Strange? How so? I think my interpretation is perfectly logical.
Wow. That’s just… wow.
If you are just going to make up shit and assign that motivation to other players then there really isn’t anything anyone else can do. Are you even willing to look at OAOW’s actions as a Townie reacting to someone he thinks is scum?
What mistake? Not unvoting? I don’t even see that as a mistake. And why do you think he was expecting a mason claim? I see no reasoning for that. And if OAOW really was expecting a mason claim then I would guess he had an unvote ready since mason claims ARE VERIFIABLE. So he expects a mason claim, which would warrant an unvote, gets a constable claim, but makes the mistake of not unvoting? I just don’t get it.
Well, every prosecution deserves a defense. I’ve given mine for OAOW. I think the case against him is pure BS.
1a) Scum have no motivation to push storyteller into roleclaiming. They already knew he had a claimable role, and storyteller had announced that he was going to roleclaim. I don’t see any reason for scum to push for the roleclaim earlier. I do see a town reason to do so: to give storyteller less time to manufacture a fake claim. I don’t necessarily agree with this reasoning, but I do acknowledge it. In fact, I felt the same way at first.
1b) Holding OAOW’s pressure on storyteller as scummy only makes sense if storyteller is Town. We don’t know that! If storyteller is scum, would you still hold OAOW’s actions against him?
2) OAOW’s votes and unvotes make sense from the perspective of a Townie who is suspicious of storyteller. This idea that OAOW should have immediately unvoted storyteller as SOP is not correct. OAOW unvoted when a good reason for unvoting was presented.
3) OAOW was the first to unvote storyteller. He was not following the crowd or mood.
vote Blaster Master
for leading a really bad bandwagon.
This is the last I’m going to bother to respond to you on this point because, I’m not sure whether it’s intentional or not but, you’re obscenely obtuse.
The unvote may not be part of his reasoning explicitly, but it is a present factor nonetheless and one that cannot be ignored. The point is HE said he didn’t believe storyteller and he unvoted him. He then proceeded to FOS me for doing essentially the same thing (although, to be clear, I didn’t make a truth judgment about the claim, I made a statement about the informational entropy). Hence, I am being made to shoulder the blame for the unvoting him. IOW, he’s transfering his motivation unto me.
Because, you know, mafia never includes things like reading between the lines or interpretting motivations. Everything you need to know is in plain sight. :rolleyes:
What is left unsaid is just as important as what is said. For instance, let’s say someone attacks a scummy player. If he doesn’t have a good response to part of the argument, rather than giving a crappy reply which may get noticed, he gives no reply which may go unnoticed. Hence, his failure to address the fact that I saw great risk while expressing that I saw no discernable information in storyteller’s claim is an oversight at best, which it cannot be by now since I’ve mentioned it several times, or deliberate exclusion, which is very scummy.
Fine, don’t like my terminology, I really couldn’t care less. FWIW, it’s a term I came up with because it’s about as clear as it can get. Motivational transference is when someone tries to make it look like someone else who did something similar to you must have done it for the same reasons; hence, they’re transfering their motivation. It’s potentially pro-town motivated if someone assumes that they made that move for protown reasons, therefore someone else who did the same thing may have done it for bad reasons. It’s scummy when someone does the same thing as you, but you paint them to look like they did it for scummy reasons.
And, since you don’t like my terminology, this IS a phenomenon that is noteworthy in mafia, and if my terminology is “pop-psych phlegm”, as you call it, then what would you prefer I call it?
Also, for the record, you’re really coming off like a complete dick in your attacks on me. Being condescending and insulting my intelligence are beyond the scope of the game. So please stop.
How can we justify lynching OAOW before knowing storyteller’s alignment? I’m not saying we need to lynch storyteller Today, but doesn’t it make sense to hold off on killing OAOW until you know for sure that storyteller is or is not the constable?
To those voting for OAOW:
If storyteller were to turn up scum; how would that change your viewpoint of OAOW? Would it?
For my part, if storyteller becomes confirmed as the constable, my objections to a OAOW lynch would be reduced. I still would think that much of the case against him is BS, and I would argue he is a townie who made a mistake. But in those circumstances, the lynch would not be as glaring stupid.
It’s strange because you claim to be both prosecuting and defending, but this is the first post of any note that I’ve seen that isn’t defending whomever is under the eye of the town at the time
You’re absolutely right, I DON’T know what he was thinking, I’m guessing. The point is him not unvoting makes even LESS sense if he’s pro-town. The point was, his unvote was delayed, and I CAN come up with a scenario where it might happen if he were scum, but I cannot come up with one where the delay makes sense if he’s town.
