Hotel of Heroes mafia

The Game Room
621

Uh, any particular reason not to share the info?
To be honest, I thought everyone had gotten the same think and immediately thought, on reading it, “Geez, Maha, you’re going to message everyone who had a safe Night to tell them that? Most mods only message when the players died or something.”

But more importantly, if it means I WAS protected, I’d like to ask the person who did it not to do it again. Seriously, I don’t know if they just think I’m a Detective pretending to be vanilla, but I’m not. Your protection is wasted on me. I’m nothing. I’m no big role. I wouldn’t be any kind of Townsperson if I continued to take protection I didn’t need that could be used protecting a good power role, so my advice to the protector is to randomly choose another or wait, bide your time and see if anyone else comes out as a possible Town power role.

622

At that stage only ushimi and oredigger were in contention, any other vote would be very unlikely to affect the final outcome.

I certainly did not do this. When I said I was wary of casting a meaningless vote I meant I was wary of casting one that did not count.

As I said I feared not voting for ushimi or oredigger would be meaningless, so I did not go down that route. Thoguh when I was talking about ushimi not being very tentative I meant in the way that he stirred the pot earlier. It seems very incautious for a newbie scum player to rile everyone up (I am aware to a certain extent this contradicts what I saqid earlier about special ed’s disruptive play). Of course the fact that the late votes saved ushimi has placed him on my prime list of suspects.

These are my prime suspects as it stands (in order):

Pleonast
Mental Guy
Ushimi

623

I didn’t do almost of any of what you attributed to me. I don’t intend for this vote to feel overly defensive (although I do get a little sarcastic as times), but I do want to set the record straight. A post so laden with errors needs to be called out:

  1. I did not need to quote Wolverine, because I was not suggesting a “me too” vote based on his reasoning. I said I was in the same boat as him, because we were both coming late to the game. I’m sorry my slight joke was too much for you.

  2. I didn’t put up a good defense for switching off of Scuba, because I was never voting for either Ed or Scuba. What I did do was support Suburban Plankton (and, indirectly, Ushimi) by agreeing with Suburban’s thoughts. I feel like I’m splitting hairs here, but what you said is a poor way of paraphrasing what I did.

  3. I don’t agree that saying Story’s analysis was sound counts as a “me too” vote. Especially since this is what I have to say about it: “While this post did not jump out at me, other posts by Oredigger have been pinging me throughout the game.” Sounds more like I’m gonna build my own case.

  4. Saying Oredigger said “nothing” is a valid case. Playing safe, and never taking a stand or building a substantial case can be helpful to scum trying to lay low on Day 1. This feels like a serious case of hindsight being 20/20. Yes, Oredigger being town invalidates my case. If only you had had the courage to tell me yesterDay, when none of us knew that.

  5. As far as I can tell, my comments had nothing to do with the Strange Pronoun Case. They had to do with saying something is “as good as it gets” and not following that up with a vote. Was he hoping for something even gooderer?

  6. I am not overreaching on an idiosyncrasy of the player. Oredigger provably said something was as good as it gets, and he provably did not vote on said something. These are facts, and you can’t handwave them away by saying I’m overreaching.

  7. I have no idea what you mean by talking about a previous game in which scum had a false read on you. How does this relate to your case on me?

  8. Yes, in hindsight I was wrong. I don’t remember you bringing up any objections yesterDay.

  9. More house of cards posting? Where do I build further cases upon Oredigger being scum? My focus was on Oredigger the entire post. I don’t mention any other players during my casebuilding. Follow-up posts do not suggest other players are scum becauase Oredigger is scum.

  10. I still contend that pointing out Oredigger’s posts were devoid of content is a valuable and reasonable indication of scumminess. Even if, in hindsight, I was wrong in this case.

  11. Feel free to vote me for being the third vote on Digger. That seems like a reasonable indication of scumminess.

  12. I still have no idea where you think I’m implicating Wolverine.

The only thing stopping me from voting for you is that I don’t believe scum would dare to be so incredibly wrong about every aspect of their reasoning.

624

NETA:

Should read

625

I stand corrected on the vote shift from ushi to Oredigger: It was driven by people voting for Oredigger, not people unvoting ushi. On looking back over the thread, it looks like the most recent unvote of ushi was by Idle Thoughts, over two days before the end of Day. I had walked away from the game on Wednesday with ushi solidly in the lead, and came back on Thursday to see Oredigger dead, and didn’t pay as much attention as I should have to what happened in between.

