|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 1, 2007 3:52:01 GMT -5
Vote count?
Thanks
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 1, 2007 4:08:10 GMT -5
Given both our Mods are asleep, it being no later than 5am anywhere on the US mainland, here's my unofficial one, courtesy of my vote tracking spreadsheet.
5 - DarkCookies (Pygmy Rugger, Hal Briston, Captain Klutz, CatInASuit, HockeyMonkey) 3 - Roosh (Ui, Sinjin, Whatthefrak) 3 - Ui (Yattara, Roosh, DarkCookies) 3 - Whatthefrak (Drain Bead, Flying(Boy)CowOfDoom, dnooman) 2 - Idle Thoughts (MTGMan, Panamajack) 1 - Drain Bead (Idle Thoughts) 1 - MHaye (MadTheSwine) 1 - Sinjin (Diomedes) 1 - Storyteller (MathBlaster)
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 1, 2007 4:16:49 GMT -5
By the way how can you guarantee this. Unless you have extra knowledge the rest of the vanilla town does not. You say that the scum was given Inara as a fake claim. What does this mean? Assuming all the Serenity crew are not scum. If we all role name claimed. Everyone would say their name. As stated earlier it means nothing. Then the scum could pick off the Serenity crew night after night leaving a larger pool of unknown vanilla townies to choose from. If all of the crew of Serenity were not scum and we could KNOW that, there would be a minimum of 12 people that are known town due to role. 11 of them would be essentially modfirmed. I can't guarantee that there's scum in Serenity's crew. I am, however, over 99% sure that it's the case. (A fakeclaim is when the mafia is given the information that there is no townie with a certain name. Basically they know that they can claim it without getting counterclaimed.) One question, there are 9 crew of the Serenity, where do you get 12 people from? Crew + Masons? 11 of them would be modfirmed - can you at least explain where the different numbers are coming from and how you get them. As for fakeclaims: We haven't had one yet in any of the Mafia games, although it is an assumption to say that it will/will not appear in this game. A mass roleclaim by the 9 crew and the masons would leave 15/16/17 people as vanilla townies. Are you saying this would be enough to break the game, if one of them was not scum? If there are 5/6 scum, + the SK, it gives them a reasonable amount of hiding space and with the likely possiblity that the crew are also power roles, easy targets for night kills. Not to mention, that if there is a recruit role in the game, you have just handed across a master list of people to go for. I cannot see how you can be 99% sure this is the case, unless you have extra knowledge that we, as vanilla townies, don't
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 1, 2007 4:18:18 GMT -5
Ui, I wanted to answer your question.
Considered, late voting is my play style. I'm not comfortable jumping my vote around according to whims and winds. I know that it's better play in this game, but so far I've struggled.
Give me hard evidence to bite on and I'll commit early (as Idle should remember from M5).
I was about 30 minutes from completing my reread and voting WTF when he claimed last night. Not because I was very suspicious of him but because he was the most scummy among lead candidates. Right now with 13h15min to go I still don't know who to vote for. I have some suspicions, but haven't yet articulated them. This is primarily because I want to look at the idea in the privacy of my own mind first.
I'm not going to vote yet. I don't see that the Day will close before early afternoon, simply because the non-American voters can't put a majority together and most of the Americans post from work. But whoever I do vote for, it won't be DarkCookies. My reread has made me decide that the case is basically wrong.
