Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

A gibbering imbecile. They're not necessarily scum, but you don't have any way of knowing that either way, and they're going to be a hindrance if they're not killed regardless. More specifically, there's times when someone isn't necessarily your first pick, but the game's clearly not going anywhere with them still in it.

So, are you saying you'd hammer a gibbering imbecile in this game (let's just say it's on Day 1 for the sake of argument) even if doing so might lose the game?

[Urist_McArathos]

IronyOwl: Because you voted Shark instead of me.  If it was feasible to call me scum, you would have.  The fact you voted Shark means you felt you couldn't vote for me over him.

[Jim Groovester]

Sitting around doing nothing hasn't accomplished anything.

NativeForeigner for previously stated very vague gut feeling reasons. Also because he and Shark avoided each other during Day 1 and didn't want to do anything before anyone else during Day 2.

[NativeForeigner]

So you're saying that the only thing you have on anyone is a gut feeling, some avoidance (which isn't 100% true. Not getting into a big discussion and avoiding are two different things), and the fact that I didn't share my reads before anyone else?

Or is that just the best you have on anyone?

Either way, it's weak. How confident are you in your gut feeling and how confident should you be?

Irony: Did you forget about this game? You mentioned earlier that you felt Urist was a bit abrupt in voting Shark and Shark just kind of ignored him. What do you make of that?

[Urist_McArathos]

Basically, there's a point at which someone is one of the following:

Genuine scum. They need to be lynched.

Your best guess at scum. You're not positive, but you're not going to be any more positive than this, so there's nothing to be done but call the shot.

A gibbering imbecile. They're not necessarily scum, but you don't have any way of knowing that either way, and they're going to be a hindrance if they're not killed regardless. More specifically, there's times when someone isn't necessarily your first pick, but the game's clearly not going anywhere with them still in it.

On reread, this sticks out to me.  Irony's behavior with Shark's lynch hasn't sat well with me this whole time.  Irony was one of the first to point out that he was "pretty sure" Shark was scum, yet took a long time to vote.  That doesn't seem to mesh with this attitude; despite having early suspicions of Shark, no strong ones of anyone else, and his flailing behavior, he took that long to fit solidly into one of those three categories?  The last part also seems rather reckless for someone who was aware that hammering is a very important part of a vengeful game.  Risking giving "a gibbering imbecile" a vengekill they will almost certainly misuse seems far too dangerous a tactic to seriously mention in this game, and seems like pre-emptive justification for bussing Shark. 

IronyOwl

[Jim Groovester]

So you're saying that the only thing you have on anyone is a gut feeling, some avoidance (which isn't 100% true. Not getting into a big discussion and avoiding are two different things), and the fact that I didn't share my reads before anyone else?

Or is that just the best you have on anyone?

It's more like, there's all these people who are playing like town, and you're the one giving me the oddest vibes.

Either way, it's weak. How confident are you in your gut feeling and how confident should you be?

Not terribly and not terribly much.

If I had anything better than a spotty gut feeling I'd be pushing that instead.

Also votes are bold moves and I'm not getting reads doing anything else.

Risking giving "a gibbering imbecile" a vengekill they will almost certainly misuse seems far too dangerous a tactic to seriously mention in this game, and seems like pre-emptive justification for bussing Shark.

I don't understand this point or what you're trying to say here.

The only way a vengekill is a concern is if the player getting lynched is town. I.E., it shouldn't be a concern at all, because people should be lynching people they think are scum. The alternative, letting a gibbering imbecile stick around because they would misuse the vengekill provided they are town, does not seem like an attractive option either.

I can't figure out what you're advocating should be done or what you think the correct course of action is regarding a gibbering imbecile.

IronyOwl

Why wait until now to do this, after I cast the first vote?

This is what you were planning to do for a while now, correct?

[Urist_McArathos]

The implication Irony made is that a gibbering imbecile is someone that very well could be town, they're just too lousy a player to tell.  I can't see how Irony can seriously advocate policy lynching such a player in a game like this.  It's a lynch he acknowledges can hit town, and leaves a weak and untrustworthy player with a potentially game ending vengekill.  In a regular game, sure we should remove them early, but policy lynching has no place here.  Mentioning it feels like a preemptive defense for bussing Shark.

