A quick numbers analysis, whilst I wait Tom’s reply.
12 remain, of which three are Scum (so it’s 9T - 3S). This means that, discounting any additional Vig kills for better or for worse, we have two “safe” mislynches before we lose the game (essentially, see below) on the third mislynch.
IE - Mislynch Day Five (8-3)
Night Kill Night Five (7-3)
Mislynch Day Six (6-3)
Night Kill Night Six (5-3)
Mislynch Day Seven (4-3)
Night Kill Night Seven (3-3) - GAME OVER
Importantly, the Scum cannot decrease our allotment of mislynches - they have no capacity to do so. We can increase our allotment, though. If peeker successfully hits even one Scum, or if the role-blocker stops even one kill, we will gain an additional “safe” mislynch.
Also importantly, peeker can only DECREASE our allotment if he misfires not one but two additional times. If peeker misfires and hits Town toNight (assuming mislynches per above), we’d enter Day Seven at 4-3; we’d still lose with that third mislynch.
Thus I conclude the following: from a sheer numbers standpoint, peeker should DEFINITELY continue to attempt kills every Night until he kills another Townie; at that point, he should seriously consider giving up the killing business in order to keep us from losing a valuable mislynch.
I leave it to peeker to consider this analysis and decide if and how he will use it going forward.
And a note for the Cop: it’s Day Five. Your risk of death increases considerably every Night. If you have results for three or more living players (ESPECIALLY if you have all vanilla Town reads), I’d ask that you at least consider claiming toDay. If you can confirm four players (3 reads plus yourself) as non-Godfathers, it will very dramatically improve our odds of winning this game.
So the most likely and obvious conclusion would be that USCdiver may have self-protected but was blocked by the scum RB, nullifying the protection and leaving him vulnerable to the scumkill.
Not self-protecting wouldn’t have made much sense in his position.
I also mistakenly attributed Tom’s statement about story to peeker. My apologies.
Not to speak for Tom, but one conclusion that could be drawn from your statement, story, is that you were trying to diffuse the case against Freud, but considering that there are a few posts of mine about which the same thing could be said, it is just one data point and not enough to raise much suspicion on its own.
It may be a bit OMGUS and perhaps a bit guilt-by-vote-association, but at this point I’m going to throw out an early vote:
Vote Meeko
When Freud was coming after me for her scummy reasons, you were right there with her with a really weakly justified vote, IMHO.
Fair enough, Cookies, but I asked Tom for a response specifically and intentionally. I would like to hear what he in particular, concludes (or derives) from Freudian’s alignment vis a vis my opinions of the votes against her (said opinion, by the way, stands regardless of her alignment). Obviously, I find it… let’s say interesting… that he made the post he did, without really saying what he was implying - the better to let folks like you and Guiri develop the case for him, right?
Did I mention that I’d like to vote Tom Scud? No? Well, there. I just did it.
See, here’s the thing:
(Guiri)
I’ll go right now and respond to your vote. But the second half of the above quote is simply not true. As I noted at the time, the quality of the votes for Freudian have nothing to do with her alignment. A bad vote is a bad vote, even if it’s for Scum.
In fact, undermotivated votes for Scum are often more interesting than undermotivated votes for Town. With Freudian flipping Scum, my point about her voters is stronger than ever: Scum will very often make sketchy and undermotivated votes for other Scum, becuase they know that they are right (this is the primary lesson of Mafia 2, by the way). Knowing Freudian to be Scum, the other Scum will want to avoid being perceived as avoiding her bandwagon, so they will find excuses to get on it if it starts to grow (and, notably, excuses to jump off it if the opportunity presents; cf tomscud). They will do so sometimes without really realizing that their cases against their fellow is objectively weak, because they have evidence that others do not - namely, Freudian’s actual alignment, which biases them in favor of considering arguments against her stronger than they are on their merits.