Right now I have rl obligations to tend to. See you in a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 4:28:44 GMT -5
If all of the crew of Serenity were not scum and we could KNOW that, there would be a minimum of 12 people that are known town due to role. 11 of them would be essentially modfirmed. I can't guarantee that there's scum in Serenity's crew. I am, however, over 99% sure that it's the case. (A fakeclaim is when the mafia is given the information that there is no townie with a certain name. Basically they know that they can claim it without getting counterclaimed.) One question, there are 9 crew of the Serenity, where do you get 12 people from? Crew + Masons? Crew + masons + watcher (That's an ability that is almost always townie) A mass roleclaim by the 9 crew and the masons would leave 15/16/17 people as vanilla townies. Are you saying this would be enough to break the game, if one of them was not scum? If there are 5/6 scum, + the SK, it gives them a reasonable amount of hiding space and with the likely possiblity that the crew are also power roles, easy targets for night kills. Not to mention, that if there is a recruit role in the game, you have just handed across a master list of people to go for. I cannot see how you can be 99% sure this is the case, unless you have extra knowledge that we, as vanilla townies, don't Someone I know once did the math on something like 30 mafia games and found out that scum are lynched about 40-45% of the time. Assuming 7 scum, RANDOM LYNCHING is above that threshold. So yeah, I'd say that barring something major, the town being able to do better then an average game without doing any work at all is inherently broken.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 1, 2007 4:29:16 GMT -5
I know why I think the following is wrong - I've already stated it but here it is again. A mass roleclaim by the 9 crew and the masons would leave 15/16/17 people as vanilla townies. Are you saying this would be enough to break the game, if one of them was not scum? If there are 5/6 scum, + the SK, it gives them a reasonable amount of hiding space and with the likely possiblity that the crew are also power roles, easy targets for night kills. The point is tht if names correlate to roles, by a mass claim the scumhunters have had the size of the pool reduced by one third. Investigators can neglect the crewnamed players and crewnamed players will never be lynched. Conversely, what the scum has to do has not changed in the slightest. But now they have Days less to do it before the pool shrinks to a size that they can no longer hide.
|
|
|
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 4:32:48 GMT -5
Ui, I wanted to answer your question. Considered, late voting is my play style. I'm not comfortable jumping my vote around according to whims and winds. I know that it's better play in this game, but so far I've struggled. Give me hard evidence to bite on and I'll commit early (as Idle should remember from M5). Honestly I've said it all before. Suggesting his various plans make a lot of sense for scum. Continuing to talk about them and subtly get others to support them makes sense for scum. When confronted, minimizing one's role in a lynch makes sense for scum. I don't see why he would do these as town.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 1, 2007 5:33:47 GMT -5
Thanks, mhaye.
Well, I don't want to have my vote on a single person, as it's pretty much impossible for us to get a lynch together without combining some of those votes. Discounting the other single vote getters, we're looking at.. .Cookies, WTF, Idle, Roosh and Ui.
WTF and Roosh are right out, for now. The other three have, at times pinged my scumdar. I think both Idle and Ui are more likely town than scum. But I really, really hate the argument against Cookies. I'll move my vote to her to get a lynch done, but I'd much rather just hang ui by the neck until dead
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 1, 2007 5:40:20 GMT -5
Keep in mind ui, that you're only working with partial information. You're missing out a LARGE chunk of posts where quite alot occurs: 1. The ModConfirmation of Alliance vs. Alliance Town. From the start I was against both groups and have pointed out as such. Dnooman claimed to be part of an alliance Town, Ramiro also claimed to be as such. This was one reason I was so suspicious of Ramiro on Day 1and still slightly of Dnooman, because the way they phrased it, they stated Alliance town was "townie", and since then it's been treated as such. However, since day 1 I've refused to consider myself as such, and have dropped hints about it. Even in toDay's posts I have done that. I am firmly Crew, and that's why I was confused by the AllianceTown. I still believe if they exist, either there's random wording for townies, or they are perhaps like Non-believers. They can win with the town, but perhaps they are not pure town. Idle was one person to pick up on these cues. It's one reason I'm less willing to lynch idle, because I feel he's coming from the same area as me. 2. As for diminishing my roles in the lynch, well you attacked me, and made me seem as if I was the only one contributing to Ramiros's death. I wanted to point out that it took 14 to lynch, but the way you worded it was that I was the