Mafia Championship Scrimmage [END]

[Frog]

Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.

[Long Con]

I didn't. Because he hasn't posted anything yet. That's characteristic of him. He enjoys the monotony of reading gazillion posts at once, picking out what interest him, and then make a post quoting a couple of people with his reads based on those posts.

Yeah, sorry, I thought you were talking about Sloonei. I will be looking forward to the Soneji catch up then.

Do you mean this?

Seems like an attempt to get through loopholes. I wouldn't allow it as a host.

You'd rather have the mafia NK pr before they have the chance to share useful information?Well that's a town mindset if I ever saw one!
+ It's totally fair play, but probably messy in this setup (which I'll get back to why I think)

I didn't quite understand what you're referring to when you say mindslip. And on that note, could you list the various color tags, like orange for sarcasm, I presume.

I mean having the mindset of a scum, so thinking like one. The post Long con replied to put Hypo claiming in a positive light (afair), something that helps town. He responded with that it seemed like trying to get through loopholes and he'd disallow it (presumably because it would be unfair to the mafia that town would get that advantage). So that is a scummy mindset, or taking scum's side if you will. Does that make sense?

These things can be stretch, maybe. But it is something I noticed. And nothing else Long con has said has made me think town on him.

Honestly, to me, it looked like he just didn't understand the concept. I can't quite see why he'd consider it an attempt to get through loopholes.

Oh, I understand the concept just fine, and I have from the moment he put it out there. Just chalk it up to a different style of play we're used to.

Oh and what LC said isn't scummy that's just his meta.

Too true.

I would call Silverwolf a town read, but that's with not ever seeing her scum game as far as I recall. It really doesn't help that ika always aggressively townreads Silverwolf, I guess that's just a thing that's working for both of them to pad their way to at least mid-game. Anyone wanna be MY aggressive townread partner?

Anyway, I'm not fully caught up, that's just some reactions up to where I'm at. Gotta go out now, catchup more later. Here is where I'm at.

[Marco]

Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.

There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

[Marco]

Oh, I understand the concept just fine, and I have from the moment he put it out there. Just chalk it up to a different style of play we're used to.

Then why do you think hypo-claiming is taking advantage of loopholes?

[Long Con]

I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

[Frog]

Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.

There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.

[Frog]

I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

lmfao - it's in the spirit of the game. Everyone is playing their roles. TPRS check and announce, vanillas cover for them, everyone is playing optimally. Don't get butthurt. :-P

[Frog]

Spoiler: show

Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.

...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.

Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.

If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.

I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.

Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.

"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"

-A few hours later-

"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"

The lesson is never learned.

I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.

Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.

Vig shot! BOOM! JK - Vig shotting the lurkers obv. But really, I think we're supposed to pretend to dislike each other. Literally everything you have typed I disagree with. There is not one post that I can say "ok, I can see how he can see things that way". We are at diametric opposite spectrums of the playing field.

[Long Con]

Quick Plan:

These players

Spoiler: show

Golden 53
Marco 43
Sloonei 41
Frog 34
Dyslexicon 27
Silverwolf 25
sig 20
Zexy 20

Will Split up into groups of 2 and vote these players, putting each of them at 2 votes:

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy 4
Metalmarsh89 4
a2thezebra 3
Psittaciform 2

These guys will have to make a cases for each of the slankers, and finish up the votes:

Spoiler: show

MovingPictures07 13
ika 11
Long Con 11
Inawordyes 10

If this splits evenly, all 4 slankers should be put at 3 votes each.

For reference, with a hammer, the vote required to hammer is currently 9 votes.
Since there are 4 wolves, it would require 5 town to pile onto the incorrect pick, and all 4 wolves to snipe the incorrect pick, thereby explicitly revealing their team. What I'm saying is, if we choose these 4 players as wagons now, we are certainly safe within the realms of variation putting each of the 4 lurkers to 3+/- 2 votes (1-5 votes on each).

I think this is an optimal strategy since, as I've pointed, I believe wolves are least likely to be engaged in the game because it is not in their wincon, and wolves are lazy AF in games unfortunately. I believe at least one wolf must exist in that group of 4, although I believe more exist in that group of 4 personally. If we force wolves to vote amongst wolves and nonwolves, we put them in a situation that makes them mechanically vulnerable! This is optimal IMO.

I hope you all join me in my plan to make wagons on these 4 players and collect everyone's reads on these 4 players.

I like this plan.

[Marco]

I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

I'm still not getting what you mean. What do you mean "bypass letting people play the roles themselves instead of automating the info directly to the thread"?

There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.

Why? If we're asking everyone to distribute their votes evenly among the lowest 4 posters, he can vote for anyone he wants because he knows we're going to distribute the votes evenly.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

[ika]

The more impending thing is what happens if the majority in there is scum itself? If top posters are scum they can manipulate the entire game.

While I do agree on lurkers need to be lynched and stuff, it doesn't work and just boils town to mechanical play that I have no interest in pursuing.

[Marco]

Here, the Top 8 posters

Golden 53
Marco 43
Sloonei 41
Frog 34
Dyslexicon 27
Silverwolf 25
sig 20
Zexy 20

will just evenly distribute their votes, so they're all free of VCA. It doesn't matter who each of them votes for because if we follow your plan, all their votes will just be evenly split. We will have no insight into their voting history.

