VtM:M - Vampire the Masquerade Mafia

[Veryslightlymad]

##Unvote: Sir Alex

Since I came too late last time.

That's the most important thing I wanted to do.

I am for the most part with QR on being suspicious of the folks what would sacrifice a townkill to prove a Governor ability, as this is an obviously pro-scum stance.  That'd be Excal and Andrew.  At the moment Excal looks a bit worse to me, so

I seem to recall somewhat of a push to lynch a lurker and then just.... undo it. If you were going to undo the lynch anyhow, why would it really matter who you lynched? Could an unlynched person slip under the radar more than a person who simply has low content?

Fake edit: Hiya, Door Lady. Is this timely enough?

[Excal]

I don't recommend mentioning that push, VSM, it tends to upset Alex.   Moreover, suggesting it, and daring to place arguments in its defense is what got attention on myself and Andrew.

Anyways, some response as to what you think of current events would be wonderful.  Especially your thoughts on possible extention as well as who you think would make a shortlist for lynching and why.

[Ranmilia]

Sleeping in a few now, classes tomorrow, will be back in ~15 hours. 

Alex, apparently you've inherited the daykill, what is your policy going to be with it?  If possible, can you be as specific as Rat was with his policy?

Policy is to use it as a second lynch.  I'd like a substantial consensus formed early in the day, as soon as possible, on who to kill.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to get together and vote and take stands.  Use real votes or VigVote or whatever you prefer, so long as your support for killing person X is made clear.

No, I'm not going to set specific numbers on "consensus" and "early in the day," for reasons that were made clear by all the drama around Rat's use of the power today.  I won't kill someone without giving them a chance to roleclaim/address the charges against them, nor will I wait til the day's nearly over to use it.  Obviously a full lynch majority (or close to it with nobody else having near as many votes) would be preferable; I'll vig on less if the day's hitting a deadlock, but not without warning everyone of such and prodding folks to vigvote. 

[Shale]

So... you quote me from far earlier in the game and say that I've stuck to the "have Cid test his power" thing, when in fact, I haven't done anything but initially agree that it seemed like a good idea, and then try to get to the bottom of why it was bad logic and, once it was explained, fully back off.

By stuck with it I meant "defended the position," not "refused to back down ever." Sorry if that was unclear.

Furthermore, you claim Gov isn't that a great a claim and might as well be as good as vanilla... when in fact it has actually gotten some people to back off him, while not having the same stigma of Cop/Doc/Dayvig. Hell, anything that isn't a negative role is logically better than vanilla for claiming.

And that was in response more to the idea that by not testing Cid's claim we're making Governor a safe claim for scum to use when pressured. Outside of the "that power must be town!" metagame (which I really, really, really don't like, especially since we're already proven to be in a wacky setup), the point of a defensive roleclaim is to make people balance the the accumulated evidence of scumminess against risk of losing the claimed role. If the role is expendable, then the risk side of that equation is nil.

And yes, that does mean that I think Cid's roleclaim should not be a factor, or at the least not a major one (since I'm sure some people will put more stock in the metagame argument than I), in judging the case against him.

[Lady Door]

Talking about Excal and Andrew currently seems to be tied to their views on the Cid/Governor issue, and all three of them have recently excited discussion/suspicion. Personally, I have a hard time imagining why the Governor role is going to make or break a game, but I admit to being unable to mentally run all possible scenarios.

I don't think Governor is developing into that great of a roleclaim, because the "we'll never make you prove it" thing, true though it might be, is double-edged. If the ability is so lame that town doesn't want it used even under town's full control, then what good is it as a defensive roleclaim? Scum might as well claim vanilla for all the good it will do in deferring a lynch based on power alone. Cop, doc, dayvig...these are things town doesn't want to risk losing. Governor? That we can live without.

Looks fairly WIFOM to me. As such, that makes it look as neutral a roleclaim as non-vanilla can be.

