Lord of the Rings Mafia

[peekercpa]

ed what i was merely trying to get to was that the strategy from a non ed perspective is null. it may have done something for you but if did not advance the cause of town or give them a decided advantage it is meh. and i have made it abundantly clear that i play this game for my team to win.

so to some extent, using your analogy, did dawson do what he felt was in the best interest of team by parking one? i would think so. but did it have an impact on the outcome? in your analogy apparantly not. so would he have been better served by a different strategy. heck i don’t know. that’s all i was getting at.

and i don’t know if dawson plays for the cubs are not. i am not much a major league baseball fan - i follow the houston astros.

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

ed what i was merely trying to get to was that the strategy from a non ed perspective is null. it may have done something for you but if did not advance the cause of town or give them a decided advantage it is meh. and i have made it abundantly clear that i play this game for my team to win.

so to some extent, using your analogy, did dawson do what he felt was in the best interest of team by parking one? i would think so. but did it have an impact on the outcome? in your analogy apparantly not. so would he have been better served by a different strategy. heck i don’t know. that’s all i was getting at.

and i don’t know if dawson plays for the cubs are not. i am not much a major league baseball fan - i follow the houston astros.

But if you extend this towards judging other actions, then you’d be led to this conclusion.

Deciding if a doctor self-protecting on Day 1 is pro-Town or not by investigating the win-loos record of Town.

Deciding if an unprovoked mason claim on Day 5 is warranted by looking at the win-loss record of Town.

I think a better way is too look at the actual result.

In Princess Bride, we finished Day 1 with 2 Vanilla Town players confirmed as Town. That’s a positive result for the action regardless of the end result.

And, even if Andre Dawson’s homerun had no impact on the end result of the game, it doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have hit it. It’s ludicrous to suggest he should have done something else. Perhaps grounding into a double play would have helped the team more?

[oog] Dawson is retired and just recently entered the Hall of Fame. [/oog]

[Chronos]

I would say that a baseball player hitting a home run must certainly have a positive impact on the results of the game. It’s just that, depending on what all else happened in the game, it just might not have been enough of an impact.

[cucuy]

I’m not ready to accept Ed as scum because of the failed handshake. It’s possible that either a scum-Ed or a town-Ed would’ve done the same thing, with different intentions, so for me it’s a no-tell.

But Meeko’s comments have raised my suspicions.

@Meeko

Ok. So I’m totally not clear if I have to do this next part…
[COLOR**
Unvote All**[/COLOR]

Vote Ed

@Meeko

…
When does the failed Handshake make Ed Scum MVP? Assume for argument he is town, Even so, we must as town vote for the person being the most anti-town, correct?

Again, assuming Ed is Town. Which, I’m not so sure about. Obviously.

And this thing peeker hit on:

@peekercpa

and hoopy i am not going to forget about you either. i think you mentioned that if chupacabra flipped scum then that made a case for me. i’d kind of like to know your thought process about that puppy and what in the world you think now that chupacabra flipped town.

actually more than liking to know i would be absolutely fascinated to know.

I looked back at Hoopy’s previous posts and couldn’t find where he said that. I didn’t read all of peeker’s posts so it’s possible he might have suggested this and Hoopy replied back with something indifferent. I don’t know. I really rather not have to read through all of peeker’s posts. (Or Ed’s, for that matter.)

[peekercpa]

@Hoopy_Frood

But…if it’s any consolation to you, should Chip come up scum, you’re likely going to get my next vote. I’ve got some half-formed thoughts, but I need to think on them some more before I can present a clear case. Also, I don’t have time to elaborate a case right now anyway and will likely be unable to get on again before Day end. Plus, the case will probably fall apart if Chip is town.

<snipped>

@cucuy

I looked back at Hoopy’s previous posts and couldn’t find where he said that. I didn’t read all of peeker’s posts so it’s possible he might have suggested this and Hoopy replied back with something indifferent. I don’t know. I really rather not have to read through all of peeker’s posts. (Or Ed’s, for that matter.)

<snipped?

here ya go.

[cucuy]

Thanks peeker.

I’d like to hear what he has to say.

[Astral_Rejection]

@special_ed

Every time I was Town.

Did you use the powers section of your role PM to conduct the handshaking the 4 other times you tried it?