Also, making an automatic distinction based on the number of posts is too easy to game. It's not a foolproof plan.

And what do you think of the alternative suggestion?

Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

[Frog]

1) My plan accounted for variation. I expected any one of the 4 slankers to receive 1-5 votes each, with free will of choice between the 4.

2) I do not like the idea of choosing players outside of the 4 slankers.
The entire point of choosing the 4 slankers was:

A) Randomness. ±1/4 (4/16) players are mafia. The bottom 4 players fulfill the 'randomness' aspect a bit. The 4 players chosen, if picked, will be skewed off of that random probability one way or another. The input for choosing the subsequent list of 4 players could result in 4 towns if Wolves dictated it to be so (basically it's an unnecessary risk).
B) Estimated guess - Those who were lurk slankin hardcore start of day had no intetion to contribute. Wolves have no need to contribute. Town must contribute to solve the game. Therefore lurkers = more likely than no wolves.
c) Estimated Guess Part 2 - Every big wolf team seems to have a mix between actives and slankers. This way we can target those slanking wolves. There isn't an exact science to it, but more often than not, there is at least one slakning wolf
d) FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TOWN! - If we lynch a wolf AWESOME. If we lynch a Town, we can VCA that shit and now we have a decent POE. More importantly, we will have lit fire under the slankers butt to actually PLAY.

[ika]

If this is how the game is going to be played i am probablly just going to replace out and not sign up anymore.

It's not fun it's just manipulating mechanics

[Silverwolf]

Spoiler: show

This isn't rainbow but more towniest to scummiest list.

Dyslexicon
Frog
Marco
Sloonei
Zexy

a2thezebra
MovingPictures07
DrWilgy
ika
Long Con
Metalmarsh89
Psittaciform

sig
Inawordyes
Golden

Silverwolf, consider me a bit surprised you don't have more of a read on ika. Is it because you're giving him more time to provide reads, or for some other reason? I think he's had time to do that already, at least to a degree.

There are two reasons for this. I've been talking to ika (not about game at all) and I know he's out of state and why and some other personal stuff. He's not only busy but very, very stressed IRL. I have been giving him time to get back here and post. I don't think his mind is in the game yet. I never vote for RL despite what Golden accused me of.

The second reason, and you should know this too, is that him defending me is NAI. I want to see more before getting a read. I've been saying this all game so not sure why this is surprising to you. It's early game, I need to develop my reads on more people still but I am slowly picking out town and scummier players. It's a process with me that takes time.

At the risk of looking like I'm defending him, why do you want to lynch ika?

A combination of small observations/reasons that together make me want to lynch ika:
1) He NO U voted for Marco because he threw suspicion your way, yet made no attempt to try to understand where Marco was coming from.

This is NAI for ika and you know that.

2) Then did the same exact thing to Golden, all the while failing to provide any commentary on anything else.

Fair enough but he hasn't had enough time to post and he did comment that he didn't like Golden's push on me.

3) Over half of his content is mindlessly defending you.

Again, this is NAI and you should very well know that. Trying to scumpaint him for it makes me more suspicious of you than him.

4) This post:

Spoiler: show

I just woke up and am still a little cranky but I have to rant for a bit cuz it's bugging me and will make me feel better:

In Turf Wars, I went after low content lurkers and turned out to be right that some of them were scum. I was basically discredited by townies in that game as being tinfoil because those posters had low content and they kept going after each other and the wrong people. Even after I was killed, they ignored me.

My MP vote was to get a reaction out of him. I DO NOT appreciate Golden's insinuations that I was going after him for RL which I would never do. Golden kept twisting it to that and it pissed me off. There was nothing wrong with my vote and I have no idea of MP's alignment-I'm gonna go read all his posts a little later-but I DO NOT appreciate Golden interfering with my vote and interaction with MP and defending MP the way he did. If MP is town and Golden is town, it's fine but there is no way for Golden to know that unless he's scum.

I think he's scum who knows MP's alignment. It's the only way for him to be that defensive of him because it's way too early with too little content to get a read on MP so he's not defending a townread as town.

He's a damn good player. As scum, it is easy to get into an argument and be all logical and level headed and look like town. Who's to say he didn't do that? That said, I'm gonna read all the reactions to is and see what others thing. I incorrectly tunneled Golden in Turf Wars when he was town and even though I realized that and backed off then, I don't want to make the same mistake here. Also, us tunneling back and forth will get us nowhere. I need to get some reads on and ISO others today.

ika defending me is null, he defends me all the time but I need to see more than just defending me here from him when he can post properly again

Have you read my posts on this topic before writing this?

Silver, this was for you in case you didn't see it.

She might of not.

that being said im gonna try to skima agin to get my reads oragnized. i havnt been payign enough attention due to me being out fo state

and MP no we are not visiting each other right now

Of anyone currently in the game, I found this the most likely "excuse" for not providing game-related content... and that's because (and this is by far my strongest point / ping)

NO, you came in here and made all kinds of excuses for not posting and now you are gonna give ika crap for this? He's out of town. He's busy. He has a ton of stuff on his mind. This is not something I'd expect out of you if you were town. Stop going after easy targets. That's a major scumtell.

