My-Hime Mafia

[Xanth]

I'm not sure exactly what questions you've asked me that I'm supposed to answer. If you're direct about your concerns, I'll be happy to address them.

Practically anything here (modulo quoting failure on my part), and in particular the refined form of part of that here that you've just ignored. I did in fact specifically point to the former of those before.

As a new query, while I can see how you convinced yourself to move from me to Alex, I've no idea why you've then voted for Corwin. FoSing him or something, sure, but even assuming you've come off Alex after thinking about it for a bit enough to justify Corwin > Alex, I don't see how you've come to Corwin > Xanth as well, when you haven't shown any sign of relenting otherwise.

[Sierra]

More on Xanth, since he's answered me now:

a) the 'obvious' alternative to Sopko was Tom, not Affinity.
b) the 'obvious' reason on Affinity was that he'd been completely absent since page 2 and all but entirely forgotten.
c) you've misquoted 'obvious' from my quote to mean a) rather than b).

Not at all. I quoted the paragraph precisely as it was typed. Here, again, is the post in question:

I'll vote to save my own skin if I have to, but I'd rather the attention was on Tom (can't answer before deadline, I know). I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style. I'd prefer he talked about more, but I've felt that Sopko's been fairly incisive in his points on me.

Tom is not mentioned in the same sentence as Affinity. If "obvious" was meant to refer to Tom, than the phrasing was exceptionaly awkward. I don't understand how "for the obvious" could refer to anything but Affinity given that it immediately follows his name there.

Also, the points A and B quoted above are contradictory. You suggest that the phrase was truly about Tom, but then provide a rationale for it to be about Affinity. The "obvious candidate" is Tom, but there is also an "obvious reason" to vote for Affinity? You're trying to have it both ways, but you cannot have meant both at once with that sentence.

Moving on:

f) not to get too far into WIFOM or anything, but precisely given that there was no strong backing on Affinity makes it an odd choice for a deflection, unless you think it really was that desperate.

I think the situation was that desperate, yes. The godfather unexpectedly going down in flames? Yeah. My main problem with point F, though, is this: you suggest here that you couldn't have used Affinity as a deflection target because he wouldn't have been the ideal (I.E., easy) candidate from a scum perspective. But this presupposes that scum always make the right play, and that since you, in this scenario, would have been making a mistake, you are not likely to be scum. This is flawed logic. Scum are just as capable of miscalculation and errors as town. It's entirely possible that you were throwing out several names that were reasonable targets in hopes that something would stick.

Re: Sopko and Affinity? Your attempt to break this down mischaracterizes the case on Sopko. No one hit him purely for lurking. Though that was part of the case, also important were his poorly explained unvote and the four-point breakdown he made after first getting criticism for lurking. Said post reeked of typing a lot without saying anything substantial and was far more telling for me personally than his previous series of one-liners.

I'm seeing a lot of attempts at retconning what you said day one, and that doesn't sit well at all.

~

On self-preservation: What about voting for Sopko to save yourself ensures that that's the only reason you'd be able to focus on him? I think you overplay the kind of effect this would have had on yourself and on others. If you had opted to present a case on Sopko for this reason and also added your thoughts on other suspects, people would have read all of it and come back to it if it seemed relevant. There was certainly time enough before the deadline to do both. Are you suggesting that you yourself would've had trouble paying attention to other cases if you'd gone after Sopko earlier? I'm not sure what else to draw from this tangent.

---

Despite all these skeptical responses to Xanth, I have to agree with Cor's ninjapost suggesting that addressing Alex's copclaim, one way or another, is our best option for today. I'll look at this in my next post.

[Xanth]

El Cid: I think you're reading that sentence wrong, which suddenly clears my confusion. It should be read as below (reasons added, not emphasised):

I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious reasons and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.

Not as (same again):

I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious lynch candidate and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.

Help at all? I thought that was clear given the Bardiche part that follows it. Replace the two 'for's with 'because of' if you still don't see it. I'll readily forgive the misunderstanding here, but I won't hear for this being a retcon claim.

[Strago]

Okay, the soup du jour is obviously an Alex v. Tom bisque – or as the French say, fromage. And I’m having a hell of a time figuring out which… side of the soup to… slurp.