To sum up way too many words: my disagreement with the reasoning behind the Day Two votes for Freudian does not equate to a defense of her. (Note that even if I had defended her, that doesn’t equate to Scummy, as “wrong about a player’s alignment” does not mean “Scummy”). The thing is, I believe tomscud KNOWS these things. He didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. He also knows a few other things:
That folks who aren’t really thinking it through may jump readily to the idea that “arguing against votes for a player who turns out to be Scum” is equivalent to “trying to help Scum stay alive;” and
That I haven’t been much around, and thus will be a good target for any residual lynch-the-lurker sentiment that might be hanging about.
So: he knows that I will be a good target, and he knows that the primary argument against me is weak but potentially persuasive. As Scum, what would he do? I submit that what he would do is bring the subject up in a vague and noncomittal way, not backed by a vote. See what happens. If others start to pick the subject up and the argument is accepted as valid, he can push harder and potentially force me to be mislynched. If the argument gains no traction or is outright rejected, he can simply let it pass, having never really put himself out there to make the argument in the first place.
Gee, story, thanks for giving me all of ten hours to respond (including the peak hours of midnight to five AM). Here’s my point: on the morning of Day 3, you not only came up with an alternate case to Freudian Slit (who as the previous surviving vote-getter was obviously in peril that day) but also argued that the previous case was baseless. You then did indeed explain that you didn’t whether Freudian was scum or Town – I’m sure the cake you both ate and had was delicious.
(You still haven’t actually bothered giving the substantive response you promised like two weeks ago to Guiri’s case, which was NOT that you argued against the Freudian case, but that you misrepresented basically everyone who placed those votes - your response three posts ago does not cover this.)
That I would think you of all people would make a soft target is such a ridiculous assertion I’m not even going to argue with it.
Your case against me is post #770, yes? I’m going to respond; it’s going to take a while.
I’m going to be saying this a lot, but you are not reading me correctly. I said that his vote was content-free: specifically, that in his voting post he said nothing of substance and just voted for Freudian. I consider this absolutely relevant. It’s his first post of the Day. Why would Scum make a Zeriel = Cop connection? Well, suppose you were Scum, and you knew Freudian to be Scum. Zeriel is mildly suspicious of her all Day One. Day Two dawns, and he reiterates his suspicion immediately, without any kind of additional reasoning or discussion. You can’t see why that might look like a Cop who investigated his number one subject then breadcrumbed his results? Suppose Zeriel had turned out to be the Cop; you don’t think we’d have been looking at that standalone, terse post as a potential breadcrumb?
Here is what skeezix said immediately prior to his vote (my boldfacing): “The fact that you appear to be 100% confident that he’s telling the truth, without even acknowledging the possibility of falsehood is heaps more suspicious to me than anything that he has said or done. Combine that with arguing against the flaws in the “vote the NK” plan.” The bolded statement appears in my reading to be a statement of the primary reason for his vote. I perhaps could have covered every single argument in exquisite detail, but how long, exactly, can I make a single post before people tune me out. I reject the contention that characterizing the above in the way that I characterized it was in any way a mischaracterization of the spirit of redskeezix’s post.
First of all, my analysis discussed the reasons players gave for their votes when they made the votes. If you actually expect me to catalogue every player’s every word and statement before committing to an analysis, your expectations are extreme. But even still: the “suspicion” at #270 is entirely content-free, and the vote at #298 is almost content-free – as drain herself even acknowledges in the post in question.
Anyway, I stand by my characterization of drainbead’s vote at #545 as being primarily about Freudian’s reaction to peeker’s idea. The line about “I see no reason to move my vote from where it had been” is a throwaway line, referencing arguments that drainbead herself regarded as “not much” when she made them. The meat of #545 is the money quote: “And Freudian, if this weren’t an open setup game, I’d think you had a Jester-type role. Seriously, are you trying to get lynched? peeker comes up with an idea that is just plain awful, and has a history of not working, I show why it is a bad idea and mention that only Scum would like it, and what’s the next post? You, attempting to defend it.” Basic critical reading: this extremely emphatic passage, included in the actual voting post, surely represents drainbead’s primary thinking here.