****5) This post:

Spoiler: show

so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins

After actually engrossing himself in the game, all he is able to provide is that "sig seems odd" with regards to suspicions, and it's not even clear whether that's a suspicion. When I followed this up, he failed to answer my questions and provide whether he actually finds sig suspicious for it:[/quote]
He's out of town-again, he's busy and distracted. I'd rather you asked him about it and wait for a response rather than say he's scum for it.

Spoiler: show

so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins

Town shouldn't care about where they cast their votes?

"sig seems odd".
1) Does odd = suspicious?
2) How does sig seem odd?
3) Do you suspect sig?

yes, town has a lack of anwareness and woundt car if they voted willy nilly(ie me and silver do it all the time as town), scums try to move their votes little as possible to not be caught by their votes

that being said, what i find odd about sig is that hes diffrent then what i played with him before.

That's entirely a meta-based assessment (re: underlined).

Further, you didn't address whether odd = suspicious or whether you suspect sig. I find this suspect.

I also think his thoughts on me are inconsistent, and here's why: (1) he agreed with you that I seemed too cautious, yet (2) when I asked him about why town shouldn't care about casting their votes, he said town has a lack of awareness and try to move their votes as little as possible, and that's the key:

What you criticized me for (being cautious) was precisely because I was cautious keeping my vote where it was, which is exactly the opposite of what ika said when he elaborated.

Therefore, I have reason to believe his thoughts regarding me are fabricated.

This last point is the only one I will give you. It's a good point. Doesn't mean he's fabricating suspicion on you. He needs to elaborate on his sig read.

[Frog]

I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

I'm still not getting what you mean. What do you mean "bypass letting people play the roles themselves instead of automating the info directly to the thread"?

There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.

Why? If we're asking everyone to distribute their votes evenly among the lowest 4 posters, he can vote for anyone he wants because he knows we're going to distribute the votes evenly.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.

[Silverwolf]

Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).

This is petty. It's early game MP. Vote movement is hardly relevant right now. ika being inconsistent when he's tired and busy is not something to ride him for and is not scummy.

[Silverwolf]

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

No, it actually makes perfect sense to me. He is recognizing and explaining it. I don't like this MP. I feel like your reasons for suspecting ika are very weak.

[Frog]

Lol Silverwolf - such effort. I'm literally just ignoring MP right now. He's either derping hard or tryhard wolf. It's really not worth the effort.

[Silverwolf]

With all of that said, I want it to be made clear that I think ika's point, either way, is a sweeping generalization that fails to consider the nuance of different playstyles and vote approaches. Some players will be more apt to move their vote than others, regardless of alignment.

This is all about playstyle. Playstyle is NAI. C'mon MP, I hope you have more than this. I'm more suspicious of you now, then ika. I may be too cautious with my read on ika because I eventually caught on to him in Turf Wars, it took a long time and I was townreading him for a long time. But still, he's null while your attack on him is scummy to me unless you have better points than this.

[Silverwolf]

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.

So you're content suspecting me, despite the fact that Silverwolf said I was being too cautious, yet what you just said about town versus mafia behavior could potentially disagree with that interpretation?

Who do you actually suspect? You've voted for Marco and Golden, but you've never actually mentioned them as suspect.

Furthermore, instead of actually responding to the questions I have for you regarding your thought that sig is "odd", you still fail to clarify (1) how odd equals or does not equal suspicious and (2) whether you suspect sig.

I think you've not yet named any firm suspects because you don't have any, and you don't have any because you haven't gotten around to fabricating them.

He's out of town. He said he's gonna give reads. Why on Earth are you busy in RL but not giving ika a chance when he is also busy with RL? If he hasn't given reads yet, it's because he's busy. I want elaboration on sig, but sig is super hard for me to figure out as well which is why I asked him all those questions. Have you never said, something is odd about someone but gone entirely off gut this early?

The reason I'm getting involved is because you look like scum here and I want to point it out. Otherwise, I'd leave it alone.

[Silverwolf]

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.

This is the first post from ika that has me lean town on him. He is a guts and instinct player, not logical at all.

Sorry for going post by post guys but this interaction might actually be important here.

[Marco]

1) My plan accounted for variation. I expected any one of the 4 slankers to receive 1-5 votes each, with free will of choice between the 4.

2) I do not like the idea of choosing players outside of the 4 slankers.

Then it should be free will of choice completely. I think forcing everyone to vote for the lowest 4 posters but letting them decide who, on their own, is significantly much better than forcing the Top 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes. You basically lose insight on 8 people's votes as they don't need to justify their vote any more than "we needed to equalize our vote distribution".