one who voted for her, and then swung ALL the other votes towards her. This was not the case. I voted for her, I stated my reasons explicitly, and then that was it. I waited to see the results. I was not trying to swing votes over to her. And I took offense to your saying such. That's why i was so defensive, because from day 2, you've been attacking me, and not trying to EVEN BOTHER asking me questions. You just ASSUME you think you know my reasoning for doing EVERYthing, and launch the tirades. So I have been a bit put off by you. And of COURSE I'm going to come off defensive, how Else can I come off against some who's last 40 posts or more have been nothing but against Me? 3. Also, you're missing the fact that when I suggested the plans, I ASKED the town what they thought about it, and if they were helpful. The town OFFERED its criticism and advice (some in kinder ways than others) and then from that we've decided that it was a bad move to go with. And the Ramiro lynching further proved that. I have NEVER been trying to "subtly" get support for my ideas. Point out where on DAY TWO I brought up my ideas before YOU showed up and Rehashed them? I asked because I thought it was a good idea, received explanations on why it was filled with holes, and ReTRACTED said ideas. I liked my ideas yes, but because I created them. Since then, I've seen the errors of it. Hell, one day one I made like 5-10 posts having to retract my ideas over and over and apoligizing for them because the rest of the town questioned it. So rather than deal with the absolute "he suggested the idea because he knew it's best for scum" why not consider the TRUTH: "I was looking for loopholes, posted why I thought this WAS a loophole (with links to the MafiaScum Wiki suggesting why it could work), and then realized it wasn't such a good idea." I'm sorry that not all of us are GREAT and experienced players such as yourself to think immediately This idea is Scummy, and this one isn't. For me, I like getting the town's feedback on ideas. So I suggested it. It turned out to have holes. I retracted it. But you on Day 2 have REHASHED it and made it seem as if this has been my view all along. It's just... not cool at ALL. 4. I am still against Mass Roleclaims, I'm pro-lynching, and I'm still pro-lynching counterclaimed people, and other than that My ideas are all my own and I haven't been trying to force them on ANYONE. I retracted them. They were done with. Gone. Submitted for review again and needed work. But you brought them up. Because you had incomplete Data. And you THINK you've discovered a great scum conspiracy. But it's just So WRONG, that I can't help but wonder what's your agenda. Your single minded pursuit of me is just... setting off so many bells. You haven't given your opinions on ANYthing else except "don't vote for cookie. Just vote roosh". You like making claims but you don't back them up. I've noticed everytime you get into a dilemma vs. Cat in the arguments you resort to falling back on your comfort zone of why things should be done "Because Roosh Is Scum" That's why anything should be done as opposed to the other. "Because I know Roosh Is Scum". That sir... Is begging the Question. And a fallacy to boot. And unhelpful to the town. And Now I gotta go to class. I'll try to check in, but it's a random chance I'll be here before 2pmEST if at all. Good luck. This might be my final post before the lynch. I'll try to make it not so.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 1, 2007 5:54:31 GMT -5
I know why I think the following is wrong - I've already stated it but here it is again. A mass roleclaim by the 9 crew and the masons would leave 15/16/17 people as vanilla townies. Are you saying this would be enough to break the game, if one of them was not scum? If there are 5/6 scum, + the SK, it gives them a reasonable amount of hiding space and with the likely possiblity that the crew are also power roles, easy targets for night kills. The point is tht if names correlate to roles, by a mass claim the scumhunters have had the size of the pool reduced by one third. Investigators can neglect the crewnamed players and crewnamed players will never be lynched. Conversely, what the scum has to do has not changed in the slightest. But now they have Days less to do it before the pool shrinks to a size that they can no longer hide. And on top of that, you have reduced the pool of players that are likely to contain power roles making it much easier for the scum nightkill them. If it had taken place at the start of Day 1, there are 2 or 3 night killers who would go through the group in 5-6 days. 5 or 6 lynches would not be enough to take out the scum in the vanilla group and would only confirm a few of the townies as real vanilla. One other thing did occur to me. If the crew were all town, what could that mean in terms of power roles. What we might have is a very large confirmable group with few power roles and the scum with appropriate power roles to balance out. That would counteract the mass role claim. Just something else to consider.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 1, 2007 7:04:44 GMT -5
ui - It doesn't look like you read my post unvoting wtf at all. I expressed skepticism on his claim (as I did after Roosh claimed) and listed my top suspects.