One other point-- Quoth Meeko:

Statements like this bug me. First of all, if you name any four randomly-selected players, you’ve got a pretty good chance of having Scum somewhere in the list, just by the numbers. Given that Scum are probably roughly 1/4 of the players, four names is too long for a practical shortlist. What you really want is one or two players who are likely to be Scum, or possibly a list of four names that’s likely to have multiple Scum in it.

Second, it can lead to faulty thinking, if you assume that there must be at least one Scum in that list. Suppose we were to lynch Pleo, pants, and Astral, and they all come up Town. Would you then say “well, since one of those four was Scum, it must be Ben”? Shortlists like that can end up turning mislynches into more mislynches.

626

My vote was originally based on defending Suburban Plankton from a weak case. I voted first for Pleonast and once Pleonast voted for someone else, I switched to Storyteller0910 as he was the sole remaining vote of Plankton. Once Story switched to someone else, I felt I needed to vote for someone different because Suburban Plankton had no votes remaining against him. I looked around at the different cases and found the one against Oredigger to be the most compelling.

Yes it was a “Me Too” vote, but only because my original line of thought was cleared (weak case for Suburban Plankton looks scummy) and had to find a new one. Story made a compelling case and so I followed it. Even today I think the case against Oredigger was the strongest one on Day 1. Yeah I was wrong and that sucks, but this is a new Day and I’m not going to stop voting for what I think is the best case even if it is “me too”.

627

vote Pleo

Never before seen a self defense vote cast as a bad thing. If you know you are town then saving yourself over an unknown other is a given, unless you think they are a town PR of course.

628

Do you honestly believe Story and I suckered you into voting for Oredigger? You make as many posts on the subject (6) as Story, Wolverine, and I do combined. I’ve quoted your posts below, noting the timing between them. This sure seemed like a vote you felt pretty solid about before the lynch.

Post 523:

Post 524:

Post 531, @Oredigger77:

Post 536, @ Oredigger77:

Post 537:

Post 562:

Vote Scuba_Ben

Your complete 180, from championing the vote for Oredigger to shrinking away from your actions, is the worst kind of revisionism. I still need to review your previous posting history (among other players), but for now I think this is a pretty solid place to leave my vote.

629

**Vote Count:

Ushimi(1): Chronos

Pleonast(3): Thesearemypants, Idle, Oneandonly

Chipacabra(1): Suburban

ScubaBen(1): Astral

Day ends in 3 day and 7 ½ hours
**

630

Vote Pleonast

Your votes just seem just a tad too much opportunistic. Spin the wheel, find your guy, find one post or one action and ride it hard.

If I can’t vote for myself [As I did in Halloween] and received so much heat for that, I don’t really get why more people aren’t voting you.

631

NETA:

Would love to hear more from Cookies.

632

Forgive me my rambling, I’ve typed and retyped this several times into the rambling mess you see. Sorry.

Pleonast sure looks guilty, but the votes from Pants and Idle are based on the assumption that Ushi is guilty as well. Pleo was supposedly trying to save his scum buddy.

This to me is putting the cart before the horse. I think Chronos has the correct idea. If we lynch Ushimitsudoki and he is scum, then there is a good chance that several Oredigger voters (of which I’m included) could be scum, with Pleonast at the forefront. If we lynch Ushi and he is town, then there was no need for scum to rush Oredigger to the gallows. If the later is true, then numbers alone would suggest there is scum in both voting blocks and the Oredigger movement was instead town led.

I would hate voting for Ushimitsudoki because he seems like a town rookie and is most likely innocent, but his death would give us the best information on Day 1 votes.

With the Pleonast votes, it feels like illogic. If A, then B. B therefore A. If Ushi is scum, then Pleonast is scum. Pleonast is scum. But we don’t know A. We should be finding out first if A is true or false.

However, Pleonast has more to lynch him than just voting Oredigger. He doesn’t like voting for self-protection but doesn’t explain why this would be considered anti-town. He introduces an argument against Plankton over weak correlation and doesn’t back down right away when shown it .

I just think we should save Pleonast for Day 3 and lynch Ushi today. This would give us the best information. If there are 4 or 5 scum, we’re not going to be able to lynch them all today anyways.

Vote Ushimitsudoki

[My day 3 vote is for Pleonast. That was easy. :)]

Please somebody show me the error of my thinking so I don’t lynch another innocent. I would be happy to change my vote if I’m being illogical.

[Sidenote] If Pleonast looks to be tied at the end of the day with someone other than Ushi, then I’ll switch my vote to Pleonast.

633

OOG

It happens to the best of us.