Being at work with this head cold/headache is making me a little loopy. Metaphors are the first thing to go when you’re sick like this okay.

Why Alex doesn’t sit right with me:

Has to do with the timing here, http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42237#msg42237. The extreme wonkiness is, I just noticed, well summarized by Andy right here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42448#msg42448. So, yeah. Also:

Ack sorry.  Little busy today.
I'm down with Sopko though. 

Big FoS at Kilga for his latest post though.  Townies who are hunting scum in good faith should never ever hold back on voting for fear of looking scummy.  If you think Soppy's more likely scum, vote him.  Reluctance to do so is noted.

There was a vote here but I see Xanth ninja'd me for the -1 I think?  Willing to hammer, any last comments though?

Ironic much? I know that life gets in the way of Mafia, and I understand being busy. Regardless, the timing of this stuff is something I can’t just ignore.

Tom bothers me because:

Same sort of business as yesterday, really. Stuff such as:

And what about whether or not you were hit, Alex? You seem pretty reluctant to give away information.

And…

Read Xanth's callout post on him day 1, it's 100% right and his "Xanth, Xanth, Xanth" pressure today reinforces the case.

This is roughly the third time you've said "Xanth is 100% right about EvilTom being scum".

Exaclty how is this evidence? Or even influential? It's rubbish, and you keep doing it.

You can't just say "Person X's statements are 100% truth". Xanth could be wrong, or scum.

This is extremely dodgy behaviour. Your list of dodgyness grows and grows.

That isn’t really a… defense. It tries to turn it into an issue of Alex’s scumminess instead of Tom responding to the points against him. Also – and this is after the previous Tom post, but is really just a re-statement of something Alex had already made sufficiently clear (at least to me) – there is:

There is also the fact that the lynch train turned around from Xanth to the freakin' scum godfather in late day 1, which by itself is reasonably solid evidence that Xanth is probably town and pushing his lynch today is really weird.  Especially from one of the two people to be on Xanth and not Soppy day 1 (though admittedly timezones can account for that).

Then there’s…

If we lynch Alex today, I'll either be confirmed town, or confirmed scum. If you lynch me, when I flip town you'll have to lynch him tomorrow, because that's the only way to find out whether or not he's lying.

Anyway I'm pretty sure Alex is scum rather than insane, if you look at all the evidence listed above.

##Unvote;
##Vote: Alex

It's clear that lynching Alex is the only way forward now.

That sort of funky logic combined with his “Q.E.D. must lynch” (an easy gateway to “anyone who disagrees with me is SCUM,” the way he framed it) makes me as nervous as all get-out about the Tomster.

Corwin’s got the best logical breakdown of what should probably be done about this gumbo of confusion: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42511#msg42511. The fact that he then whips around and wants to indict Alex for… hell, the kind of dumb slip I’ve certainly made before… instead of following through with his own initial logical response to the situation, honestly makes Cor look a little wonky to me.

Man, I always type too much. For now, I’m down with eating Alex’s soup. Or Tom’s? The metaphor is way out of my hands at this point. The… I am eating the soup of somebody’s argument, as opposed to their doom.

##VOTE: Evil Tom

Man, I'm hungry. I'll come back and taking a close look at other points when I get a chance.

[Sierra]

And now: Alex VS Tom, The Throwdown.

Problems with Alex first!

-You now categorize Xanth, Kilga, and Cor as "probably town." Why Kilga? What made you change your mind on him, Alex? Late yesterday you put a "big FoS" on him for not immediately voting when he voiced suspicions of Sopko. So what changed your mind so drastically? I went thread-diving, and there's no gradual transition from FoS to Probably Town--you don't even mention him between then and now. So what gives? I don't see any rationale for the switch and that bothers me.

-Tom did not in fact suggest that Sopko was bussed and Alex stating that Tom did suggest this looks wonky.

-Mentioning paranoid cop as a possibility. Others have pointed out why this is odd: this sanity is not included in the role list provided by the mod. And you are obviously aware of said list because you referred to it on day one to point out why there could be no Lovers in this game. Memory slip or some sort of ploy? I'm not sure.

-Saying that there "were originally 14 players" in the middle of his roleclaim post. This could easily be a typo, but combined with the above it possibly demonstrates a worrying lack of attention to detail.

