You're too defensive and FAR too passive for my tastes, ed boy

[Max White]

The day has been extended until Wednesday, the 24th, 4:00 pm forum time. You need 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.
backtobasesix has been prodded. He will have 48 hours to show up before he will be up for replacement.

TolyK: Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

[IronyOwl]

The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.

I don't have time for anything proper, but I'd like to point out that this applies to your original reasoning as well. You claimed three votes on you was suspicious because scum would want to do X.

[billybobfred]

... Monday the 24th?

[Max White]

No idea what your talking about.

[Reverie]

Pppf. Even after rereading the thread, I am having trouble making any original arguments.

The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.

As for the roles, it means that the townies involved have different information available. The logic "I voted for X for the same reason as Y" requires all of the townies to definitely have access to the same information to work, which is not the case.

ed boy: I am fairly certain that scum would not openly express like opinions, with only WIFOM as a scum-tell deterrent. Wouldn't it be easier for scum to avoid any associations with his/her scum-buddy than to be under constant scrutiny where relationships are concerned?

billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?

Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.

Billybobfred: Where do you draw the line with scummy lurkers? Would you so readily jump onto a bandwagon to lynch one?

[billybobfred]

billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?

Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.

Billybobfred: Where do you draw the line with scummy lurkers? Would you so readily jump onto a bandwagon to lynch one?

If it's just lurking, I'm not going to be calling for torches and pitchforks all that quickly.

Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.

[Jim Groovester]

I want to know because I want to improve my game. As I said earlier, this is my first serious game of mafia and I want to get better. If you don't want to share, thats ok, but just because the scum know the strategies doesn't necessarily mean they can avoid it.

How about instead of asking other new players about how they play, you try something bold and radical, and then I tell you whether it's going to work or not.

Thank you for answering my question, Zombie.  I personally disagree with your outlook; I feel that if I outline my strategy it will help the scum players know what I'm looking for and plan to avoid it, or counter it.

Don't make any assumptions about the scum.

They really don't care about your strategies enough to plan around it. They're just looking for people to mislynch.

Scum play much simpler games than you assume they do. Usually.

The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.

This is WIFOM, short for Wine in Front of Me. It's circular reasoning whereby you assume another party (i.e., the scum) is going to change their behavior because you assume they know about it, and you assume they are going to change their behavior again because you assume they know you know, leading essentially to games of "they know i know they know i know they know i know" ad infinitum.

You should just ignore it. Look at what people have posted, what they have said, and nothing more. Don't stray too far into "scum would do this because they know i know they would do that" games because you will always be wrong. It's completely unproductive.

Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.

Where will you be if backtobasesix comes back?

You're too defensive and FAR too passive for my tastes, ed boy

How, exactly?

I don't see it. Enlighten me.

[Orangebottle]

Local Time:August 22, 2011, 11:54:29 pm
Last Active: Today at 04:13:24 pm

...Seriously? Are you purposefully avoiding the game because your lurking has gotten you into a hole? That's just going to make it worse. The only way to fix what you're in right now is to come back into this thread, answer all the questions you were asked, and start scumhunting. Whatever, I'll not have my vote wasting away on a lurker when there are better places for it to be. Unvote.

Extension.

We need it.

We also need something to light this game on fire and really get it going. Which one of you's going to step up and do it?

Come on, isn't there anything suspicious you've seen? Anything you think is suspicious? Odd? Out of place? Weird? Peculiar?

Ask about it. Let nothing go unquestioned.

Sure, I have a question or two. For you, Jim Groovester.

Unvote, backtobasesix.

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.

Your reason for voting for Backtobasesix is a rehash of what IronyOwl and I have said, and a large part of the reason I was voting him. "He's lurking and I'm worried about his alignment because he's lurking." Do you have any original reasons for voting him?

[Jim Groovester]

No.

You'll find that when people vote lurkers for lurking there will be lots of people with unoriginal positions.

[TolyK]

TolyK: Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

No. Lives are put in the hands of the hardware dudes.