I can see why El Cid would call for sacrificing a townkill since, as has been pointed out, it would prove his power and (hopefully) his roleclaim. The bit about Governor possibly being a third party has merit as well, but there's not a whole lot that can be done to test that one, is there? Personally, I'd be nonplussed to find that his urge to focus the lynch on someone else ended in a town kill instead of being blocked. Sure, he would certainly be the next one down, but it would also net -1 more townie for scum. I have no idea what that means in terms of gameplay theory, but it occurred to me as another crazy possibility, so I guess I'm putting it out there to point out just how WIFOM it is to make a statement about the claim as safe or not.

Nevertheless, I'm not confident there's a whole lot that can or should be done about testing that claim at the moment. It buys him time, yes, but I can't see a viable alternative. Lose a townkill that could give us more info than "at least he's not lying about what his role is (but we still know nothing about his alignment"? Lynch him anyway and see how he flips? Meh. There are other people up for discussion and I am interested in them. The ones who, as Shale says, "don't have a justifiable reason to be biased toward proving the claim at the expense of a lynch." That brings me back to Excal and Andrew.

Just before the Carth-hammer,

Excal, I'm not seeing how a Gov use would limit scum's choices at all, explain? 

Otter, are you claiming bomb?

I haven't seen Excal answer that and I don't get it either, so, I'm bringing it up again: please explain?

I haven't really seen anything from Andrew that hasn't been pointed out by others. I'm having a hard time deciding which side of that fence to sit on. On the one hand, I believe Andrew has backed off of the "must test Cid" argument enough that it's hard to call him out for pushing it.

Still... why is it not enough that he's roleclaimed? In the end, it is still Day 1. We still have precious little information. ANYTHING is better than nothing, and his information is his roleclaim which, read literally, makes him town. I'm not saying people are going to claim scum or anything stupid like that, I'm just saying that someone putting out a testable townie role ought to be put aside for the moment in favor of completely blank reads. Yes, he goes free for this day, but... uh... so do 10 other people, really. I don't see the point in attacking someone who COULD be townie, or pushing them to prove it, when there are so many other investigations to pursue.

Is that faulty logic?

Fake edit: Yup. Hi, vsm. Looking forward to you weighing in on the latest round.

[AndrewRogue]

Fair enough, but I really wouldn't consider what I did defending my position after the first post. I really was just trying to get to the bottom of the matter, and that does require explaining my logic. But thank you for clarifying!

[Veryslightlymad]

I don't recommend mentioning that push, VSM, it tends to upset Alex.   Moreover, suggesting it, and daring to place arguments in its defense is what got attention on myself and Andrew.

Anyways, some response as to what you think of current events would be wonderful.  Especially your thoughts on possible extention as well as who you think would make a shortlist for lynching and why.

I didn't suggest it. I wanted to know the specific reasoning of... why it had to be a lurker. More than anything else, this sticks out as "really strange".

[Lady Door]

I don't recommend mentioning that push, VSM, it tends to upset Alex.   Moreover, suggesting it, and daring to place arguments in its defense is what got attention on myself and Andrew.

Anyways, some response as to what you think of current events would be wonderful.  Especially your thoughts on possible extention as well as who you think would make a shortlist for lynching and why.

I didn't suggest it. I wanted to know the specific reasoning of... why it had to be a lurker. More than anything else, this sticks out as "really strange".

... just in case my crazy scenario turned out and we ended up having to lynch the person anyway? Or maybe in case Cid didn't act in enough time to prevent it, or some crazy Role Madness thing kicked in? I dunno, I'm kind of curious about this too, now.

[Excal]

Alright!  Reasoning time!  I'll start with VSM first, because his is simple.

I suggested testing the power on a lurker because we want to focus on someone who, if Cid is either lying, or roleblocked, then at least we're not lynching someone that we care about loosing.  Odds are in that scenario that we're not going to lynch anyone.  But if things go FUBAR, then you want someone expendable on the block.

As for Lady Door, most of this stems from my past experience playing Scum.  My scummate cannot vouch for me, but Alex should be able to as he was co-modding the Discworld game.  Basically, that game also had a Governor who was mostly confirmed as town due to the circumstances in which he narrowly avoided being lynched (we had two chances to nail him, and both were botched, with the scum in question getting soundly 1-2 punched out of the game).  Now, the thing I find interesting about scum is this.  Like as not, they have a list of roles that they want gone as soon as they get even a sniff of where they might be.  And they only have a limited amount of kills to get rid of them in.  Now, Governor isn't that impressive a role at the beginning.  But when you get to later in the game, the Governor does have one concrete use.  Preventing the scum hammer in LYLO, which means that you need to finesse a kill when everyone is super paranoid about voting.