And that's all I've got on him, really. If the cop claim is true, it easily explains any flightiness demonstrated on day one (I know Xanth for one had a problem with this) and cop and doc are about the only town roles that have a good reason to behave this way. I don't hold coming late to the Sopko party against him; sleep happens and I know Alex has a crazy schedule in this regard. He'd also sniped at Sopko at least once before anyone had voted on him, so it's not like he was without precedent in this regard.

~

Tom's turn!

-Alex and Xanth have covered this plenty, so I'll point to their posts in the interest of saving time. I'm sure I've made it apparent that I think there are good reasons to suspect Xanth, but Tom has brought up plenty of bad ones. WoT criticism is one prime example of what's wrong with Tom's approach: it's been applied to posts which don't qualify as WoT; moreover, Tom himself has thrown so many arguments at Xanth that Xanth has little choice but to respond in kind. This is hypocritical at best, misleading at worst.

-Cop investigation = scum. Straightforward.

Fewer points, but they're big ones. The kind of mischaracterization and exaggeration that Tom employed on day one is something that always reflects very poorly on the practitioner, in my view.

~

Bottom line? It's day two, we've already hit one scum, and lost no townies. We can afford to take the time to test Alex's cop claim, especially since the player he's designated as scum has other good reasons to be a candidate. It's certainly a much better option than lynching the guy making the cop claim. If he is genuinely a cop, scum will want to kill him anyway, so why waste our lynch on him? Thus:

##Vote: EvilTom

If this picks up, I'll have a question for our erstwhile cop later in the day. I'll wait and see how things develop first, though.

---

Other things I need to get to...Andrew's pinging my scumdar for reasons I can't quite point out yet. I'll try to articulate this in post form some time this afternoon. Also need to examine case against Cor; I don't see anything to it right now.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Stragovarius! Will read in a moment. Updated votecount would be pro, I think this puts Tom at four?

[Strago]

El Cid: That is an awesome nickname. Thank you for giving me that nickname.

Bottom line? It's day two, we've already hit one scum, and lost no townies. We can afford to take the time to test Alex's cop claim, especially since the player he's designated as scum has other good reasons to be a candidate. It's certainly a much better option than lynching the guy making the cop claim. If he is genuinely a cop, scum will want to kill him anyway, so why waste our lynch on him?

Yeah, this is really sort of bottom-line for me as well.

El Cid's post also reminds me of how much all of Alex's behavior makes sense as a cop. As in, makes at least a decent amount of sense retroactively not just since the claim, and why go to that sort of trouble to set up a fakeclaim in a game where there's a perfectly good chance of a real cop shooting you down? Granted, Alex is a particularly canny player. But I'd rather assume Occam's Razor than Xanatos's Gambit at this point.

El Cid: I think you're reading that sentence wrong, which suddenly clears my confusion. It should be read as below (reasons added, not emphasised):

I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious reasons and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.

Not as (same again):

I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious lynch candidate and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.

Help at all? I thought that was clear given the Bardiche part that follows it. Replace the two 'for's with 'because of' if you still don't see it. I'll readily forgive the misunderstanding here, but I won't hear for this being a retcon claim.

For the record, the first time I read this contested statement of Xanth's, I read it in precisely the way he's explained it now. The case of The People of El Ciddington v. Port Xanthilly really reads as a lot of town versus town bluster to me right now.

Also, more irony in attacking Alex for backing my argument 100% when you have just pointed at El Cid's in the same manner. Same for insisting Alex answer to El Cid when you haven't touched my stuff.

I said I agree with El Cid. I've never said "El Cid is 100% correct so hurry up and lynch Xanth". There is a big difference. Alex is doing the latter.

The part I've bolded? I find incredibly amusing given Tom's earlier comment about how Alex is the only possible person we could lynch today.

[Bardiche]

Back at home, catching up... completed. Might become a wall of text.

I'm not going into in-depth responses to Day 1, partly because I think it's irrelevant (and distracting) at this juncture to dig up old arguments. I will, however, go over them briefly.

----->

Xanth's Day 1 activity leaves me feeling pretty good about him. He's zealously pointing out several things, builds cases and actually strongly builds his opinion of why the person he points at would be scum. This is not to say I completely agree with his cases, but I get a town vibe from him. Don't really see the anti-Xanth arguments.
I'm certainly not going to hold his walls of texts against him.