The entire point of choosing the 4 slankers was:

A) Randomness. ±1/4 (4/16) players are mafia. The bottom 4 players fulfill the 'randomness' aspect a bit. The 4 players chosen, if picked, will be skewed off of that random probability one way or another. The input for choosing the subsequent list of 4 players could result in 4 towns if Wolves dictated it to be so (basically it's an unnecessary risk).
B) Estimated guess - Those who were lurk slankin hardcore start of day had no intetion to contribute. Wolves have no need to contribute. Town must contribute to solve the game. Therefore lurkers = more likely than no wolves.
c) Estimated Guess Part 2 - Every big wolf team seems to have a mix between actives and slankers. This way we can target those slanking wolves. There isn't an exact science to it, but more often than not, there is at least one slakning wolf
d) FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TOWN! - If we lynch a wolf AWESOME. If we lynch a Town, we can VCA that shit and now we have a decent POE. More importantly, we will have lit fire under the slankers butt to actually PLAY.

A) By going after the lowest 4 posters, there's no guarantee we're not going after 4 apathetic or RL busy townies. I think a much better distinction than relying purely on post count would be to take people's opinions on who is lurking/not contributing/laying low, etc. You're admitting yourself this is a random distribution of 4 you're looking for and lowest 4 counts.

B) This is not entirely true. I'm talking technicalities here (i.e. I agree bottom activity players generally have at least one scum among them), but just because wolves have no need to contribute doesn't mean they won't. Especially when they know that lurkers are going to attract attention. So, wolves are just as motivated to pad up their post count. Now, in general games (especially in boards where I usually participate), the general level of competition is not going to be as high as in a game aimed at "Champions", and it's likely that some scum is lurking. But it's just as likely here that members of the scum-team are doing their best not to single themselves out. Of course, it's neither here nor there but I'm asking you to look at it fairly.

C) I agree with this. It's not technically true, and a perfect scum-team would never be so, but in my experience, this is generally true. Which is why I agree with putting the pressure on lurkers.

D) Completely fair. In the absence of actual suspects, I often support a lynch on someone who isn't participating enough and I don't town-read them. If it's a scum, wonderful. If it's a town, there will be information to be gained from the vote history. Regardless, it motivates low posters to participate more.

All in all, my main complaint with your plan is that the Top 8 posters have to equally divide their votes. I see no need for this and I think it's better if everyone is free to vote how they want among the "4 low posters". And secondly, I think everyone should decide the 4 low posters subjectively and not just on post count. Also, we'll need cooperation of the majority of players. And I think focusing on low posters is better done after at least a day or two has passed.

[ika]

OK, let me make this clear for everyone who thinks I can't do shit

I am nearly at my allowed data limit
I am out of state where I am meetings all day
I can't make proper post mobile

And yes: I HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY STRESS DUE TO PERSOANL STUFF.

This is why I'm annoyed and jabbing at anything and everything.

Look I am about to head out, I can't be posting much if at all till near eod or night. I'll be flying later.

I'll keep silver informed of when I get back to my state.

[Marco]

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.[/quote]

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

[Marco]

Reposting cause I botched the post.

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

[Silverwolf]

Lol Silverwolf - such effort. I'm literally just ignoring MP right now. He's either derping hard or tryhard wolf. It's really not worth the effort.

If he's tryhard wolf, it is worth the effort to me.

@LC-if you think ika and I pad ourselves to midgame, why am I dying early in my games? Makes no sense you would say that.

[Marco]

I guess it's not, roleclaiming and info dumping are legal, just seems like a way to try and bypass letting people play the roles themselves, instead automating the info directly to the thread.

I'm still not getting what you mean. What do you mean "bypass letting people play the roles themselves instead of automating the info directly to the thread"?

There's nothing wrong with pushing lurkers but your plan involves making the Top 8 posters vote indiscriminately among the lowest 4 posters. That basically eliminates any way we can read their intentions since they're being "forced" to vote in a way that equalizes the votes among the lowest 4 posters.

This just isn't true though.

Assuming there is one wolf in the town group of 8 top posters.

That one wolf would naturally vote for the non-wolf in the bottom 4 slankers.

Why? If we're asking everyone to distribute their votes evenly among the lowest 4 posters, he can vote for anyone he wants because he knows we're going to distribute the votes evenly.

That is an extreme example, but you're missing the point entirely with VCA.

If we have a group of 4 players, at least one of them is a wolf.
If we choose town and wolves to vote amongst the 4, then the VCA comes from the wolves purposefully saving their own wolf bro! There is the VCA! They aren't forced to vote for their wolf bro, in fact they can SAVE their wolf bro. How is this lost on you?

VCA comes from voting amongst choices. Usually it's difficult because you can usually deduce when you were voting amongst TvT, but then you must decide if you were voting amongst w/w, or v/w, or any comibnation.

This makes it easier. This creates a w/?/?/?
AT LEAST one wolf will be in this group.
We can analyze the voting patterns of WHO is being saved.

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Here's the post in question. You can clearly see I'm talking about the Top 8 posters having to distribute their votes. Nothing to do with bottom 4. I'm not sure where you got that idea that

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

[Silverwolf]

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

I agree with this 100%. Yes, there is likely scum in the lurkers. However, we need people to vote naturally so that we can analyze their votes and their vote pattern. It gives scum a way to hide their voting and their reasoning for it.

[Silverwolf]

VOTE MOVING PICTURES


Before anyone gets annoyed with this as an ika defense, I think his interaction with ika very much looks like SVT with him being the S.