Then you and I have different definitions of “content.” Posting a wall-of-words, without any kind of actual analysis of those words, is a good way to give the illusion of content without actually providing content. It’s a great refuge for Scum, which I consider Tom very likely to be. He lists all of Freudian’s posts, offers no specific analysis, then concludes with a vague and insubstantial argument based entirely on tone: “You know, I really wasn’t on the Freudian wagon before, but reading through it all at once, she really does look like someone who was skimming, got caught, and got over-defensive about it. Which admittedly, could also happen to a Town player, but it sure does smell scummy.” This post (#561) is my dictionary definition of content free. No specific examples of anything, waffling (could happen to a Town player), unsubstantiated conclusion (sure does smell scummy. Why, Tom? Why?).
I’ll hit your other three points in a separate post to avoid excessive length, but on the basis of this exercise so far:
I explicitly deny mischaracterization of any sort (I knew I hadn’t deliberately mischaracterized, but until this re-read I was open to the possibility that I had done so mistakenly). I stand behind all of my comments and analysis; and
My suspicion of TomScud has deepened considerably as I re-examine post #545.
A “terrible” vote is a vote for which the reasoning is unsteady. You absolutely don’t have to know the alignment of the vote-ee to judge the quality of the vote. Look, I could go to random.org and pick a name out of the Ether, then vote for them, saying that they smell funny and it’s a Scum tell. The name I picked might be Scum - that doesn’t make my vote a good one.
Yes. This is how you play Mafia. You look at everyone. You maintain a healthy suspicion of everyone. You analyze each person’s behavior and figure out where scummy behavior and motivation might lie, and then use what you learn as a foundation to develop hypotheses regarding the game set-up. Why is this bad?
…sigh…
I really don’t have the strength to go through this. I think I’m playing too much, because I can’t muster up the patience to hash out the same thing in game after game after game. I didn’t know WHAT Freudian was. Nothing about my argument was designed as a defense of her. My argument was about her VOTERS. It is possible to disagree with the reasons given by voters for a particular player without defending that player.
But you know what, Meeko?
Here’s a question:
If you’re concerned about “attempts to save what became our only Scum kill so far,” why are you disinterested in the folks who actively switched from Freudian (including my buddy Tom Scud over there) to pedescribe, thus not just attempting but succeeding in saving her on Day One?
Your voting record for this game has been ‘terrible’. With the exception of yesterDay, You have been placing seemingly under-motivated votes since you subbed in.
Statement #2 from your quote is a discouragement of free exchange of opinion.
There were plenty occurrences in this game that could be construed that way.
What was your reason for voting Mhaye on day 3?
How could my opinion about peeker’s claim been scum-motivated? What are the scum implications?
Rin twisted made some mischaracterizations, then took some heat then disappeared.
On Day 1, Freudian only became the vote leader after Ped’s claim, she was actually saved by Peeker’s counter-claim. Just before Peeker’s claim there were 4 votes on Freudian:
Nanook threw in a vote for Freudian when Ped was certain to be lynched, but at least registered the fact that he was suspicious of her.
I consider this significant because the game was a day start. As I’ve said before, bus FS seems a fairly obvious scum strategy, as she has a history of being a vote magnet. However, the scum team wouldn’t have had a chance to discuss tactics before the game started. I think this would make them a little more reluctant to bus Freudian out of the gate. I find it unlikely that Drain Bead or Red Skeezix are the other goon, although it’s possible they might be Godfather or Roleblocker protecting that role with a decisive bus.
OK. I’ll get back to Guiri in a minute, but first: I think I need to restate my case against Tom Scud, as clearly and concisely as possible. There are eight Town players reading this post. If you’re one of them, here’s my request: I know that you may have suspicions regarding me. Just for the next five minutes, ignore them. Pretend this post is coming from peeker, or a dead Townie from beyond the grave. Forget the messenger. Consider this case. If I am lynched toDay, come back to it.