Case on EvilTom seems... mrf. It's mostly based on misrepresentation and that jokevote of his, and the latter argument is... okay, what. I get the impression from Day 1 that it's a misunderstanding about him, but given Day 2 his posts can be somewhat interpreted as scum... I'm just not seeing it much, but then again... I'll comment on this later on more.

Sopko case. I don't think I need to say much on it, it's over and done with. However, it should be noted who all initiated the anti-Sopko movement. I doubt scum'd do that, so I'm inclined to attribute a town vibe to Corwin and Strago. Kilga's ignoring of Sopko strikes me as a little odd.
(PS: It's funny that the exact attribute I dislike (protecting others) was apparent in Sopko and Sopko was scum)

El Cid straddling up the case against Sopko with a vote. I don't like the "I'm going to see..." attitude there, though. Strikes me as though El Cid doesn't care about the result. Did it with Kilga (see where this goes), then late Day 1 goes the same way with Sopko (let's see who follows). If it's a scum gambit to get town cred, it is a massive one; WIFOM there though, but I'm inclined to think of El Cid as notScum.

---->

That concludes Day 1 commentary. Writing up Day 2 commentary, delving into the Anti-Alex and Pro-Alex case first. I'm not sure yet what I favor, lemme go through things with a fine comb!

Three ninjas, replying to in next post probably.

[Sierra]

Almost lost this in the shuffle:

In the meantime, a brief response to Cid. I'm sorry that I can't point out to specifics about a feeling I can't even phrase right. I wonder why a mechanical student would be so concerned over it, though.

Curiosity. When someone's talking about me, I want to know what's going through their head (even if it is an inferior, carbon-based model!)

---

Bard: I don't think anyone's seriously holding Tom's jokevote against him by this point. Misrepresentation, though? Yes, that's still valid. And I find the cop claim against him highly persuasive. I went over this in my most recent post; let me know if anything's unclear.

Also, my vote for Sopko was anything but tentative. I wouldn't have bailed out on a case I thought (and still think) had merit if I hadn't seriously thought there was something up with the new lynch candidate I was moving to.

---

Stragovarius: I've been calling you that for a while now. Just, y'know, only in my head.

[Corwin]

Okay, just got home, will finally have time to read in earnest. From skimming, there are 4 votes on Tom, right?

[Bardiche]

Day 2 stuff. May be jumbled towards the end.

I see stuff about anti-Xanth, revealing who was attacked and everything and I really want to deal with it but... Alex stuff first. After that, I will talk about Corwin a little, then go about the anti-Xanth sentiments and put my foot down there on my belief.

------->

Alex opens his Day 1 case immediately on EvilTom. This provides his alibi of having an informed vote. I'd be more wary of him if he hadn't jumped on Tom as quick as he did. Whether his case is strong or not? I'm tempted to say it's not that solid, but it beats the Xanth case by a margin.

His one-track approach is pretty... It makes me wonder. I'm not sure yet what I dislike about it other than that if we lynch him we have jack shit to work with, excusez my French.

... I note at this juncture that I find Excal a bit odd in discarding Alex's copclaim and accusation of EvilTom as "not important" and taking priority with finding out why the nightkill didn't occur. More on him later.

Reading over EvilTom's defense of himself, something clicks to me that may seem bizarre to you folk. Namely this:

If we lynch Alex and he flips Cop, we will likely lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch Alex and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch Alex. He will probably be either killed by Scum or Roleblocked, what have you─Tom brings up a good point about the roleblock, though. It might happen─I would buy arguments that Scum expected a Doc guarding Alex if EvilTom flips scum but... that's so WIFOMy.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment. This is very risky, and I can't imagine why scum would take this gambit since it almost certainly nails him down.

I think Alex is seriously convinced he's nailed scum, and I think EvilTom's seriously convinced he's notScum, since he presents indeed a scenario in which case Alex will die if he dies.

------->

Above were mostly mumblejumbled thoughts. The bottomline is that I disagree on a "Lynch Alex"-case.