Of course, Governor is useless until then, and useless if it doesn't make it that far.  But that's something that I certainly had my eye on the entire time.  And, I figure that if they want to get rid of him, then that's one night they're getting rid of someone we'd prefer them to go after than someone with a more useful role, or simply gunning down a townie because they make good arguments (you want those people to live longer and leave more of a record for after they're flipped).

So, that is my reasoning behind both those statements.  One is based on sound pragmatism, the other based on personal experience and the overwhealming ego to think that those currently in the position of scum will have the same hang ups and potentially irrational fears I did.

[Veryslightlymad]

Alright!  Reasoning time!  I'll start with VSM first, because his is simple.

I suggested testing the power on a lurker because we want to focus on someone who, if Cid is either lying, or roleblocked, then at least we're not lynching someone that we care about loosing.  Odds are in that scenario that we're not going to lynch anyone.  But if things go FUBAR, then you want someone expendable on the block.

I don't really buy this. That'd require even more day powers. Claiming governer just to have one mislynch sounds like a serious mistake for Scum, too. All reasoning here seems... off. But for now I'm willing to excuse it as just... off-reasoning.

Basically, that game also had a Governor who was mostly confirmed as town due to the circumstances in which he narrowly avoided being lynched (we had two chances to nail him, and both were botched, with the scum in question getting soundly 1-2 punched out of the game).

Why hello there.

[Lady Door]

Preventing the scum hammer in LYLO, which means that you need to finesse a kill when everyone is super paranoid about voting.

That there is a pretty good use for Governor that I hadn't considered because thinking too much about endgame theory makes my brain go fuzzy. Thanks for pointing that out.

As for the scum-action-limiting-ness of Governor, though... I'm not quite sure I get it. I see what you're saying, but if we do in fact confirm Cid as the Governor, doesn't that make him a prime target for NK? But then, on the other hand, knowing that they have this role to get rid of from Day 1 can only help them, as it gives them the luxury of waiting until later to dispense of him, so he doesn't exactly provide the sitting duck target that would protect a "more useful" town role from being NK'd. ... and then it gets quite circular.

How does confirming Cid actually help anything at this point? It's not good for town because we have to lose an information-granting lynch in order to confirm it, and it's not even good for Cid who is then confirmed to have a power role that you admit scum would want dead at some point. The only "good things" about it -- that it makes Cid a target over another townie, thus potentially saving a more useful power role -- don't seem very good compared to the costs -- a power role is confirmed at the beginning of the game which doesn't prove useful at the end of the game, thus basically negating any positive effect it might've had; town loses a lynch that gives information. In fact, it seems like a very good thing for scum to want and a very bad thing for town to want.

Please do check my logic. It tends to leak a bit at this hour. >_>

[Luther Lansfeld]

Except that he was going to die when he claimed it. One mislynch vs. zero IS a good trade.

Apologies, but posts will have to wait. I'm still processing all this, plus I have a bunch of stuff to do.

[Lady Door]

Which doesn't

... compared to the costs -- a power role is confirmed at the beginning of the game which doesn't prove useful at the end of the game, thus basically negating any positive effect it might've had; town loses a lynch that gives information. In fact, it seems like a very good thing for scum to want and a very bad thing for town to want.

Please do check my logic. It tends to leak a bit at this hour. >_>

... and there goes my ability to type coherantly, leaking all over the place. I meant to write "a power role is confirmed at the beginning of the game which doesn't prove useful until the end of the game."

Time for me to go to bed, yes it is.

Re Ciato: I know why Cid claimed it. I don't know why people want him to prove it right now.

[Lady Door]

Hahah, and there I go failing at tags. Definitely bed time. >_<

[Excal]

Even on my re read, no one is coming out as exceptionally worthy of note.  That said, CPU was...  erratic, and Drak has had nothing to say except "Hi," and "I have nothing to say."  Needless to say, I find this somewhat disconcerting.  As such, I think the following measure is both wise and due.