I pointed in out in several of my previous posts. MP is going for easy targets. His reasoning on ika is very weak. He's taking advantage of ika not being here to defend himself. He's not explaining his scumread well and his though process is scummy as hell.

He is very active so if he's scum, the sooner we lynch him, the better.

[Zexy]

Zexy, What do you think about the notion that Frog expected you to clear him based on meta?

I don't think it's unnatural for town!Frog to say that. Yet at the same time I don't know Frog's meta that well, I haven’t ever seen a scum game of his, which means I can't clear him based on meta for either his previous posts or this specific one.

Zexy, I have a few questions on this post.
1) You say what Frog has done in the beginning is scummy with respect to strategy talk and RVS hypocrisy. What do you find hypocritical about his stance on RVS?
2) You say his accusations of Marco are really good and he brings up towny points. What are these points and why do you think they're really good?
3) Can you elaborate on what you mean by Sloonei's cases being a bit too perfect? What posts/cases in particular?

1) The fact he stated he dislikes RVS but pushed for people to tell him they are town, as well as doing it himself.
2) Now this is from a while ago, when Marco only provided commentary in an attempt to look like an important voice over the Sloonei/Sig (and later Golden) debate. The points Frog brought up felt good because of his solvy tone which I’ve seen before, as well as the fact that I agreed with them (and his read on Marco at the time) so I thought we had a similar mindset.
3) The questions he made up until the point I said that; he always seems to be able to see holes in others’ logic and make the correct question. He always seems to be correct in the arguments he takes part in. As in, picking only fights he can win.

Btw this overall behavior from MP is seriously towny. His questions/cases on everybody make lots of sense.

Only read until page 10 for now.

[Golden]

our top poster has pretty much focused only on me/Silverwolf.

Incorrect. I've suspected only you and silverwolf. That's a big difference.

If you iso me, you'll see I've provided at least some commentary on an awful lot of players. I don't need to provide commentary on a player I don't see anything to talk about. There are very few players I haven't mentioned.. Dizzy and Psi are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and thats because they are mysteries to me and I've had no gut read.

This is one of the most common reasons to mislynch me. I'll hound players when I get a whiff of suspicion. That doesn't mean the other content isn't there.

[Silverwolf]

@All

ika wanted me to let you know he's having internet problems and can't post until this evening when he gets home

[Marco]

Zexy, I would like you to respond to this post. You may have missed it.

I feel like Silverwolf's posts have a very "drifter" quality to them. Just moving along, picking random posts and responding to them. There seems to be no desire to interact beyond the occasional observation or to engage anyone. The participation seems superficial. What do others think?

VOTE SILVERWOLF

While I don’t disagree, I think this is the kind of wagon scum could easily lead on a townie and look just fine.

Do your post just tend to be one-liners? It feels like there is not much thought and a scum motivation behind them…

First, I feel you're leading me in your questions. They don't look like questions you actually want answers to. You're just saying those things under the guise of actually asking me those questions.

Anyway, no, my posts don't tend to be one-liners. I admit every post of mine isn't a bunch of thoughts requiring a lot of exposition but I think I have posted more substance-full posts (I mean quantity, the actual number of non-superficial posts, not that any post of mine has more substance or value than anyone else's) than the majority, in this game. But I do believe not every post has to be a bunch of lines. Sometimes a one-liner is more than appropriate.

I think I put a fair lot of thought behind most of my posts. Some have been on a whim but if I'm making a read, suggestion, etc, I generally think about it more than once before posting. I definitely don't think any of my posts have a scum motivation behind them. Why do you think my posts don't have thought behind them? Or that they're scum-motivated?

Particularly, in the post you quoted, what is so "thoughtless" or "scum-motivated" about it? You say it is a wagon that scum can easily lead on a townie and look fine. Why do you find my post "thoughtless" when multiple others (Golden, MovingPictures) have acknowledged that my observation is legit? And does your read change knowing that I actually rescinded my vote on Silver soon after that vote?

Do we have any ideas on Marco meta? Latest posts look townier than before, even Frog acknowledged it.

Lastly, can you tell me what started making my posts look like "thoughtless one-liners" with "scum motivation" behind them when just some time ago you thought I was looking townier, and that others acknowledged it, even the person who was convinced I was scum?

[Golden]

However my question is: Golden, do you still suspect Silver?
I also note that Golden is slightly apologetic in this interaction for "ticking Silver off" (which I don't think he needs to be cause he did nothing wrong). He may just be a polite young gentleman, but it reads a bit guilty mindset.
Like, I find it really hard to trust Golden, and I don't know whether I'm paranoid or not.

Yes.

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

However, when she calmed down and started answering my questions, I thought her responses were fair. My continued suspicions of her fall well short of me being convinced she must be bad.

Also, to you and zexy - you shouldn't rely on a strong town meta from me as being a sign I'm town. I think (others can give you their own opinion) that I maintain a pretty solid helpful-civ meta across both town and scum. It's totally fair for you to be paranoid. But I am town this game.

[Marco]

I see you're actually still catching up, my bad. MP had framed that question a couple times, even as recently as just a page or two ago, so I thought you're caught up. Take your time. I'm just really curious about your read changing from "looks towny" to "thoughtless one-liners which are scum-motivated".