[peekercpa]

@special_ed

But if you extend this towards judging other actions, then you’d be led to this conclusion.

Deciding if a doctor self-protecting on Day 1 is pro-Town or not by investigating the win-loos record of Town.

Deciding if an unprovoked mason claim on Day 5 is warranted by looking at the win-loss record of Town.

I think a better way is too look at the actual result.

In Princess Bride, we finished Day 1 with 2 Vanilla Town players confirmed as Town. That’s a positive result for the action regardless of the end result.

<and once again i am removing my original quote for brevity’s sake>

<and snipped>

but if it could be established through some sort of analysis that a certain action resulted in a statistically valid advantage for town would you not agree that would be a path that might very well be suggested? so using your example if i were to look at 4 games and see that unprovoked mason claims on Day 5 always results in a town victory i could definitely get behing a suggestion that town pursue an unprovoked mason claim on Day 5.

[Drain_Bead]

Can someone, preferably someone who is currently voting for him or voted for him before, tell me what the case against ed is besides the terrible, horrible, no-good idea he had on Night Zero? Or is that it?

[Chronos]

My case is based primarily on his vote for peeker near the end of Day 1. Basically, after he concluded that handshaking had failed, he voted for peeker based on a lack of handshake.

[Meeko]

@cucuy

But Meeko’s comments have raised my suspicions.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here.

[Meeko]

@special_ed

@Meeko

When does the failed Handshake make Ed Scum MVP? Assume for argument he is town, Even so, we must as town vote for the person being the most anti-town, correct?

Again, assuming Ed is Town. Which, I’m not so sure about. Obviously.

oh crap! When did they change the rules?

I thought we won when we eliminated the Scum!

Would you hand Peeker a loaded gun?

[Meeko]

NETA: You aren’t confirmed Ed. I don’t see Voting for you and eliminating Scum as mutually exclusive.

[special_ed]

@Chronos

I would say that a baseball player hitting a home run must certainly have a positive impact on the results of the game. It’s just that, depending on what all else happened in the game, it just might not have been enough of an impact.

true, which is why you cannot judge a mafia game action’s success by the won-loss record of the person trying it.

That said, I think no one would argue that I hit into a triple play while trying to hit a home run in this game.

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

@special_ed

But if you extend this towards judging other actions, then you’d be led to this conclusion.

Deciding if a doctor self-protecting on Day 1 is pro-Town or not by investigating the win-loos record of Town.

Deciding if an unprovoked mason claim on Day 5 is warranted by looking at the win-loss record of Town.

I think a better way is too look at the actual result.

In Princess Bride, we finished Day 1 with 2 Vanilla Town players confirmed as Town. That’s a positive result for the action regardless of the end result.

<and once again i am removing my original quote for brevity’s sake>

<and snipped>

but if it could be established through some sort of analysis that a certain action resulted in a statistically valid advantage for town would you not agree that would be a path that might very well be suggested? so using your example if i were to look at 4 games and see that unprovoked mason claims on Day 5 always results in a town victory i could definitely get behing a suggestion that town pursue an unprovoked mason claim on Day 5.

And that would be simply silly.

It’s almost like you’re saying that having 2 Vanillas confirmed as Town on Day 1 isn’t worthwhile unless statistics show that Town wins more games when that happens given a ridiculously small sample size.

[Astral_Rejection]

There’s a lot about ed that pings me the wrong way. This is a list of some of the things I’ve found scummy about him from throughout the game.

1. He started the handshaking business in a way that explicitly outs power roles.
2. He sprung the “gotcha!” on Chronos in a nonsensical way
3. I can’t reconcile his self-proclaimed experience with handshaking with the haphazard way he went about it.
4. Inconsistencies in his responses. For instance:

@Astral_Rejection

I was rereading Ed’s posts, and I found this:

@special ed

Yes, but we’ve already determined that the handshaking was worthless, yes? So his having the Town win condition means…oh yeah, nothing.

Except we hadn’t determined that at the time you made your comments. You won’t decide that the handshake is worthless for another two pages. Your explanation is an attempt to revise what happened in a more pro-special ed light.

5a) His vote for Peeker as explained by Chronos.
5b) His reasons for voting for people in general. Chronos explains it perfectly:

@Chronos

peeker unvoted in 856, but I am still voting special ed.