Diomedes - According to my vote tracker, you still haven't unvoted sinjin since your reply #605. And you still haven't answered my question of whether or not you know what your role does.
~8 hours left, according to NAF's countdown. Looks like it's more and more likely that it'll be either Cookies or No Lynch...argh.
Well, first, I have a paper to write for class, but after that, I'll reread and put a vote down.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 1, 2007 7:28:19 GMT -5
Lunchtime. I'll comment on this. I know why I think the following is wrong - I've already stated it but here it is again. The point is tht if names correlate to roles, by a mass claim the scumhunters have had the size of the pool reduced by one third. Investigators can neglect the crewnamed players and crewnamed players will never be lynched. Conversely, what the scum has to do has not changed in the slightest. But now they have Days less to do it before the pool shrinks to a size that they can no longer hide. And on top of that, you have reduced the pool of players that are likely to contain power roles making it much easier for the scum nightkill them. If it had taken place at the start of Day 1, there are 2 or 3 night killers who would go through the group in 5-6 days. 5 or 6 lynches would not be enough to take out the scum in the vanilla group and would only confirm a few of the townies as real vanilla. How have you reduced the pool of players that are likely to have power roles? Are you trying to claim you believe that only the players with actual crew names will have power roles? Where did I say that? The answer is that not only did I not say it, I clearly implied the opposite - namely that the power roles are spread between the players with crewnames and the crew-aligned players with minor character and made up names. What the scum have to do has not changed, whereas the town have had their task simplified significantly. I don't see how it would. Please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 1, 2007 7:28:43 GMT -5
Diomedes - According to my vote tracker, you still haven't unvoted sinjin since your reply #605. And you still haven't answered my question of whether or not you know what your role does. Thanks for the notice. I'd thought I had at the start of that post. Sorry about, once again, being totally indecisive at day's end. nullvote:sinjinvote, this time with feeling: uiAnd, yes, I know have a better understanding of what my role does. It's somewhere in between the strict definition of watcher and tracker, but I'm not going to elaborate further, as I don't think it'll help the town right now, and it probably will help the scum. Hopefully, I'll guess a little smarter tonight, [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 8:35:08 GMT -5
Well, this is getting busy again. Still, we're only at about half the output we managed for Day One, so I guess that's not so bad.
I have three posts to make in the next few hours. This one is a minor game discussion issue. The second will be devoted exclusively to the subject of our new friend ui. The third will be an info dump, because while I have very few thoughts about which I am confident, I do want to make sure I share them all before Night falls and I risk death.
So here we go:
First, on the subject of character names and like alignments:
Several players, but prominently ui, Captain Klutz, and mhaye, have expressed the opinion that if the nine-person crew of Serenity are all pro-town, then the game is broken. I have two things to say about this, and then no more on the subject from me:
(1) I don't believe this is true on the face of it. As I mentioned, the Sekham game had exactly nine pro-town roles confirmable by role name only (The Apprentice, the Disciple, the Oracle, the Priest, the Crusader, and four Monks), along with one additional pro-town role not confirmable by name alone (The Martyr) and one semi-pro-town role confirmable by name alone (The Alchemist). Substitute Mal, Inara, Wash, Zoe, Simon, Jayne, Book, River, and Kaylee for "Apprentice," "Disciple," "Oracle," "Priest," "Crusader," "Monk1," "Monk2," "Monk3," and "Monk4," variously, and substitute "Mr. Universe" for "The Martyr" and "The Operative" for "The Alchemist" and you have a perfectly workable game. The Sekham game was obviously not broken - it came down to the last second, and almost went to the scum. So even if every last one of the nine Serenity players are pro-crew, the game is not necessarily broken.
But there's also:
(2) Not all of the crew members are created equal, in the end. Look, I refuse to ignore the game setup and flavor altogether. My role PM explicitly states that "The Alliance" is my enemy. It doesn't say "the scum" or "The Reavers" or "The Golgafrinchans;" it says "The Alliance." For this reason, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Mal or Zoe or Wash or Simon could be scum in this game - it would violate the flavor so egregiously as to mean that we weren't playing a game based on the Firefly universe in any legitimate way. Mal's entire character is grounded in being anti-Alliance; if the mods had wanted to make Mal scum, I submit they would have chosen a different identity for the scum group.