I get the arguments against Alex, and to a certain degree can agree with them. Alex's timing is impeccable, his contributions have been... here and there, and he seems to have a rather one-track mind today on solely DreadThomas. If he died and flipped Scum, would we honestly have a lot to work with? Alex surely hasn't dirtied his hands trying to point at anyone else and, thus, we have no one to really link him to directly other than agreeance or disagreeance with the sympathizers for an Alex lynch.

The case against EvilTom is a tad more appealing, but only a tad more. On one hand I understand the arguments and the reason why he is sowing confusion. Now this is metagame, but I've only ever experienced EvilTom as playing in a way I cannot possibly fathom the logic of (no insult intended at all), so I have no idea how to interpret his wackiness. It smells like a case of Townie-Caught-At-A-Bad-Time, except he's still got a Cop claim against him.

That said, I favor an EvilTom lynch over an Alex lynch. However, I don't really have anything to hold against EvilTom beside the Cop Claim against him, so consider that a "Rather Tom than Alex, but if possible? Neither of them".

Clearly that's not a possibility since the sentiments would linger for the next day if this continues and... bah. The risk Alex is taking seems too great for me to say, "He must be diverting/gambling, lynch him".

I trust Alex's Cop Claim and think it pertinent to lynch EvilTom: either we confirm Alex's sanity or lynch Scum. If Alex is Scum, I see no reason why he would divert from the then pertinent Xanth case:

1) Xanth is Scum. If Alex diverts, what does this gain them? It's a massivehueg risk that I don't think Scum is likely to entertain. It's too risky, unless Xanth is Scum with a SUPER OMG ROLE... but then it must be a role that doesn't even allow them to kill someone at Night. No matter how you flip it, I doubt two Scum would throw themselves away to save Xanth.
2) Xanth is Town. Why the hell would Scum divert attention from Town? I can't find any satisfying answer to this.

So yeah, I'm pretty sold on Alex = Town.

[Kilgamayan]

I'm annoyed that it took forever to come out, but I can buy Cid being attacked last night given he came out of Sopko's flip smelling like roses. The only problem is that it doesn't remove anyone from the scum pool I wasn't already set to remove anyway.

Cop claim, huh? S'pose I can't not swing from Xanth to Tom in the face of such a thing. Tom also has the misrepresentation thing going against him. Alex is guilty of it as well with his second Tom vote bullet point, but I would prefer not to relapse into "if x flips town lynch y", which people seem dangerously close to suggesting where x = Tom and y = Alex (especially since I was recently on the outside looking in at something very similar and it turned out all parties involved were town), and I don't think what Alex has done so far this game merits lynching him based on his actions combined with a Tom townflip.

I don't think Tom ever responded to this:

I think you're misreading something, because there really is a big inconsistency there for precisely the reason I outlined there. Want a timeline to make it clearer?

1: Xanth post here.
2: Xanth post here.
3: Tom post here, in which he claims a contradiction in 2. Note that the quoted section is on metagaming.
4: Xanth post here, in which I respond to 3.
5: Tom post here, in which he quotes a combination of 1 and 4 as a contradiction about Kilga. Not only has the contradiction changed content, there's a time warp in which post 3 apparently predicted post 4.

Even if you try and somehow worm the initial claim into somehow referring to the initial Tom versus Kilga thing, there is absolutely no way it ties in with:

Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.

From post 5, because that inherently relies on post 4, which didn't exist at the time of post 3.

...which is a huge strike against him.

##Vote: EvilTom

(This should be L-2.)

You better have a really good explanation for the above, because I'm not at all ready to vote Alex.

[Bardiche]

I lost my Corwin thoughts. I don't know, his appearances have been sparse and he... Hm. I dunno. I feel a bit iffy of him so I will watch him s'more.

Now, about Xanth?

Sopko sacrifices himself for Xanth. This... confuses me in such a great way that words fail me. What does the Godfather have to gain?

Either Sopko:
- Tried to save Xanth
- Didn't want to be seen lynching a Townie
- Was oblivious to the effects of his actions

And I can really get the arguments that say, "Why would anyone fear being on a townie train on Day 1?" So let's strike off two as a possibility and look at 1 and 3.

Tried to save Xanth:
- This just hammers a nail in Xanth's coffin. Why sacrifice a Godfather just to buy Scum one day?

Was oblivious:
- This is a wildcard and can mean anything. It could mean that Sopko thought themselves save and did what he did for some unknown motive/agenda. It could also mean that he just wasn't thinking.

