655 replies to this topic

[reign of terror]

 
Nobody is quick hammering KevinH. That would be extremely scummy. His wagon is not random though. In fact the only three players that are not voting random are all on his wagon. KevinH stands out on several issues and his defense has not helped his case.

However there are 3 scum so it would be stupid to focus solely on KevinH. You think he is town. Okay. Care to explain? More importantly, who do you think is scum? Make a case, start a wagon, you might convince me. Currently you are just enjoying the show. Those on the KevinH case have stuck their neck out trying to get us beyond RVS. IMO it is up to someone else to start a second wagon.

I wasn't really thinking that anyone was quick hammering.  I was saying that it worried me to see us over halfway to a lynch so early in the day.  I saw KevinH's defenses as pretty solid and I could be wrong as to his being innocent, but he seems to be actively scum hunting and thinking down the road as to what the town situation will be in a couple days.  I'm actually sticking to my random vote for now until I see something that sticks out.  The reasons for this is that Xarastier has kept his vote on the KevinH bandwagon and hasn't contributed too much to the discussion yet.

[Chaplain of death]

Votecount 1.02

 

 

reign of terror (0) -

Kaziocore (1) - Rafay,

Nerau (1) - Killgor,

killgor (1) - Lyner,

KevinH (3) - Xarastier, Kaziocore, Commander Shepard,

Martino (0) -

Rafay (3) - Nerau, KevinH, Euclid of Alexandria,

Commander Shepard (0) -

Lyner (0) -

Imran Ehsan (0) -

Euclid of Alexandria (1) - Imran Ehsan

Xarastier (1) - reign of terror,

 

Not voting (1) - Martino,

 

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

KevinH and Rafay are currently tied for wagon leader at L-4

Deadline is Monday, May 6th, 2013 @ 23:20 PST

[Commander Shepard]

Someone mentioned something about it earlier.

 

The Town Dietician will probably not find a cannibal and if he does it may the vigilante.

But potentially revealing a cannibal which may slow down the death rate of townies seems like the reasonable thing to do ASAP but it's paints a red target on the head of the Dietician if he does reveal.

He could of course die with this information if not revealed.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

If the Dietician never discloses this information it still benefits the town as the Dietician will not only vote but also argue accordingly during the day. Tbh, as only the Dietician knows what information he has, he is also the only one that can judge whether or not (and when) it is worthwhile to share it with the town. A similar argument holds for the Vigilante as the information he gathers from his kills will not be disclosed to the town either, but it will be disclosed to the scum if he gets killed by them. IMO we just have to trust our power roles to do what's in our best interest.

[Chaplain of death]

For future notice, I will specify who will be lynched in the event of a tie, if one exists, starting 4 days prior to the deadline. 

[KevinH]

If the Dietician finds a Cannibal, it would be best to not reveal it outright but make strong accusations for benign reasons, much like Euclid was doing to me.  Of course on Day 1, since nobody knows nothin', there's no point in making strong claims.  However, in later days when somebody is pushing hard to lynch based on weak evidence, that can mean there is more to it than is in plain sight.

 

The Vigilante will only know information about dead players, so that information isn't likely to be critical to any future lynch.  I could imagine a situation where he might have information to disprove a roleclaim, but revealing that woiuld put a target on his back that wouldn't be wise,

[KevinH]

Here's another idea.  We can all "suggest" to the Vigilante who he should kill.

 

Here's my idea. We all do our best to get as much information out off Day 1 and then let the Vigilante make up his own mind. I don't want no scum voting about the Vigilante kill.

That's the whole point of the exercise. If the scum are trying to influence the kill toward a townie, then we might able to see that, even if it's a day or more later. If the Vigilante makes a bad guess, then it's just a bad guess (with a townie dying in vain).

For what it's worth, I "suggest" that the Vigilante not kill tonight. One may think that 30% chance of hitting scum is good, but I think that 70% chance of hitting townie is bad.

[Kaziocore]

Town Canibal Vigilante is an interesting situation.  Odds are that he will hit a townie if he night-kills but but maybe he can get lucky at hit scum.  It's a bit analygous to the town needing to get lucky with a lynch. However, there is not the added benefit of the voting patterns.  I'm inclined to think his best play would be to not kill the first night because of the additional chance that he might get the Dietician or Roleblocker which would deprive the town of those chances for "luck".  On later nights, the odds are greater that he'll hit scum and if he does hit scum, he'll get their larder and some information with that.