Now, this is not true of the rest of the crew. I believe Book's alignment is probably open to question. Certainly Jayne's would be. River is an open question - there's a hundred ways that character could be presented here, and some of them are scummy. So it's really not a case of saying that "all nine Serenity members are probably pro-crew;" it's a case of saying that six of them are, which is a different (and less potentially breaking) statement altogether.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 8:59:49 GMT -5
Storyteller question: What's your take on MathBlaster's rantings/ goings against you? Do you feel he's scummy? Or just misguided townie on the wrong track? guay if I know. I'm torn. Obviously there's a strong desire to view the actions of a player who's coming after you in a suspicious light - this is a pretty paranoid game, after all. For a player who works out in-depth mathematical proofs of his strategic opinions, Blaster Master's attack on me has been - from my perspective - both light on evidence and one-dimensional. Light on evidence: His only reason for thinking me scum (or "thinking me scum," if he is scum) is that I disagreed with him on a point of strategy that he thinks (or "thinks") is inarguable. Specifically, I think that the overall information deficit in this game is smaller than the information deficit in a normal game. He does not. He has attempted to show that this is intuitively not so. I disagree with this. For what it's worth, here's why, simplified: Let A = the identities of all the scum Let B = the names and powers of the pro-town power roles In an open game, the scum have a total information valued at A + B. The town has information valued at B. Thus, the information deficit of the town can be represented as (A+B) - B, or just A. In a closed game, the scum and the town collectively do not have the information represented above as "B," so the town has 0 information and the scum have A; the information deficit is (A) - 0, or just A. Ah ha! Blaster Master was right! The information deficit is the same! I was lying! Except not. Because while the town collectively doesn't posess information B, individual pro-town players DO. This information has value. The power roles can use their abilities and the scum can't counter them, because the scum don't know what they are. The power roles can use their abilities and extra knowledge to inform the daily discussion, indirectly increasing the overall amount of knowledge the town has. Obviously, the value of this information to the town as a whole is less than it would be if everyone in the town had it, but it is not negligible. Let's call it C. So in a closed game, the town possesses information C and the scum possess information A; the information deficit is thus A-C, which (assuming a positive value for C) is less than A. Thus, the information deficit in a closed game is smaller than that in an open game. Now, look, my math blows. But the above is my actual opinion. It is this opinion that Blaster Master says I cannot possibly have developed intuitively, and on the basis of that he accuses me of being scum. Now, leave aside whether or not you AGREE with that reasoning - is it really so counterintuitive to make it impossible that it was my genuine thought. I say no. And if no, then there isn't really a case here. This is a misrepresentation of my case against you, and it is an over-simplification to the point that it falsifies my conclusions. First of all, I never said the deficit is the same, I said it is GREATER. That is, the town is at MORE of a disadvantage in this game. I also never said the town has ZERO information. Obviously, there are roles out there that have additional information. What I was doing was coming up with an estimate for what the town knows at large. The fact that the number of players is high, and the information is low makes that additional information's effect negligible. But even here, you make my point for me. Let's assume for a moment that you believe what you just said. You normally espouse that a no lynch is a horrible horrible thing. Thus, if you believe that the information deficit is similar, why would you suggest a radically different and counter-intuitive strategy? I think your case for a no-lynch was poorly reasoned and with ulterior motive. I think you realized it would be transparent which is why you pre-empted it with the statements that you did. Are you serious? I stated repeatedly on Day One that I found the attacks against MadTheSwine poorly reasoned and the evidence utterly lacking. I also found the people who kept attacking him in the face of my counter-arguments to be questionable at best. mtgman OTOH I do find suspicious, however, not, as you do, because he jumped on with Mad in attacking you. In fact, the only real aggression I've seen out of you is against Mad, mtgman, and me... all of whom initiated the aggression against you. And you react with suspicion and emotion. I have yet to see a pro-town action, or at least an action that could be interpretted as having a pro-town motive. All I've seen is defensiveness, self-preservation, reactionary suspicion, and, as has been my primary case, a deliberate manipulation of information available to the town at large. That to me is is the sign of, to steal your terminology, a survivalist scum. Well, as long as we're meta-gaming... Yes, I was caught in the psycho game because of that perception of my game play. It is precisely because of that that I made some changes in my gameplay. Does it mean I'm scum who learned how to draw more attention to myself? No. Does it mean I'm simply being overly aggressive town? No. It just means I decided to make a change in my play style to better reflect the lessons which I learned as moderator of MV and as scum in the Psycho game. Further, I don't want people to be able to go "he plays this way as scum, and this way as town". The only things I want people to carry over from previous games about me is stuff that can't change (eg "well, he seemed pretty smart in that game, and now he can't even spell..."); otherwise, a certain factor of playing the game loses its fascination. Anyway, I'm still convinced you're scum, but as I'm not getting any support at this time, I'm probably going to have to put you on the back burner for now. But we'll see as I catch up...