Late yesterDay, Tom Scud smudged me with the following quote (#977):
ToDay, he voted for me, with the following money quote (#1028):
His intent here is very clear. He is accusing me of working against the lynch of Freudian Slit, by criticizing the votes for her. Anyone disagree so far?
Now again, this is a bad reason, de novo, to smudge and subsequently vote for me; as Tom knows, criticizing votes against someone is not the same as defending that person. But Meeko is voting for me in part for the same reason. What makes Tom interesting, what makes his accusation interesting, is that he himself worked against the lynch of Freudian Slit on Day Two (I mistakenly said Day One previously), and did so in a much more direct and active way.
As a refresher:
At post #534, Tom voted for Rin Twisted, piggybacking my case against same. At this point, there was one vote for Freudian (Zeriel’s). Several posts went by, and redskeezix and drainbead added votes for Freudian. Tom posts a bit in here, but does not mention Freudian at all; he’s exchanging discussion with Alka Seltzer and Guiri. Now Freudian has three votes. She was already under some pressure from the previous Day. It is plain that she is in danger and highly likely to receive increased pressure.
At #561, Tom posts a wall of words on Freudian, with no original analysis, and votes for her (vote 4), with the following quote:
By #586, Freudian is up to seven votes. Meeko subs for Rin Twisted, making it highly unlikely that the train on that player will go anywhere (it has only two votes on it anyway). But then: skeezix throws a one-off in the direction of Diggit, quickly followed by our only confirmed Town (peeker). Mhaye adds a third vote on Diggit.
Suddenly we have a legitimate competing bandwagon to Freudian’s. At #633 it was six votes Freudian, three votes Diggit.
In post #633, Tom switches from Freudian to Diggit. Voting quote:
So again, in less than 100 posts, Tom has gone from thinking Freudian “sure smells scummy” to Freudian “seems more like a Townie playing a poor game than a Scum.” Both opinions are unsubstantiated, vague, tone-based arguments. His switch makes it 5 (Freudian) to 4 (Diggit); it is then child’s play for Scummy Freudian to add a vote for Diggit and generate a tie. Cookies and MentalGuy apply the coup de grace to Diggit, in spite of Alka Seltzer’s late vote for Freudian that makes it 7-5.
This is incredibly damning. Tom, by his unexplained and undermotivated vote change, plays an enormous role in a late-Day switch that saves Scum and condemns Town. And now, toDay, he attempts to push suspicion my way by accusing me of attempting to avert a Freudian lynch? When he made a much more active attempt to do the same damn thing?
(Incidentally, for those keeping track at home, Tom “wasn’t feeling” the Freudian Slit lynch on Day One (#282) either – but remember, I’M the one who was trying to avert her lynch, right Tom? He was an early voter for pedescribe, switched to Mahaloth for a while, held silent while a couple of votes built back up on Freudian, and then switched to pedescribe following peeker’s counterclaim).
Day Three: Tom smudges me on the basis of my supposed “mischaracterization,” which is just piggybacking on Guiri, and of course he doesn’t back it with a vote (see my post #799). On Day Three, with people finally noticing how weird the constant movement of lynches away from Freudian is getting, Tom finally votes for Freudian again at #851:
Shortly thereafter, Freudian claims. In the next post, Tom swoops in with the unvote. Three minutes after her claim.
I could be wrong on this. But I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so.
I can’t see a scum story going that far out on a limb to lynch a townie (and I am a Townie). Yeah, yeah, scum wouldn’t do that whatever.
unvote story
In other news, I’m exhausted and have thousands of words to write this week for my real job, so I have no idea if I’ll get a chance to seriously read this thread for comprehension. Pretty much everyone I’ve had previous suspicions of aside from story is now dead or subbed out, so I have no idea what I’m going to be able to contribute.