I think the best course of action of the vig is to night kill the lurkers.
They're disadvantageous to the town especially if they are scum.
Besides if you're a PR you shouldn't lurk and act scummy as
it will greatly diminish their credibility when it's their time to roleclaim.
Remember the cannibals will hide the alignment and role of their
victims. So that means the mafia can kill the PRs and pretend that
they are them.
 

Well I'm here thanks for the vote Kev.....

I don't think Kev does look scummy but can't say same 4 Kaz. He just jumped on Kev despite him already having 3 votes on him in a random scenario.

So my vote random at first becomes the 1st official scum hunt vote!!!

lol that's a terrible scum tell if you believe the third person to vote
someone is automatically scum. It's called pressure by the way.
 

Here's another idea.  We can all "suggest" to the Vigilante who he should kill.  If he chooses to follow the most popular suggestion, we could use it as second "voting record".  That way we can get some information on suggesting patterns just like voting patterns.

I'm agreeing with Euclid. No one should control the decision of the vigilante.
We have two mafias and one serial killer. They could also influence the
choice of the vigilante. We should make the vig's night action unpredictable
for the scum.
 

Of course on Day 1, since nobody knows nothin', there's no point in making strong claims.  However, in later days when somebody is pushing hard to lynch based on weak evidence, that can mean there is more to it than is in plain sight.

Actually " nobody knows nothin' " is false because the mafia knows who they are and they know who to kill.
Similarly the serial killer knows he have to kill everyone. That's why we need to scum hunt for these people

because they can slip for knowing more. People pointing out that there is something suspicious of your

actions shouldn't be seen as anti-town because in that way, we could have a glimpse of your alignment.

[Kaziocore]

That's the whole point of the exercise. If the scum are trying to influence the kill toward a townie, then we might able to see that, even if it's a day or more later. If the Vigilante makes a bad guess, then it's just a bad guess (with a townie dying in vain).

How would you differentiate town making a mistake or mafia deliberately influencing to target a town?

[Kaziocore]

People with random votes should unvote if they don't believe their first vote is their top suspect. The random voting stage is over.

[Kaziocore]

And

 

Vote: Rafay

 

Rafay needs to talk more about his reads and say his reason why he thinks I'm scummy.

[Kaziocore]

Post Count:
9 Euclid of Alexandria
8 Kaziocore
6 KevinH
3 killgor
3 Commander Shepard
3 Lyner
2 reign of terror
2 Nerau
2 Imran Ehsan
2 Xarastier
1 Rafay
0 Martino
 
Unvote: Martino
Vote: Rafay
 
Prompting for action!

I'd suggest instead of counting directly the post count of each player,

you would only count a post if it's not a fluff post. It would improve this

though I'd still say this is an inaccurate way to scum hunt.

[KevinH]

Since only two of the three scum know about each other, neither voting patterns nor suggestion patterns are likely to reveal much.  The goons won't vote for each other but that won't be hard to disguise.

 

Someone's going to get lynched and then most likely at least two more will die in the night.  After that happens, what information will we have?

[Kaziocore]

Voting patterns do give as an insight.

For example: if a wagon on a town did not grow large, it's likely because scum is on it

if a wagon on an unflipped player is made largely of town but not grow larger, it's likely it's a scum wagon

 

You're downplaying the information we could get there.

We also have interactions during the day.

Scum will pretend that they are scum hunting since

they already know they are mafia and everyone is their enemies.

 

We should not stop the vigilante if he wants to use their night kill.

I think it would even be beneficial if they use it (probably on lurkers,

and people that are anti-town to prevent town in mislynching them

on more important days like in LYLO or MYLO)

[Imran Ehsan]

My stance on Day 1 action has always been this: lynch the inactives.

 

Day 1: We have no investigation results, we have no voting records and normally we dont have much to argue over also as no one knows nothing. New players and normal townies post a lot and inevitably make scummy statements or contradictory ones throwing the limelight on them. If there is a lynch, they will get lynched and the town loses because (1) they were town and (2) they were active town. If there is a Day 1 lynch the probability of a scum getting lynched is very low (1/4 = 25%).