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 1, 2007 9:12:17 GMT -5
vote ui
With feeling.
I don't think, given my previous posts, that I need to explain this one.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 9:13:04 GMT -5
Yes, I do feel I have contributed more and that is what concerns me. As for unvoting, I feel that it is a slip by Cookies and that there is a greater probability of her being scum than you. Fair enough, I suppose. FTR, I see how the slip is interpretted, thus I think it's within reason to see it as scummy; however, I personally don't see it as enough to raise her above my higher suspects, especially in the like that at least one of the proponents of that (ie Pygmy Rugger) is fairly high on my suspicious list. As I said, I never removed my suspicion of those players, including you; however, I find Storyteller's behavior to be the most suspicious of all. The reason GreedySmurf would have led my suspicious list was precisely because I was highly suspicious of him late in Day One, and his reversal of opinion only added to that. I was aware there were others, but didn't bother to review because, as I said, knowing that GreedySmurf was a solo scum made me less inclined to think the same logic might apply to others. However, Hockey Monkey specifically mentioned her reversal earlier today which is why she's on my suspicion list behind Storyteller. Really, I'm just not seeing how it's suspicious that I fail to repeat my suspicion list when I'm trying to make a case against a specific person. I'll work my way down my list as I decide the viability of a particular lynch.
|
|
|
Post by Mad The Swine on Oct 1, 2007 9:17:09 GMT -5
unvote mhaye
vote cookies
I will be changing the vote if needed.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 1, 2007 9:18:00 GMT -5
I started thinking about this before I went to bed last night, and it's really been nagging at me this morning. I think somebody may have alluded to, or actually said what I'm about to below, I'm not claiming this is a purely original thought.
Let's assume for a minute that Roosh's claim is legit. His greatest asset to the town is in taking scum down with him if he's night killed. By announcing that he has a power that protects* him, he's basically neutralized that threat. In other words, it's much more likely that a scum would announce that tidbit of "information**", as a way to explain why they never seem to die at night.
If you were scum, and a townie claimed some type of protection at night power, you'd have no reason to think they were lying. So, how are you going to take them out since you can't night kill them? Try and get them lynched during the day, of course.
Which is why I submit either: a)Roosh is town, Ui is scum, thereby explaining Ui's actions. b)Roosh is scum, Ui is town, and Ui came to the game with a fresh perspective and picked up on it. This one is a bit harder to swallow because of the missing chunk from yesterDay. However, just because Ui didn't see Roosh's backpedal and adjustments to his hypothesis, wouldn't necessarily mean that he would have seen through said backpedals. c)Roosh is scum, Ui is scum, which would explain Roosh's "claim", and Ui is trying to gain some town creed by his dogged pursuit of Roosh.
I think C is most likely, but I think A and B are equally likely. I didn't submit D (both town) because I think that's even less likely than C.