[Silverwolf]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

[Zexy]

that being said, what i find odd about sig is that hes diffrent then what i played with him before.

Really interested on what is different, IKA.

Looks like DrWilgy is a person that only replies to whatever is thrown at them. Inactive, not reading through the thread… is this his regular meta?

Zexy, bet you're going to get tired of my questions, aren't you? Here are some more:
1) How do Marco's posts seem townier now compared to earlier?
2) Why is Silverwolf providing commentary on players who aren't being discussed the most slightly scummy? What's the motivation for a mafia player to do this?
3) You say here you like to work via process of elimination because you get more town reads than mafia reads. Would you mind providing a rainbow list when you get a chance? (assuming you haven't already once I catch up fully)

1 Again you are kinda behind. At that point Marco was showing more of an effort than just providing commentary. Ever since, though, he bombarded us with one-liners that I really think were odd.
2 Because scum would like to avoid taking stances on the main debate, it lets them pick whichever wagon they wish when the time comes for it.
3 I have provided a reads list although it wasn’t exactly rainbow. I’ll do so again in a bit, though.

Lastly, you say that you are found scummy because you tend to flip your POV on players, but I think that's not your problem and more so those who are suspecting you. Mafia tend to be more consistent because they have to fabricate their reads; civilians are free to change their mind at any time. I'd suggest that you not be afraid to put your early reads out there, but if you don't feel confident in them, just express your level of confidence (or lack thereof).

Not necessarily; mafia can flip their reads as well if they see that their current ones don’t help them push the wagons they wish. Again, you are kinda behind, by this point I’ve given reads, back then I wasn’t comfortable enough with doing that.

I’ll have to give Marco that’s he trying more now and starts looking better again. Gave some detailed cases in page 11. Time to reply to him:

Anyway, no, my posts don't tend to be one-liners. I admit every post of mine isn't a bunch of thoughts requiring a lot of exposition but I think I have posted more substance-full posts (I mean quantity, the actual number of non-superficial posts, not that any post of mine has more substance or value than anyone else's) than the majority, in this game. But I do believe not every post has to be a bunch of lines. Sometimes a one-liner is more than appropriate.

I think I put a fair lot of thought behind most of my posts. Some have been on a whim but if I'm making a read, suggestion, etc, I generally think about it more than once before posting. I definitely don't think any of my posts have a scum motivation behind them. Why do you think my posts don't have thought behind them? Or that they're scum-motivated?

Particularly, in the post you quoted, what is so "thoughtless" or "scum-motivated" about it? You say it is a wagon that scum can easily lead on a townie and look fine. Why do you find my post "thoughtless" when multiple others (Golden, MovingPictures) have acknowledged that my observation is legit? And does your read change knowing that I actually rescinded my vote on Silver soon after that vote?

Agreed, you have indeed stepped it up recently. I can see the thought and I actually have a town lean as of now (but this is page 11 mind you). I didn’t say it was “thoughtless”, I said it was easy for scum to attempt pushing for a wagon there in case they are town. I didn’t completely agree with Golden/MP views anyway, still paranoid on Golden, not on MP.
Tbh you’ve confused me kinda so I’ll have to ISO you later on. By this point my read isn’t even based on that vote.

If here and in the Championship, you won't be able to use meta as much as you'd like, why have you requested for it as much as you have?

I’ll be requesting it in the Championship as well, chances are some players will have interacted before over there as well.

And with this 11 is over. I think you can see I’m kinda overwhelemed, apologies

[Frog]

Reposting cause I botched the post.

Wolves don't HAVE to save anyone though. Not when we're asking people to equally distribute their votes.

Yes, wolves have every incentive to save their wolf bro.
Assuming at least 1 wolf exists in that group of 4 slankers, wolves will be compelled to 'save' their wolf bro by instead pushing a villager.

UNLESS - you're TMI -ing right now and saying there are no wolves in the bottom 4 posters?

Honestly, I'd find it almost impossible to believe there isn't at LEAST one wolf in that group of 4. Probably 2.

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

I am exceptionally fast on the draw. Trying to catch people off guard, but meh, you're already tried and tested.

I see your misunderstanding and point of divegence.

I originally said, we should evenly distribute the 8 votes amongst the bottom 4 posters.
You're saying, fuck even disgtribution, let's leave it to free will
I'm saying, THIS PARTICULAR group of bottom 4 posters
You're saying, we should collectively decide which 4 we put wagons on, and wait until later to decide

Now - I'm saying - the plan is out of the bag now. Meow. Scum will be attempting to pad their post counts ever since I mentioned the topic of slankers. We should stick to bottom 4.

In any case - you are free to decide as you wish - I'm saying we stick to:
a2thezebra
DrWilgy
Metalmarsh89
Psittacoform

I've given my logic which I believe is more than reasonable.

Which 4 players do you, and everyone else suggest?

[Golden]

I just woke up and am still a little cranky but I have to rant for a bit cuz it's bugging me and will make me feel better:

In Turf Wars, I went after low content lurkers and turned out to be right that some of them were scum. I was basically discredited by townies in that game as being tinfoil because those posters had low content and they kept going after each other and the wrong people. Even after I was killed, they ignored me.