If you didn’t take over an hour to type it, you still aren’t doing it quite right. :smiley:

Can I suggest a Skeleton Outline approach? :smiley: :smiley:
Seriously, no need to apologize. It’s hard to understand, on the outside looking in. But, we are all on the inside when it comes to posts like these. We understand completely.

/OOG

634

I’m not so sure it is a good idea to map out your play this far ahead. Right now, it reads to me that you think Ushi and Pleonast are equally scum. On paper, in terms of math, they would seem to be equal. Telegraphing apparent scum your votes is not good. If they are both scum, what is to stop the living scum from night killing you?

Yet, if indeed you are between two people again, perhaps you should ask which player has more experience. Which player is doing the most scummy things in this game?

And perhaps this last one is on me. I just can’t conceive of players having that much control over a game. You are building castles in the sky. That’s fine, it’s just that broadcasting them, perhaps isn’t a good idea. Things could still happen today, things could happen tomorrow. If you script your play this much, the fear is that someone will either trap, or ask you about it.

635

If I telegraph my moves clearly, I’m hoping that if I get night killed that it would provide further proof to lynch Pleo or maybe Ushi (depending on who lives through the day).

Actually, I don’t think that both are equally scum. Pleo gives off the stronger stench. However, Ushi’s death would give us more information about both fields (those that voted Ushi or voted Oredigger) than would Pleonast’s death. All Pleonast’s death can tell us is if he alone is scum. (I tried to show this with the illogic proof). He could have voted Oredigger for any reason. Granted it is helpful, but not as helpful as Ushi’s. I hope I made it clear in my previous post.

636

I’ve already explained:

To expand on it, the purpose of the lynch is to remove scum from the game and gather information. The best way to accomplish that is for every player to vote for whoever they think is most likely to be scum. That purpose is subverted when a player votes purely to save themself from the lynch.

Scum will of course do that, since avoiding the lynch is their primary motive. Town should not vote purely for self-preservation because 1) that means they’re not voting for who they think is most likely scum, thus defeating the purpose of voting, and 2) they are acting like scum. It’s a lot harder to tell scum from town if town is acting like self-interested scum. (The same reason we lynch liars.)

The only reason town might justify voting to save themself is if they have a power that’s absolutely worth preserving. (Again, just like there might be a reason for a power role to lie.)

Let’s look at Oredigger’s case. Here’s their last vote:

They don’t think ushi is scum, but they want to save themself. That’s exactly why scum vote. And if a player is going to act like scum, I’m going to vote for them like they are.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I’m short on time this morning, so might be a bit before I have time to post again.

637

How does this get us closer to finding scum?

According to your own hypothetical, his death would only give us the best information if he’s scum. Which, I note, you don’t believe he is.

Voting for someone you suspect is town is a pretty short-sighted venture. Your choice of words “most likely innocent” is what seals the deal for me.

Unvote Scuba_Ben
Vote Wolverine

Still haven’t had a chance to go and do that reread I want. Hopefully I’ll have more to add to the discussion later today.

638

I do want to add something I noticed last night on my iPhone, but due to hardware limitations didn’t feel like posting.

Post Editors:

Wolverine, post 235 - No reason given.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13363321&postcount=235

Idle Thoughts, post 263 - fixing quote tag. Makes a big deal about editing, which later posters comment upon. I’m noting this so that These are my own pants, who edits twice afterwards, can’t pretend to not know it was an issue.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13364886&postcount=263

These are my own pants, post 291 - fixing bold tag.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13365337&postcount=291

These are my own pants, post 622 - fixing quote tag.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13386172&postcount=622

Wolverine’s edit doesn’t seem egregious, and Idle’s edit revolves around defending himself, not case-making, so it seems slightly more innocent. Both of Pant’s posts involve case-making. I know from experience that my mistakes as scum came when building cases, and I would have loved to have edited out mistakes. I’m still feeling my current vote, but I wanted to add this information to the general group.

639

**Vote Count:

Ushimi(2): Chronos, Wolverine

Pleonast(4): Thesearemypants, Idle, Oneandonly, Meeko

Chipacabra(1): Suburban

Wolverine(1): Astral

Day ends in 3 days**

640

You’ve offered an explanation, but it still sounds very much post facto.

How can voting for yourself, knowing 100% you are town, against someone else (even if you suspect they may also be town, but in the first round of voting you are never goign to be much surer about this than pure chance). At this point there were only two candidate swho could conceivably be lynched.

Thsi brings me to my next point, if a town player makes a self-preservation vote it may (by your reasoning) by indicative to scum that they have a power role. So voting for a town player making a self-preservation vote for me is far more revealing than a town player making a self-preservation vote.