*Even if he still dies, the point remains the same. ** In quotes because if a scum announces it, it's not true info.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 1, 2007 9:27:46 GMT -5
That's a damn good point about Roosh, Pygmy. He's now added to my "Wouldn't mind seeing them die" list.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 1, 2007 9:28:54 GMT -5
As a followup, this only increases my suspicion of ui because despite going after Roosh like a mad animal, ui didn't point it out.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 9:32:23 GMT -5
This is a misrepresentation of my case against you. I am increasingly sure that you don't actually know what the word "misrepresentation" means. You said that I was arguing that the town's information deficit was smaller in this game than in others, and that I couldn't possibly believe that. I replied that I do believe that, and explained why. There is no misrepresentation there, and using that word over and over doesn't make it so. I'll say this slowly: I disagree with you on the last sentence, and particularly the last word, of that paragraph. I disagree. No misrepresentation. I disagree. That's all. I don't know why that simple disagreement is giving you such agita, but apparently it is. Um. I don't know that this is the truth, but let's let it be. Because I DON'T believe that the information deficit is similar. I believe that the information deficit is smaller. I therefore believe that different strategies are appropriate. "Don't lynch someone who you think is probably town" is hardly all that radical, and is certainly not a counterintuitive strategy - once again, I think the word "counterintutitive" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. So, in other words, I'm not only scum, I'm completely stupid scum - so stupid that I tried something that was blatantly transparent, so much so that it had not a chance of working and would draw extra attention to me. I'm not brain-damaged, man. My argument against Mad was that he was attacking me with demonstrable untruth. How, specifically, is that poor reasoning. He lied, and used the lie as a basis to vote for me. I realize that's not as iron-clad as your "reasoning" for suspecting me, which is utterly arcane if it's even real, but using a lie as the basis for a lynch vote seemed scummy then, and it seems scummy now. Hey, everybody! Want to play "count the lies?" It's a fun game, and Blaster makes it easy, because he doesn't bother to research before he attacks! I: 1. Voted for and went after several players other than the three mentioned above on Day One, and have been fairly aggressive dealing with ui toDay. 2. Never voted for mtgman at all, and affirmatively denied suspecting him on the basis of his attack on me. Somewhere on Day One there is a post where I respond to someone asking my opinion of mtgman's attack, and I said that I didn't think it was a scummy sort of attack - "I think he just plain doesn't like me," is about what I said. 3. When explicitly asked whether I thought your rantings were scummy, I offered that I didn't really know, then offered arguments on both sides and declined to vote for you. Responding with suspicion? Let the reader decide. The fact that you haven't noticed these things tells me that you still haven't actually looked at my past actions. If you were pro-town, and really thought I might be scum, you'd do some reading, check it out - be open to the possibility that you were wrong - look for evidence in all directions. You're not looking at all, because you've found a point on which we disagree and on the subject of which I am in the minority, and think you can get me hanged on that alone. Hey, milage may vary. I'm not going to pick through my actions with a fine tooth comb. I've argued for the strategies and actions that I think offer the crew the best chance of winning. So far, your big contributions were aggressively driving us to a host of Day One role claims, ensuring the lynch of a townie (and by the way, where's all that fabulous information that was going to ensue from confirming dot's alignment? You were strutting about shortly after her death, telling us all how this was going to be so very helpful - where did that go, exactly?), and mounting your attack on me (which, you will ultimately discover if you don't know it already, is another attack on a townie). So, you know, glass houses. I'll say this: your responses to my responses do seem awfully familiar - accusations of things I didn't do, employment of words like "misrepresenting" and "counterintuitive" without evidence that those things are happening, single-minded bunker mentality. Let the record show that I would vote for you, at another time of Day. Right now, though, there's no point to it - I feel nothing resembling confidence about the relatively towniness of any of the leading candidates toDay, so I have no reason to want a no-lynch, and a vote for you would be a vote for a no-lynch. Twenty bucks says you're scum, though.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 1, 2007 9:36:11 GMT -5
unvote mhayevote cookiesI will be changing the vote if needed. Well I for one need you to change it, so there you go. Why even bother to waste the keystrokes on that last sentence since you don't appear to have had any to spare for some analysis or justification? Which reminds me, a few of the votes still hanging around my neck was put there shortly after "the statement" was made, and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then...