My MP vote was to get a reaction out of him. I DO NOT appreciate Golden's insinuations that I was going after him for RL which I would never do. Golden kept twisting it to that and it pissed me off. There was nothing wrong with my vote and I have no idea of MP's alignment-I'm gonna go read all his posts a little later-but I DO NOT appreciate Golden interfering with my vote and interaction with MP and defending MP the way he did. If MP is town and Golden is town, it's fine but there is no way for Golden to know that unless he's scum.

I think he's scum who knows MP's alignment. It's the only way for him to be that defensive of him because it's way too early with too little content to get a read on MP so he's not defending a townread as town.

He's a damn good player. As scum, it is easy to get into an argument and be all logical and level headed and look like town. Who's to say he didn't do that? That said, I'm gonna read all the reactions to is and see what others thing. I incorrectly tunneled Golden in Turf Wars when he was town and even though I realized that and backed off then, I don't want to make the same mistake here. Also, us tunneling back and forth will get us nowhere. I need to get some reads on and ISO others today.

ika defending me is null, he defends me all the time but I need to see more than just defending me here from him when he can post properly again

1) You never realised I was town in Turf Wars while I was alive. I went to my grave with you feeling suspicious of me - more or less for the exact same reasons you do here... defending people. It's what I do. I wasn't defending MP because I think he's town. I was attacking your vote and its rationale.

2) You don't get to say 'there was nothing wrong with my vote'. This is not an objective fact. I think there was something wrong with it. You don't get to stop me from 'interfering' (as though suspecting you is intefering). Stop being so entitled. I'm allowed to suspect you. I never TWISTED your vote to anything. YOU called MPs reasons for not being around 'constant excuses'. I straight up asked you... why a low poster who has explained why they aren't around instead of someone with fewer posts that isn't. I asked you, did you believe MP's rl reasons or not?

3) You were never 'discredited' by townies in turf wars. While I was alive, people listened to you and even agreed that could be the case. The fact that votes didn't go the way you wanted (while I was alive, at least) is not the same as you being 'discredited'. In case you haven't noticed, everyone on this site recognises you are good at the game. I will always listen to what you have to say. But I won't and can't respect being guilt tripped for suspecting you.

4) Don't mistake me finding YOU looking scum as finding MP looking good. Although I do have a slight town read on MP.

[Golden]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

I don't 'know better than that' silverwolf. I played with you once, in a game full of people. I do not know every intimate corner of your game, but even if I did, you could just as easily use your meta against me. I found your behaviour objectively suspicious. I'm not going to be emotively bullied by you over it. The only thing that is swaying me (and it is) is your emotionless, rational responses to my questions. The 'you should know better stuff' is just meaningless to me. I've seen too many people try and get emotive to wriggle their way out of a correct read.

[Tangrowth]

I'm back, but not for super long. Going to read through posts now.

[Golden]

Spoiler: show

Sig, what is the nature of your ping on me? How strong is it and why is it there?

I like this post. You really don't let a single sentence slip, don't you?

I can confirm that sloonei doesn't let a single sentence slip.

But he knows it. I once got lynched day 2 for defending sloonei hard day 1, when he was in fact scum, because I thought he just looked like his town self in not letting sentences slip.

So I'm not letting it affect my judgment of sloonei either way.

Golden, wouldn't you agree though that Sloonei did let his sentences slip in that game, which led to his lynch? That's how I would think of it. If so, how can you confirm that Sloonei doesn't let a single sentence slip? Or do you mean town Sloonei?

I mean, that's not the way I saw sloonei in that game. Others did, and I was like 'what planet are you all on' because I thought sloonei was balls to the wall with his questioning as usual. But you were right. So, I'm probably not the right person to ask.

[DrWilgy]

Looks like DrWilgy is a person that only replies to whatever is thrown at them. Inactive, not reading through the thread… is this his regular meta?

I have no meta, just class and good looks.

[Tangrowth]

Just checking in quickly - from what I understand we have until Sunday night (great because I've been busy all day)

I don't see people jumping for joy at my plan - I hope at least someone explained this much:

I'm not saying EVERY slanker is a mafia - I'm saying within a mafia team there is usually at LEAST one slanker.

Therefore if we round up the slankers, we can assume at least 1 of the slankers IS mafia.

As for VCA (vote count analysis) - we KNOW (basically) that we are voting amongst town and wolves. THAT is our VCA. Whoever pushes hard against this plan so far is either clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial.

Hottakes! Who has been pushing hardest against me and my plan since I've left?
Clearly someone has since I don't see a bunch of vovtes on the slankers.

I am much disappointed, but now I'm more certain I've struck gold.

So you want to leave the game to random chance, and anyone who disagrees is either "clearly mafia, derping, or just a different state of mind that is denial"? Wow. How arrogant. Get over yourself.

No thanks.

[Tangrowth]

Spoiler: show

Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.

...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.

Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.

If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.

I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.

Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.

"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"

-A few hours later-

"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"

The lesson is never learned.

I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.

Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.