##Vote: Drak

Perhaps you dislike dealing with the warped perceptions of others.  It matters not.  You are here, and these things must be dealt with.  If you don't like what we say about others, then read our words and see what we're saying about ourselves.



Re: VSM

Why not?  There's two scenarios I can see for scum claiming it.  First is banking on the reaction that the argument to test his power has garnered.  That testing this power isn't worth the cost vs. the benefit gained.  That way, they can hope to cash in on town reluctance to vote off a power role, even if it is one they'd never use, without ever being called on to test it.  Shale certainly managed to place a good argument on why things shouldn't work that way, but since when are social stigmas ever rational in their adherance?  Look at the way people backed off Cid like he was a hot potato when he claimed and tell me that people are using their heads about Cid's claim before reacting emotionally to the fact that he has one.

Secondly, you're right.  One for one is a bad deal for scum.  But look at Touhou.  If they're likely to lose that person anyways, then one v. one is better than one for none.  That said, given that Cid wasn't necessarily going to fry, I'm not sure how much I believe this argument myself.

Thirdly, why does it matter?  You're arguing that I'm wrong for making a case that would minimise damage if Cid's claim didn't perform as it should.  My argument is, why do you find it suspicious that I would want to have a plan that would mitigate damage in the worst case scenario?  Why are you so suspicious of someone being uncertain and making contingencies for that uncertainty?

Re: Lady Door

We had VSM pegged on Day 2.  He survived until Day 8.  Do not mistake early notice with his inevitable doom.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Whoops, I was talking to the slightly mad one there, not you, Ms. Door.

[Veryslightlymad]

Really. You thought all that and still didn't think tell anyone about it?

The thing that really gets me, though, is, looking back on the posts after the Governor was revealed? I was mistaken. The vote to kill lurkers was totally separate from the push to overturn lynches on lurkers. So here you are, defending your position that.... well, actually you didn't really have before.

##Vote: Excal

My bad.

[Excal]

VSM, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who does all of his thinking in the conscious parts of his brain.  I was called on why I made a particular stance that I hadn't put a lot of thought into when I made it, and so I looked into my head to see if there was a reason.  You have it now.

As for the claim that I'm now defending a position I didn't have before, I'm somewhat confused.  Where specifically is this disconnect that you seem to have jumped on?

[Veryslightlymad]

Namely, that we should vote a lurker to be lynched and subsequently unlynched, as opposed to any old person. I thought there was a push for this, but, either there wasn't, or it didn't come from you. Note that I didn't ever attack you on this position (or anyone, for that matter), but you defended it as though I attacked you, and even backed up the view point.

So I said, OK. Let's review what Excal has said on the matter before. And the thing is, you didn't say anything! I was either totally wrong about the push, or you simply weren't part of it. But here you are, defending your stance when A)I didn't actually attack you and B)You didn't even seem to have this stance.

Anyone else want to look at this? Please?

[Excal]

VSM, the reason why I defended it is because you quoted me, mixed in with the fact that I was explaining something to Lady Door at the time (which Alex had also requested clairification on at a previous point), along with the facts that I seem to be under some attention at this point in time (which means I want to be transparent in both thinking and motivations) as well as simply being curious as to whether or not I had a reason as well.

As for a push for it...  I forget exactly what the history of the idea was.  I think that I was the only one to push for that specific idea, though Otter was certainly pushing for lurkers at the time. 

[Corwin]

Alex's claim will be verified day 2 or he's a LYING SCUM, so ##Unvote: Alex

Otter's flip as third party wasn't really expected. It seemed more likely he was scumbuddies with Alex, which obviously can't be now. Bah. Alex, why must you always seem so scummy early on?

Re: Cid and Governer use. I was actually leaning towards having him prove his claim, back when he claimed. It was not only the trade off between lynching a lurker and getting a 'confirmed townie' out of the deal. See, Cid had felt off to me the whole game. But when I look for his Touhou scumtells, they just aren't present. I have no idea whether he corrected them, or happens to be town. Not believing him but having nothing to go on, the best idea I've had so far was trying to catch him in a lie. Since I expect him to be scum, and I don't expect scum to have a governor-like ability, if he can't produce results... that's a success, right there, and we lynch him. But I'm not about to crusade over this with no actual evidence and lynches being key to town. Yes, that pretty much means I don't see much in Alex's case about Cid and politicizing extensions or whatever.