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 1, 2007 9:37:44 GMT -5
Unvote Cookies. I'm less convinced of her scumminess since reading what has transpired since her slip, and I am more convinced of someone else's.
Vote ui with every fiber of my being. Single-mindedness and tunnel-vision on his part are the main reasons. I was already suspicious of Tragic because a scum role can be intimidating for a newbie and not posting much is a symptom of that. Then ui comes in like gangbusters and only added to those suspicions instead of alleviating them. It does seem to me that he's throwing a smokescreen and trying to raise a ruckus, and I'm just going to have to go with my gut.
|
|
|
Post by Mad The Swine on Oct 1, 2007 9:43:04 GMT -5
unvote mhayevote cookiesI will be changing the vote if needed. Well I for one need you to change it, so there you go. Why even bother to waste the keystrokes on that last sentence since you don't appear to have had any to spare for some analysis or justification? You are right... I really need to cut down on my typing,dont want to wear out my keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by Mad The Swine on Oct 1, 2007 9:46:40 GMT -5
While y'all sort that out, I'm going to bed. I should be back online by 6:30am (Pacific) tomorrow. Try not to hammer me until then at least. We really don't need to know you are going to bed.Why even tell us you are going to bed?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 9:47:31 GMT -5
OK, so ui -
ui's work so far has been problematic for me. His point is not inherently unreasonable, on the face of it: Roosh's theory had some holes, and Roosh's role claim is awfully convenient, if he's scum. Thus, his arguments are not really the problem.
Here is what is: his seeming certainty, not only about Roosh but about everything. He seems not only to think that Roosh is scum, but to be sure of it. He doesn't just believe that at least one of the Serenity crew will turn out to be scum, he is sure of it. The clincher came a few pages back, with the following post directed to Cookies (#609):
"I'm now convinced that you're town." There it is again: that certainty. Why say this? It's one thing to feel it, and to act on it - don't vote for her, try to get others to place their votes elsewhere, whatever. But "I'm now convinced that you're town?" Really? Convinced? Which implies 100% certainty?
I've said this before, but not recently: that reads as the scummiest thing of all, to me - especially if Cookies is town. It's laying foundation, it's getting Cookies to trust you, it's getting others to trust you once she dies and you're proven to have been right all along.
Works the same way if Roosh turns out to be scum - big, big points for ui then, right?
Whence this certainty, this sureness about everything? I can think of a few explanations. He could be scum, and thus able to wholeheartedly support Cookies that way because he knows he's right about her. He could have some alternate way of having come by information that he won't or can't share.
Or - and this is why the whole thing is problematic - he could just be using a playstyle characteristic of outside games, with which I am unfamiliar. That's a significant risk, but at this stage of the Day it's important to be voting. And so:
vote ui
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 1, 2007 9:50:49 GMT -5
Ok, so looks like WTF is no longer a viable lynch candidate for today as I tend to believe un-countered role-claims. Unvote WTF.
So, where to go now? I'm still thinking that Cookies is scum, but someone else seems more scummy: ui. Seriously, I think he's actually out-Rooshed Roosh! You need to take a chill pill, man, and open up your mind! Well, that is if you survive past toDay.
Vote ui.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 10:03:32 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on Oct 1, 2007 10:03:32 GMT -5
unvote cookies
Vote ui
Do you need an explanation?
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 10:12:34 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 1, 2007 10:12:34 GMT -5
Still not feeling any kind of tell out of Cookies or ui (reading games on Mafiascum has largely immunized me against hyperagressive players), and the case against Roosh has been beaten into the ground, but it's ui's certainty about people's alignments (his single-minded anti-Roosh stance, attacking Yattara for defending Roosh, the sureness with which he states Cookies' townieness) makes me more comfortable bandwagoning ui than Cookies.
vote ui
|
|