Vig shot! BOOM! JK - Vig shotting the lurkers obv. But really, I think we're supposed to pretend to dislike each other. Literally everything you have typed I disagree with. There is not one post that I can say "ok, I can see how he can see things that way". We are at diametric opposite spectrums of the playing field.

Apparently so.

[Golden]

Spoiler: show

I'm liking frog. He's trying to solve the game. He's explained his reads well and I feel like they are genuine.

Huh, I'm getting the impression that Frog's trying to solve the game, but I'm not convinced. What gives you the impression that they are genuine, Golden? And can you point to one post where you believe he explained his reads well? Thanks in advance.

I don't have time to literally go back and find a post while I'm catching up, but it was more the way his posts developed, anyway. When he said he felt zexy + sig were town and marco + sloonei were scum, even though I disagreed with him I understood how he got there and had in my mind 'I could be wrong and he could be right, his rationale is persuasive'.

I can't actually remember what his rationale was 24 hours later, only the overall impression I got from it that I liked the look of him.

[Zexy]

Zexy, I have the following questions and comments regarding this reads list of yours:
1) What good points has Golden brought up?
2) How does the method by which Marco post make his activity faked? What do you think of the content of his "one-liners"? I find the fact that you are considering the method rather than the content of his activity as the basis of your read suspect.
3) What's the strange cover you are referring to with respect to IAWY? I can't recall off the top of my head after doing all that reading.

Thanks, Zexy! You're the best for dealing with all of my questions, assuming you continue to do so.

Also, what is slank cover, anyone?

1 The entire reasoning behind his reads on Sloonei, Sig, Marco. Even myself, I could see why he scumread me for a while, and why he changed his mind after we interacted. His points on Silverwolf’s behavior were good, and again he changed his mind after learning more about her.
2 I believed the content of his one-liners was just there so he would look active. Although he’s overly analytical now and I can see where he’s coming from. Will have to ISO him to put those posts in a townier perspective.
3) Slank cover = people announcing they will be inactive before the game or shortly after the game begins. IAWY’s slank cover is a bit strange, he’s talking about some new philosophy he will play the game by…

Psitacci’s activity is so low it’s suspicious. I mean, he’s inactive when town. But VERY inactive when scum.

I’d like to see a rainbow list from MARCO at some point. He said he doesn’t do them… but tbh I see no reason any townie ever wouldn’t like to do them.

Marco 43 – Too many one-liners, kinda “fake” activity if you ask me. Not feeling too good about him yet.

What do people think about this? I ISO'd myself and I can sort of see some one-liners, but I can't really see how Zexy is calling my activity fake. She feels disingenuous IMO. I have had other reasons to suspect Zexy, too, but it could be that it's OMGUS-motivated, so I request others to ISO me and tell me what they think about Zexy's read on me.

I commented on this already, but I wanted to emphasize it, because it's currently one of the strongest points against Zexy being town in my opinion. This could be a way for a mafia Zexy to fabricate a suspicion, but the train of thought is flawed (criticizing your method of posting rather than your content).

Methods of posting can be towny or scummy irregardless of the content itself. Ever heard of tone reading? I can see your point here, but scum!me wouldn’t drop the scum lean on Marco this soon.

12 is read.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Deadline update: 30 hours and 15 minutes remaining in Day 1.

[Silverwolf]

1) You never realised I was town in Turf Wars while I was alive. I went to my grave with you feeling suspicious of me - more or less for the exact same reasons you do here... defending people. It's what I do. I wasn't defending MP because I think he's town. I was attacking your vote and its rationale.

And I explained it repeatedly, yet you kept saying I was attacking him for RL when I wasn't. I don't appreciate that Golden. It's not true.

2) You don't get to say 'there was nothing wrong with my vote'. This is not an objective fact. I think there was something wrong with it. You don't get to stop me from 'interfering' (as though suspecting you is intefering). Stop being so entitled. I'm allowed to suspect you. I never TWISTED your vote to anything. YOU called MPs reasons for not being around 'constant excuses'. I straight up asked you... why a low poster who has explained why they aren't around instead of someone with fewer posts that isn't. I asked you, did you believe MP's rl reasons or not?

Actually, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't say. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY VOTE AND THE REASON FOR IT WHICH I SAID OVER AND OVER WAS BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE HIS CONTENT AND I WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO POST AND RESPOND. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RL ISSUES.

3) You were never 'discredited' by townies in turf wars. While I was alive, people listened to you and even agreed that could be the case. The fact that votes didn't go the way you wanted (while I was alive, at least) is not the same as you being 'discredited'. In case you haven't noticed, everyone on this site recognises you are good at the game. I will always listen to what you have to say. But I won't and can't respect being guilt tripped for suspecting you.

This is BS and a flat out lie. I was constantly discredited and I was right. Anyone can check that game and see it for themselves. Way to paint an incorrect picture of me again. I am not guilting anyone but you keep lying/misprepping me which makes me think you are scum.

4) Don't mistake me finding YOU looking scum as finding MP looking good. Although I do have a slight town read on MP.

Right, but you were not defending a townread was my point which I think I made very clear. Your defense of MP was overblown like I said.