[Jim Groovester]

And then why did you wait to vote?

[Urist_McArathos]

I hadn't paid much attention to Irony on my first reread.  I was focused more on you and Native, since I had the worst reads on you both.  Your post before you voted prompted my better look at Irony. 

[IronyOwl]

Sorry. Back now. Somewhat.

A gibbering imbecile. They're not necessarily scum, but you don't have any way of knowing that either way, and they're going to be a hindrance if they're not killed regardless. More specifically, there's times when someone isn't necessarily your first pick, but the game's clearly not going anywhere with them still in it.

So, are you saying you'd hammer a gibbering imbecile in this game (let's just say it's on Day 1 for the sake of argument) even if doing so might lose the game?

I'm talking about the sort of situation where having them control 1/4 or 1/3 of the votes probably means you've lost anyway. I'm also not talking about the sort of situation where you actively think they're town, just the sort where you're less certain they're scum than you'd otherwise need to be.

Irony: Did you forget about this game? You mentioned earlier that you felt Urist was a bit abrupt in voting Shark and Shark just kind of ignored him. What do you make of that?

Kind of. All my mafia attention has been focused on Totem Mafia, as it's got a somewhat stringent time limit. I knew I was horribly overdue for doing anything in this game, but didn't realize it'd been four whole days (though that includes the weekend, I think?).

At the time, I thought it a strong possible sign that Urist was bussing Shark, like I said. I should probably go back and read over it again, but I don't think my general impression of it will change.

IronyOwl: Because you voted Shark instead of me.  If it was feasible to call me scum, you would have.  The fact you voted Shark means you felt you couldn't vote for me over him.

Sweet circular reasoning, bro.

On reread, this sticks out to me.  Irony's behavior with Shark's lynch hasn't sat well with me this whole time.  Irony was one of the first to point out that he was "pretty sure" Shark was scum, yet took a long time to vote.  That doesn't seem to mesh with this attitude; despite having early suspicions of Shark, no strong ones of anyone else, and his flailing behavior, he took that long to fit solidly into one of those three categories?

Okay. What makes you say I didn't wait to vote Shark for the reasons I gave? In fact, didn't you claim earlier that my explanation "made sense?" What made you change your mind?

The last part also seems rather reckless for someone who was aware that hammering is a very important part of a vengeful game.  Risking giving "a gibbering imbecile" a vengekill they will almost certainly misuse seems far too dangerous a tactic to seriously mention in this game, and seems like pre-emptive justification for bussing Shark. 

As opposed to giving them a game-ending hammer instead?

Also, I don't follow the part about Shark at all. You're saying that whole spiel was a setup so I'd have an excuse to bus my partner on grounds of rank incompetence, rather than scumminess? Isn't that a bit elaborate for someone who can apparently act scummy just fine?

The implication Irony made is that a gibbering imbecile is someone that very well could be town, they're just too lousy a player to tell.  I can't see how Irony can seriously advocate policy lynching such a player in a game like this.  It's a lynch he acknowledges can hit town, and leaves a weak and untrustworthy player with a potentially game ending vengekill.  In a regular game, sure we should remove them early, but policy lynching has no place here.  Mentioning it feels like a preemptive defense for bussing Shark.

I'd consider that too specific and extreme to call it a policy lynch.

And again, why would I set it up as a preemptive defense for bussing Shark, then have him act regular scummy instead of derping as hard as he could? For that matter, why would I need to, and what would I get out of it?

[NativeForeigner]

Visiting family today, won't be on.

[NativeForeigner]

I'm talking about the sort of situation where having them control 1/4 or 1/3 of the votes probably means you've lost anyway. I'm also not talking about the sort of situation where you actively think they're town, just the sort where you're less certain they're scum than you'd otherwise need to be.

These days only end on a hammer. Are you saying that you would rather risk hammering someone that you're not sure is scum and could lose the game than take the time to convince them to stop being an idiot and vote a more likely target?

[Urist_McArathos]

I don't understand this point or what you're trying to say here.