Admittedly both seem odd. I explained why saving Xanth would bring about trouble (and remember, I take Alex as being Town), but being oblivious to such a silly move? It would only work if Scum didn't communicate, had some hidden agenda or other WIFOM arguments.

So that's pretty useless in determining Xanth's alignment.

---->

Now, Xanth's alignment while ignoring the Sopko mindfuck?

- He's been consistently chasing after what he believes to be scummy attitude. His arguments may be flawed (and I hate metagame, so that biases me some), but it was Day 1 and arguments are hard to come by without discussion.
- Xanth's put in a lot of effort into everything. It seems to me a bit odd for scum to act so prominently and obnoxiously. Mind you, in AnonySciFiMafia he was a lot less present, so I don't see why he'd pin himself on the foreground as prominently as he's done.

Is that an extremely elaborate argument? No, not really. But based on our current information I get the feeling Xanth is pretty town-ish. I do not want to lynch him at this juncture.

----->

Who do I want to lynch, though? Well, barring the entire EvilTom VS Alex thing, it is important we lynch one of them lest we get the entire issue haunting us through further days. But, before we decide on a lynch I want to pretty solidly let it known who I think is Scum.

Please try not to focus solely on the below case─I think it in our best interest to clear up the Alex VS Tom fog before moving onto any other cases.[/color]

##VOTE: Excal

Point in case:

First off, there's today that triggered it to me. Excal's... waived off the Alex Claim as being of lesser importance compared to the "who got attacked" claim. While I agree with his logic for following the last, there's something odd.

He posts at 9:36 AM (my time) to waive Alex's copclaim as being unimportant compared to his "who got attacked" investigation.

At 11:40 AM, he announces intent to go to bed and think about Alex. In that time, he posted twice to show concern for nothing more than his little side-tracked investigation.

The crux of the issue here is that he's had two hours to ponder what could easily foreseeable become the next big thing of the day in favor of a minor issue to which he needed no thought or conscious effort other than... wait. Why did you wait, Excal, before pondering it?

As well, the entiriety of Day 2 I have yet to see Excal form anything on anyone, other than saying, "I agree that Xanth being scum wouldn't make sense in regards to Sopko's death" and saying that he'll look at Andrew and Alex. Great! Glad you're looking for us, mind chiming in and pointing out things that make you wary?

I'd say more things but there's too little of Excal seen that make it possible to really say much on him. He's pretty lurker-ish Day 1, chiming in without ever taking a solid position except against Sopko, who was an easy target that others were already piling on with solid arguments. Also, his only vote is Sopko and jokevote.

---------->

I've been considering not posting this as it may divert from the pertinent Alex VS Tom issue, but we have plenty of time to spare I feel. Should be slightly less than a full day, or slightly more.

[Corwin]

Cid!
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42484#msg42484

Here, you say:

Day two fakeclaim is not a good gambit for scum, so I think it's likely he's telling the truth.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42523#msg42523

While here, you respond to Xanth with:

But this presupposes that scum always make the right play, and that since you, in this scenario, would have been making a mistake, you are not likely to be scum. This is flawed logic. Scum are just as capable of miscalculation and errors as town.

Your stated reason of voting for Tom is believing in Alex's claim, pretty much since it would be a bad move as scum, and scum Alex would surely be playing better (paraphrased, etc). If I use your own latter words to challenge that, what would be your response?



http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42526#msg42526

Strago here raises a valid point, and one I would have addressed if I had more time before. The benefits of lynching Tom outweigh the benefits of lynching Alex. Yes, it's true. If Alex isn't lying, then he's a cop whose alignment we can narrow down with a Tom lynch. Then, well... we pretty much win the game, guys.

But there is a problem with this. We have to trust Alex to be telling the truth. See, by choosing Alex over Tom, we do get the best potential benefits... but we also get the higher risk along with it. By lynching Alex, we get full disclosure: either he's lying scum, and we hit scum, or he flips as a cop. If he's sane, we nail Tom the next day. If he flips insane, Tom is someone we can reasonably trust to be town. In other words, we get as close to absolute certainty of alignment on a player as we can, here.