[zombie urist]

Thank you for answering my question, Zombie.  I personally disagree with your outlook; I feel that if I outline my strategy it will help the scum players know what I'm looking for and plan to avoid it, or counter it.

You can disagree with me, but, as you mentioned, even though there is a list of scumtells on the first post, we still rely on it for scumhunting.

It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).

I really think you need to avoid only using numbers in your analysis. 5:2 might be a worse ratio than 3:1, but with more players there is more communication which can lead to accurate lynches. Also, you need to consider the special roles which can significantly impact the game.

unvote.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.

Well, that depends on what you consider to be following up. I ask people questions and I see their answers. Often, I am satisfied with the answers and I don't see the need to ask further questions. I might then leave that question, and ask a further question, which might seem like I'm abandoning the old question, but I'm not ignoring it.

Yes, but you don't even seem to acknowledge the responses which makes it seem like you're asking questions just to appear like you're participating.

Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.

Then who are you thinking of lynching? All you're doing right now is complaining that backtobasesix is lurking without contributing in any other way. Its totally possible to pressure more than one person, such as with the FoS, billybobfred

I want to know because I want to improve my game. As I said earlier, this is my first serious game of mafia and I want to get better. If you don't want to share, thats ok, but just because the scum know the strategies doesn't necessarily mean they can avoid it.

How about instead of asking other new players about how they play, you try something bold and radical, and then I tell you whether it's going to work or not.

I've read that bold and clever plans don't work as well due to all the WIFOM involved.

[Jim Groovester]

I'm the goddamn IC.

Who are you going to listen to?

I've read that bold and clever plans don't work as well due to all the WIFOM involved.

I don't remember saying anything about being clever or making up a plan.

[billybobfred]

Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.

Where will you be if backtobasesix comes back?

Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.

Then who are you thinking of lynching? All you're doing right now is complaining that backtobasesix is lurking without contributing in any other way. Its totally possible to pressure more than one person, such as with the FoS, billybobfred

All right, all right, I get the hint.

Spoiler: So I reread the thread. (click to show/hide)

Flandre
Compared to the last game, she seems to be posting more fluff. I'm not sure, though...

Urist_McArathos
Seems towny enough. Hasn't done anything all that suspicious.

ed boy
Overly numbery, which I've already said I don't like. Doesn't seem to get how the game works.

backtobasesix
Three useless posts. That is the entirety of basesix's contribution to the game -- not even a randavote!

zombie urist
Missed the very first post in the game. How do you do that? Everything else seems to be Captain Obvious sort of reasoning.

Orangebottle
Can't read this guy very well. Most posts in the thread, and none of them seem to be obviously useless... probably town.

Jim Groovester
Is it just me, or is he awfully passive for an IC?

IronyOwl
Vanished off the face of the planet for a while, but got right into the scumhunting upon returning. Probably town.

... basesix is still looking like the most suspicious one, but I can't do anything with someone who isn't here. bluhhhhhhhhh

Not gonna just sit on the vote, though. Zombie urist. You say that all I'm doing is complaining about basesix lurking. Reread, and then tell me...

where did you get this completely false idea? I mentioned the lurking only when others brought it up. The entirety of my focus on basesix at this time is from wanting a question answered. Lurking doesn't even enter into it!

Furthermore, you've made seven posts since game start, and I don't like any of them. Here, let me spell out why.

1. Captain Obvious and false statements.
2. Captain Obvious, a shitty defense of 1, and... well, I'll admit your question to IronyOwl wasn't bad.
3. Parroting the IC.
4. Captain Obvious and asking pointless questions.
5. Probably the fluffiest fluffpost that ever fluffed a fluff.
6. Stupid questions and crappy attempts to defend previous examples of such.
7. Captain Obvious, Captain Obvious... I'll admit that calling me out for focusing on the guy who isn't here wasn't bad in itself, but the IC had just done the very same thing -- without blatant falsehoods, I might add.

You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.