The only way a vengekill is a concern is if the player getting lynched is town. I.E., it shouldn't be a concern at all, because people should be lynching people they think are scum. The alternative, letting a gibbering imbecile stick around because they would misuse the vengekill provided they are town, does not seem like an attractive option either.

I can't figure out what you're advocating should be done or what you think the correct course of action is regarding a gibbering imbecile.

The gibbering imbecile option suggests that you think they're town, but should be voted anyway because they're clouding the issue.  To me, this is lynching someone who is town AND too incompetent to be trusted with a vengekill.  Sure, letting them stay after isn't exactly super either, but I'd rather they lynch a skilled player who can hit scum with the vengekill and keep us in the game, then lynch a shitty player who will miss with the vengekill and screw town out of a win altogether.  I'm not so much advocating as saying that Irony suggesting a lynch on a "gibbering imbecile" type is just something he threw out to cover his ass, since he's experienced enough to know it's a terrible idea.

If he's referring to games in general rather than here, that's fine but also irrelevant to the question he was answering; we aren't talking games in general, we're talking vengefuls.

IronyOwl: Because you voted Shark instead of me.  If it was feasible to call me scum, you would have.  The fact you voted Shark means you felt you couldn't vote for me over him.

Sweet circular reasoning, bro.

Explain how this is circular reasoning.  My point is: you asked how I know calling me scum was infeasible for you.  My argument: you were debating whether or not to vote Shark or me.  You chose Shark because you could not vote for me (either because it was tactically unsound, or because saying I was your primary suspect at that point would have been a lie; either way you couldn't do it), and if I was a feasible voting target you would have voted me instead (since that would have made sense to do).  I drew the conclusion that you did not vote for me, because I wasn't a feasible target.  The alternative is that you could have called me scum and voted me, and deliberately didn't in spite of your beliefs.

On reread, this sticks out to me.  Irony's behavior with Shark's lynch hasn't sat well with me this whole time.  Irony was one of the first to point out that he was "pretty sure" Shark was scum, yet took a long time to vote.  That doesn't seem to mesh with this attitude; despite having early suspicions of Shark, no strong ones of anyone else, and his flailing behavior, he took that long to fit solidly into one of those three categories?

Okay. What makes you say I didn't wait to vote Shark for the reasons I gave? In fact, didn't you claim earlier that my explanation "made sense?" What made you change your mind?

Your reasons don't conflict with my accusation.  You said you had all the reads to make your decision, and that all the recent interactions were important in making your decision.  I'm saying that decision was to bus your partner.  It still makes sense to me.

The last part also seems rather reckless for someone who was aware that hammering is a very important part of a vengeful game.  Risking giving "a gibbering imbecile" a vengekill they will almost certainly misuse seems far too dangerous a tactic to seriously mention in this game, and seems like pre-emptive justification for bussing Shark. 

As opposed to giving them a game-ending hammer instead?

The hammer isn't the game ending move, the missed vengekill is.  You know this.  There is no reason, at ALL, to vote or remove from the game a player you suspect might be incompetent town in a vengeful.  Yeah, they cloud your reads and make life difficult, but a hammer vote is less dangerous in their hands than a vengekill, since if they screw up and hammer a more experienced player, that player can potentially vengekill scum and keep us going another day.  We vengekill some worthless boob, and there's not much hope they'll pick out the scum correctly.

The implication Irony made is that a gibbering imbecile is someone that very well could be town, they're just too lousy a player to tell.  I can't see how Irony can seriously advocate policy lynching such a player in a game like this.  It's a lynch he acknowledges can hit town, and leaves a weak and untrustworthy player with a potentially game ending vengekill.  In a regular game, sure we should remove them early, but policy lynching has no place here.  Mentioning it feels like a preemptive defense for bussing Shark.

I'd consider that too specific and extreme to call it a policy lynch.

And again, why would I set it up as a preemptive defense for bussing Shark, then have him act regular scummy instead of derping as hard as he could? For that matter, why would I need to, and what would I get out of it?