I ultimately picked Alex for what seems to me like a slip, but this is yet another reason I believe an Alex lynch to be preferrable under the circumstances. I just... I get the sense that Alex was being flippant about his claimed role. It feels off; that reminded me of his previous apparently-random moves, such as the fourth vote day 1 which kicked off serious discussion and, in retrospect, had to be a calculated move by Alex to do just that. In light of that, I'm not sure Alex would just make a slight mistake like that, and while possibly metagaming, it's metagaming based on this game's previous behavior, not baggage from previous games or elsewhere.

That said, my decision was based more on seeing a higher chance for clarity/hitting scum with an Alex vote rather than an active defense of Tom and his actions. The only thing that would actually stop me from acting on Tom's inherent scumminess is that he drew Natsuki, really, which should say everything on this subject as far as I'm concerned. And, again, that he's always scummy so I tend to filter it out.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42534#msg42534

Strago has a good point here as well (quoting the relevant fragment):

and why go to that sort of trouble to set up a fakeclaim in a game where there's a perfectly good chance of a real cop shooting you down?

This... is true. I admit I haven't considered that aspect. I can still see reasons why Alex would do what he did and not be cop, but again, this argument is quite persuasive to me.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42541#msg42541

If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch Alex. He will probably be either killed by Scum or Roleblocked, what have you─Tom brings up a good point about the roleblock, though.

Bardiche, this is actually extremely unlikely! I thought the same at first, but after mulling over it I believe that it's likeliest we have three scum. In this eventuality, Tom flips scum and thus only one scum remains. That scum must kill, and thus, even if a roleblocker, Alex could not possibly be roleblocked, so he clearly could not use such a defense for himself. This is clearly the best cast scenario.

If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment. This is very risky, and I can't imagine why scum would take this gambit since it almost certainly nails him down.

See, I'm not as certain about that 'certainly nails him'. Alex is a good player. He can certainly defend himself from accusations in such a scenario (Tom flipping town on a lynch) by claiming insanity. And then he could get away with claiming roleblockage, or even feed us results that may well be lies if he is scum. There is no logical proceeding from Tom flipping town (if he is one) to Alex hanging the next day, it's merely one of the possibilities.

And I consider this the worst case scenario. This reminds me of a prisoner's dilemma, and I prefer to be cautious in our situation.



Tom. Ah, Tom. Calling me a lurker made me sad. Even though I was too busy to participate for hours, I was actually hardly the only one to do so. I just don't get this person. And posts appear, along with another vote. This is long enough as it is, though, so I'll post first.

[Bardiche]

The flaw in your argument in favor of lynching Alex lies with "if he flips Cop", namely that I don't know whether or not we will actually be told the Sanity of the flipped Cop.

Can you bring clarity to that, Rat?

-->

Your argument... Yeah, the roleblock is true. Mrf. Scum'd need to forego their turn to roleblock, and they can't because they need to kill him.

However, remember that I wrote "almost certainly". I am incorporating Alex's... charisma in this matter that he may well talk his way out of it. The question is, "Would scum gamble on that?" And the answer to that is a web of WIFOM. I cannot answer it in detail at this juncture, or any juncture really unless I gain the magical ability to read another's thoughts, but my belief lies with, "No".

[Sierra]

- He's been consistently chasing after what he believes to be scummy attitude. His arguments may be flawed (and I hate metagame, so that biases me some), but it was Day 1 and arguments are hard to come by without discussion.
- Xanth's put in a lot of effort into everything. It seems to me a bit odd for scum to act so prominently and obnoxiously. Mind you, in AnonySciFiMafia he was a lot less present, so I don't see why he'd pin himself on the foreground as prominently as he's done.

I feel it necessary to point out that point #2 is employing the metagaming that you decry in point #1.

Also, some of your speculations regarding Sopko make it sound as though he was bussed--you use the term "sacrifice" at least once. I'm sure I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it: I don't think scum voluntarily sacrificed Soppy because I highly doubt they saw his lynch coming. He had no votes on him when the Xanth train was in full swing, after all. Reading yesterday's events as though scum threw Soppy to the wolves to achieve some specific goal can only lead to bad places.

~

Not sure what to make of Excal case right now. Also, will respond to Corwin postness momentarily.

[Corwin]

I asked Rat. He said full disclosure happens on a flip. It wasn't in any way ambiguous. This factored pretty heavily into my decision.