Quoth ed:

I suppose it might have been polite for me to unvote you.

I didn’t. I did wait until I had decided on who to vote for.

Is that a Scum tell too now?

Not only did you wait until you had decided whom else to vote for, even then you didn’t make any mention of the fact that your previous vote reasons were gone. The way you did it looked like “I’m still suspicious of Chronos, but I’m even more suspicious of peeker”, not “I’m no longer suspicious of Chronos”. And yes, casting undue suspicion on someone where you don’t actually think it’s warranted is a Scum tell.

Honestly, it looks to me like with both me and peeker (both of us folks that it’s been easy to get a bandwagon going on in the past), you first decided whom you wanted to vote for, and then went looking for reasons. Your current reasons for voting peeker are that you think without any actual evidence that he hasn’t seen the vanilla PM, that you think for some bizarre reason that not being vanilla is a lynchable offense, and that he’s not playing the same way he did the last time he was Scum (this last reason you’re now trying to claim is the primary one, even though you never mentioned it in your vote post). None of those is a good reason for lynching someone. In fact they’re all good reasons for not lynching someone.

6. I feel that a lot of his responses strike me as scummy. This reason shouldn’t influence anyone but me, but it’s one of my reasons for voting for him. His reactions to other posts seem ‘off’ in some way to me. This one is hard to quantify but worth mentioning.

None are unassailable smoking guns; this game would be too easy if I could find those. However, more than any other player in this game, I feel that special ed is scum. And so, I’m voting for him.

[special_ed]

@Meeko

@special_ed

oh crap! When did they change the rules?

I thought we won when we eliminated the Scum!

Would you hand Peeker a loaded gun?

WI see, so you’re comparing the damage I’ve done in this game with the damage peeker did as a Vig in a previous game.

However, killing me won’t undo my damage. It will only reduce our mislynches by 1.

And, additionally, I think you would have met with the same resistance had you tried to kill peeker the Vig in colorless.

[special_ed]

@Meeko

NETA: You aren’t confirmed Ed. I don’t see Voting for you and eliminating Scum as mutually exclusive.

OK, but when you say that assuming that Ed is Town he still must be lynched, isn’t the same as saying you think I’m Scum.

[Astral_Rejection]

NETA: My first spoiler got messed up, and I snipped part of it on accident. If you click on the arrow, you can go to the post and see how it really looked.

[Doctor_Who]

Ok guys - first a little OOG admin: I am working like a dog this weekend and I have very limited access to the internet while at work. My last day of work is Monday and I have Tuesday through Thursday off so I can devote a significantly greater amount of time to the game after Monday. Until then, I will try to post at night when I get home (like this) but it’s definitely tough to focus when I’m so exhausted. For you guys, I shall do my very best. On to the game:

I see the case developing against Special Ed and I agree with it. I had similar suspicions about Ed while following along with the game. BUT I am not going to cast my vote until I have done a more critical re-read. The fact is that I read the first two days on the outside. No notes. No in-depth analysis. I am not going to cast my vote until I have re-examined the first two Days with a much more critical eye.

But as I said, I do agree with the case against Ed: We have lost two town power roles. And who openly led the campaign that outed them? Ed. There’s just too much smoke for me. Right off hand, in post #124, he plays a little gotcha ya on Chronos leading directly to Chronos’s claim. Then, as another example, in post #1380, he talks about how Chip seemed to out himself as vanilla. The focus on discovering who is and who ain’t vanilla has been devastating to town and is just scummy. The thing is the scum know everyone’s alignment, but they don’t know our roles. When we start needlessly role-fishing and role-claiming, it allows them to narrow things down and execute our power roles.

Changing the subject: @ Peeker - In post #1823, after I subbed in, you said “and heaven help us if what i think just happened, happened.” After my post, you posted “oh fucking hell, it’s what i thought.” (post #1825) Can you explain these posts please?

Finally, in my re-read, I am going to be taking a hard look at anyone who I perceive to be low-participation, low-content players. With the torrent of posts and overwhelming pace of this game so far, I would be very surprised if there was not one or more scum lying low.

…

On preview: in 1825, Ed says “However, killing me won’t undo my damage. It will only reduce our mislynches by 1.” Explain yourself. This looks like a slip to me. Don’t you mean it will only increase our mislynches by 1?