This is a specific and extreme game setup.  Furthermore, I feel it fits the definition of a policy lynch just fine.  You're advocating lynching someone not for scummy behavior or likelihood of being scum, but because their behavior and presence will hinder the town's effectiveness.  It's not different than Lynch All Lurkers or other policy lynches where the argument is "We can't have them staying around because they'll make it hard to spot scum when it matters most."

[NativeForeigner]

Been with family. Posting some time tomorrow.

[IronyOwl]

These days only end on a hammer. Are you saying that you would rather risk hammering someone that you're not sure is scum and could lose the game than take the time to convince them to stop being an idiot and vote a more likely target?

If that's an option, they don't fulfill the criteria. I never said I'd hammer someone for being plain stupid.

The gibbering imbecile option suggests that you think they're town, but should be voted anyway because they're clouding the issue.

I've explicitly stated that that's not the case at least twice.

To me, this is lynching someone who is town AND too incompetent to be trusted with a vengekill.  Sure, letting them stay after isn't exactly super either, but I'd rather they lynch a skilled player who can hit scum with the vengekill and keep us in the game, then lynch a shitty player who will miss with the vengekill and screw town out of a win altogether.

So if for some reason you have to lynch town, you'd rather kill off a good player than a bad one? How exactly is controlling a vote the next day less dangerous than a vengekill?

I'm not so much advocating as saying that Irony suggesting a lynch on a "gibbering imbecile" type is just something he threw out to cover his ass, since he's experienced enough to know it's a terrible idea.

...huh? You're saying I knew what I was saying was a terrible idea, so I said it intentionally to cover myself? From what, and how does advocating something I know is terrible accomplish that?

IronyOwl: Because you voted Shark instead of me.  If it was feasible to call me scum, you would have.  The fact you voted Shark means you felt you couldn't vote for me over him.

Sweet circular reasoning, bro.

Explain how this is circular reasoning.  My point is: you asked how I know calling me scum was infeasible for you.  My argument: you were debating whether or not to vote Shark or me.  You chose Shark because you could not vote for me (either because it was tactically unsound, or because saying I was your primary suspect at that point would have been a lie; either way you couldn't do it), and if I was a feasible voting target you would have voted me instead (since that would have made sense to do).  I drew the conclusion that you did not vote for me, because I wasn't a feasible target.  The alternative is that you could have called me scum and voted me, and deliberately didn't in spite of your beliefs.

Why the hell are you mixing "You didn't vote me because you didn't think I was scum" and "You didn't vote me because I was too townie to save your scumpartner" in here? And why are you saying whatever you're saying in such a roundabout way?

Your reasons don't conflict with my accusation.  You said you had all the reads to make your decision, and that all the recent interactions were important in making your decision.  I'm saying that decision was to bus your partner.  It still makes sense to me.

Then what are you going off of? My waffling about that was your reason for suspecting me, wasn't it?

Also, when you said it made sense, you were dryly thinking "...that you're scum!" in the background, but didn't mention it?

The hammer isn't the game ending move, the missed vengekill is.  You know this.  There is no reason, at ALL, to vote or remove from the game a player you suspect might be incompetent town in a vengeful.  Yeah, they cloud your reads and make life difficult, but a hammer vote is less dangerous in their hands than a vengekill, since if they screw up and hammer a more experienced player, that player can potentially vengekill scum and keep us going another day.  We vengekill some worthless boob, and there's not much hope they'll pick out the scum correctly.

So instead of killing a bumbling jackass and possibly giving him one kill, you'd like to try to win the game with him flailing around for the entire rest of it, being a potential suspect, supposed scumhunter, and controller of a critical portion of the vote. How exactly does the former sound more feasible to you?

This is a specific and extreme game setup.  Furthermore, I feel it fits the definition of a policy lynch just fine.  You're advocating lynching someone not for scummy behavior or likelihood of being scum, but because their behavior and presence will hinder the town's effectiveness.  It's not different than Lynch All Lurkers or other policy lynches where the argument is "We can't have them staying around because they'll make it hard to spot scum when it matters most."

I've made it quite clear that I'm advocating lynching someone for multiple reasons, scumminess being less of a factor, but still quite relevant.