[Bardiche]

- He's been consistently chasing after what he believes to be scummy attitude. His arguments may be flawed (and I hate metagame, so that biases me some), but it was Day 1 and arguments are hard to come by without discussion.
- Xanth's put in a lot of effort into everything. It seems to me a bit odd for scum to act so prominently and obnoxiously. Mind you, in AnonySciFiMafia he was a lot less present, so I don't see why he'd pin himself on the foreground as prominently as he's done.

I feel it necessary to point out that point #2 is employing the metagaming that you decry in point #1.

Hm, true. It still doesn't invalidate my point to myself in that Xanth's been awfully much on the foreground, and I fail to see the profit to Scum by placing themselves on the foreground so prominently.

Also, some of your speculations regarding Sopko make it sound as though he was bussed--you use the term "sacrifice" at least once. I'm sure I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it: I don't think scum voluntarily sacrificed Soppy because I highly doubt they saw his lynch coming. He had no votes on him when the Xanth train was in full swing, after all. Reading yesterday's events as though scum threw Soppy to the wolves to achieve some specific goal can only lead to bad places.

You're absolutely right. The action just... blurgh seems to me as so odd and weird that I fail to understand what the point of the exercise was. Regardless of everything, Xanth standing alone without Sopko, whether the latter was bussed or just botched up, it still doesn't rhyme him to Scum for me.

[Bardiche]

Failed to respond to Corwin, but... okay. That... tosses some theories right out of the window.

Lynching Alex then yields certainty (Scum, Cop or something else) versus an EvilTom lynch that MAY yield certainty (ET=Scum, Alex=Town VS ET=Town, Alex=Insane/Scum).

My maths don't favor Alex in this case. Let me think this over more.

[Strago]

Let's not forget the potential for, you know, further results from Alex at some point. I know he could get roleblocked or capped by scum, but it's also possible that neither happens and we get another reading from Alex that helps us figure out what's going on. It seems really obvious when I say it, but I actually think that this is a possibility many people are pessimistically overlooking.

My mind really hasn't changed on this, I don't think.

[Sierra]

For Corwin:

Your stated reason of voting for Tom is believing in Alex's claim, pretty much since it would be a bad move as scum, and scum Alex would surely be playing better (paraphrased, etc). If I use your own latter words to challenge that, what would be your response?

My response is to agree that you've caught an unfortunate oversight in my reasoning. However, I do think there's a signficant difference in scale between what a hypothetical scum Xanth would've attempted on day one and what a hypothetical scum Alex would be attempting now. As I'd laid it out, scum Xanth would've been throwing out a couple reasonable alternative candidates to see if anything took. This is a comparitively minor diversion when set next to faking a copclaim. That's something that a scum Alex would have to keep up for a long time. We're still early in the game and town is off to a solid lead; he could have several days still to keep up the act. It wouldn't be easy, especially if there is an actual town cop still unclaimed somewhere.

Now, it can be argued that scum might be prepared to try that radical a deception after how badly day/night 1 went for them. I'm not entirely convinced that the reward is worth the risk for them. I remain open to the possibility (which you elaborate on quite coherently) that Alex is lying...but I believe I have a reliable way to determine this tomorrow. Going into detail about it is not useful right now, this far from the deadline, though I would ask that people wait before hammering near the end of the day so that I can mention it then.

Doubleninja. Blurgh.

[Corwin]

Cid, to clarify, are you talking about real days or game days when you go about 'tomorrow'?

Strago: Again, duly noted. I do find your points valid.

[Sierra]

Game-days. Day three, in other words.

Also, agreeing with everything Strago just said.

[Kilgamayan]

Let's not forget the potential for, you know, further results from Alex at some point. I know he could get roleblocked or capped by scum, but it's also possible that neither happens and we get another reading from Alex that helps us figure out what's going on. It seems really obvious when I say it, but I actually think that this is a possibility many people are pessimistically overlooking.

This is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.

[Corwin]

This is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.

That sentiment from Kilga bothers me . The overly-ecstatic comments from earlier in the day, when people were suggesting that being so far ahead, it's okay to relax a bit, also bother me.

[Kilgamayan]

Because that worked in Succinct Mafia, right?