 

So we should lynch and we should not base our lynch on who said what but on who is doing nothing => the inactives/ low profilers. Also agree with Kazio that "low profilers" should not be judged based on post count also. Random one line posts with no content and no attempt at scum hunt or how to move forward is not helping the town.

 

This is only for Day 1 though. It should not be used from Day 2 forwards as scum may be vocal and making a lot of posts. On Day 1, we should lynch the one who is making the least contribution.

 

Based on the above:

 

Unvote

 

Vote: Martino

 

He has yet to make a post. If he comes by later and posts, I will change my vote to the next guy who is making the least contribution.

[Kaziocore]

FOS: Imran Ehsan

 

This is to show that I disapprove of parking votes on an inactive.

Votes should be used on active people to pressure them and

to show to town who you believe is more likely scum

Voting an inactive won't pressure the inactive person

because he's not even here.

 

Martino has already said pre-game that he will probably not post before Thursday.

 

If you insist, it would be better to vote people who post just for the

sake of posting so that they won't be called as lurkers

[Imran Ehsan]

FOS: Imran Ehsan

 

This is to show that I disapprove of parking votes on an inactive.

Votes should be used on active people to pressure them and

to show to town who you believe is more likely scum

Voting an inactive won't pressure the inactive person

because he's not even here.

 

Martino has already said pre-game that he will probably not post before Thursday.

 

If you insist, it would be better to vote people who post just for the

sake of posting so that they won't be called as lurkers

 

My point has been different from what you are suggesting. My point has been we have no idea who can be scum on Day 1 as there are no voting records and no investigations. I am discouraging the process of someone saying that "XYZ" is scum because he said this and this. Newbie players and pro-town post a lot and make contradictory claims. We should not lynch on Day 1 based on that. If you are active and you are contributing you should not be voted. People who are inactive should be lynched.

 

I have voted for Martino because he has made 0 posts. I have also said I will change my vote when he comes back and posts. Theres still over a week to go on Day 1..my vote is based on the process I am following. He may be inactive bc of RL issues but that is besides the point. His contribution has been the least due to whatever reason. Until he comes back to change that my vote will stay on him.

[Kaziocore]

Exactly why we need to vote people to pressure them to check whether people

are actually genuinely scum hunting or not.

 

It doesn't mean that you vote someone, you are 100% sure he is scum.

It could mean that there's a 20%+ chance that your choice is scum so

you vote him to get more information.

 

People are also forgetting that you should not only scum hunt but we

should also town hunt. Then the chances of figuring out the scum

players improve even on day 1.

 

And yeah I'm also discouraging voting people just because he did XYZ.

The more important part is that you should investigate his reaction

when you questioned about XYZ and that you check his motivation for doing so.

 

Also since town knows nothing, they shouldn't start treating anyone as town first.

They should treat everyone as null. If there is something suspicious about a player,

they vote for him.

[killgor]

imran does have a point there. just dragging around from day to day people who do not do anything like posting or voting isn't fun or useful. i don't think that we should end the day right now though and conclude that martino will not be useful and just vote for him. that is bad scum hunting. we're out of the rvs from the looks of it and this is a good thing. most of the people playing are also quite active and this is also a good thing. we should try to make the most of it and gather as much info as possible.

 

also, telling the vig what to do is bad juju. if he's trying to win with us, he'll try to do what's best for the town anyway... (at least if he's not a hotshot who'll try kill everything that moves, like someone we know )

[Commander Shepard]

I don't think the vig should kill the lurkers as they may indeed may not be scum, the chances are they most likely townies.

The vig shoud instead target those who he may think is scum, lurking isn't all that scummy imo.

The voting pattern doesn't give all that clear of a pattern pointing to scum working together.

 

 

I believe the scum would instead be trying to act like a constructive townie and diverting attention carefully away from him and his practices.

Encouraging the vote on lurkers which doesn't say much as we have little info to work with.

Given that the scum may indeed be trying to blend in.

 

 

Unvote

 

Vote: Kaziocore