What else jumps out to me? What seems to be Excal arguing from a scum's POV. The following post is where is looks the most glaring to me: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=362.msg7711#msg7711 . Not sure what to make of this, except remaining wary towards Excal. His flailing when questioned by VSM are also suspicious.

Mods, can we get an updated votecount?

[Smodge13]

Only a small post tonight, its been a long weke and i have a headache.

VSM, my vote for you still stands.
1. You joke voted and it stayed on the Alex train however you offered no evidence as to why you thought Alex was scum.
2. You then dissapear for a while and come back to say the occasional thing without really commebnting For OR against any arguments.
3. Your still doing it at least finally you do take a side on Excal, only to have it make completely NO sense to me whatsoever.

My vote remains where it is.

As for Drac.
Being new and remembering your playstyle in uni games, it doesn't work here, we NEED to make decisions, talk is whats needed, look for arguments even if it is grapsing at straws mention it (and even add that its grasping if you want) this puts presusre on people and they talk more and in this talk scm often slip up.
Avoiding taking sides on issues makes you look alot like scum trying to hide from the town.

Now in response to Andrew, i honestly can't remember at the moment why i thought it was OMGus and looking over it i still cant think why i thought it, i'll hold off on it until morning i'm calling it for the night headaches getting worse.

[EvilTom]

An update, sorry for the delay;

El Cideon (1): Carthrat, IHateThisCPU, Sir Alex, Otter, Sir Alex
Excal (2): Shale, Sir Alex, Veryslightlymad, Anonymous
Smodge13 (0): QuietRain, Corwin
QuietRain (0): Lady Door
Ciato (0): El Cideon
VerySlightlyMad (2): Otter, Carthrat, Smodge13, Drac
AndrewRogue (0): Excal, QuietRain
Otter (5): Corwin, El Cideon, Ciato, Sir Alex, AndrewRogue, Carthrat
Corwin (0): Sir Alex, Excal
Sir Alex (0): VerySlightlyMad, Anonymous, Lady Door, Excal, AndrewRogue, QuietRain, Corwin
Yakumo (0): Carthrat, Carthrat, AndrewRogue, QuietRain, Otter, Excal
Drac (2): Smodge13, QuietRain, Corwin, Otter, Yakumo, Excal
Lady Door (0): Carthrat


A number of 7 is now required for majority.

14 hours, 20 minutes remain.

[Corwin]

I think I'll go with Excal.

##Vote: Excal

I don't like how he votes for CPU's replacement. Though the concerns are valid enough, Drac hasn't been around that much and it's his first game here; if we're voting for 'lurkers' why not go for Yakumo who replaced the ever-silent OK and likewise is yet to produce much of value? Yakumo's content so far appears to be of announcing that he's voting for the 'sole remaining lurker' now that he's here... except he doesn't participate all that much himself aside from making a post where he talks of how he isn't quite sure of... just about any issue he mentions. I wouldn't call his content above Drac's, just yet.

And then, there's the other stuff re: Excal I mentioned earlier. Solid? Hardly. But I just don't feel at ease leaving around someone who keeps on going "Well, when I was scum...."

[Drac]

##Unvote: VSM

The logic behind this vote no longer holds water for me.

Cid, I'd like a full roleclaim from you ASAP.  Clan, title, and how your ability works flavorwise.  If I'm not mistaken you've only claimed the Mafia terms.

The gloves are off on this one, I'm quite interested in the flavoring that goes along with your role.  So far all you have proven that you have a grey power that nobody is interested in testing.  while i am inclined to believe that scum wouldn't have such power, this reasoning of mine is more based on my offhand knowledge of the V:TM rather than any other sound logic. I do believe however, as it has been discussed the gov role claim is an excellent choice for a bluff.

3. Your still doing it at least finally you do take a side on Excal, only to have it make completely NO sense to me whatsoever.

made sense to me :/