And yes, I’ve explicitly gone over the potential townie perspectives. There’s 3 possibilities, the first two are clearly not true, and the third one makes no sense in the context of the other two not being true.
You’re sitting here saying I’m making stuff up, but what am I making up? You mentioned the information perspective (which, btw, I had already mentioned and discounted), and then you vote for me without addressing the rebuttal to the potential of information be his motivaiton.
Absolutely they do. Had he just alluded to it, but not stated it outright, providing they had caught it, they’d have no reason to draw him out. This is why I specifically asked him about that. Once the cat is out of the bag that his role is claimable, there’s no longer any benefit to town. As I pointed out, a mason claim is probably true, and we’re almost certainly going to unvote a Doc or Detective, so there’s absolutely zero pro-town motivation for pressuring a claim. However, that additional knowledge IS useful to scum. If he’s the Doc, they have a game of chicken to try to knock him off. If he’s the Detective, they need to try to discredit him so he’s not protected and they can kill him.
The motivation appears to make the most with OAOW’s being scum and storyteller either being town, or scum of the other faction. However, considering I find OAOW’s actions inconsistent with my expectations of how Dracula would play, and that a Detective claim is, eventually, a death setence for Dracula, I find it hard to believe either is Dracula. And, considering OAOW’s behavior is much more consistent with scum motivation than with town, I’m inclined to believe he is scum. storyteller’s actually alignment is irrelevant because we can evaluate all the possible scenarios without him being dead, and the most consistent one is with OAOW’s as scum.
Saying it again doesn’t make it any more true. The votes, in and of themselves, may be consistent with a townie. It’s the reasoning and the timing that are not. Also, your assessment of OAOW unvoting when a good reason is plain wrong. The good reason for him unvoting was presented the moment storyteller said he had a claimable role. I’m willing to forgive that much (his pressuring asside, for the moment), except that he didn’t unvote when he claimed Detective. There is absolutely zero townie reason to not unvote a claimed detective that early on Day One. There was no new informaiton presented in storyteller’s subsequent post, so saying he unvoted when a good reason was presented is a misrepresentation of the events, plain and simple.
Being the first to unvote is not a point for or against him. If he were town, fine, he should have unvoted him. The other point is, as scum, whether he waited to see that people would unvote him or he anticipated people would unvote him (as it’s the only reasonable thing a townie would do). IOW, the fact that he was the first unvote is purely a null tell.
Really? Going against your own advice even? {Emphasis mine}
So, OAOW’s aggressiveness is a sign of his towniness, but my aggressiveness is a sign of my scumminess?
You’re nothing if not contradictory, and at this point you’re right on OAOW’s tail as far as scummiest behavior goes.
The point is, we don’t need to know for sure what storyteller’s actual alignment is. We can evaluate the likelihood of the various scenarios without actually having to kill him. I have evaluated OAOW’s motivations from both a townie and scummy perspective, and I’ve already made the case for why I’ve discounted the potential townie motivations.
If storyteller is telling the truth or lying, we may not find out for Days. What you’re proposing here would essentially leave a second unknown variable in the town for that long as well. This increases the chaos reduces our information. What are we going to gain? And if we don’t lynch him, and we don’t lynch storyteller, then what? If someone presents a case good enough for me to unvote OAOW, at this point, my vote would go to you.
Well, then I won’t expect a response to this post. I’m sorry for being dickish. I get angry when I read your posts, but I can’t defend that or even clearly explain it.
Yes, but it also can’t just be assumed to be relevant. If you take it as given that there’s more to his reasoning than he says, you’re begging the question. We need to at least consider the possibility that his FOS was thrown for the reason he said it was.
(bolding mine)
No! Why do you keep saying this as though it’s accepted truth? Of course it’s possible that your unvote motivated his FOS, but it’s also possible that it didn’t! You need to present at least an argument for the former being more likely.
OK, now I get what you mean. But I still don’t see it happening. If he was trying to place the blame on you for an illogical unvote, don’t you think he would have at least mentioned your unvote?
Believe me, I’ve been reading plenty of ulterior motivations between the lines of certain people’s posts–yours, for example. What I don’t do is insist that the unstated motivation is the only possible one. You’ve now done that repeatedly, and I find it very suspicious.
But you would only expect him to address it if he were attacking your unvote on grounds of inconsistency, which he never claimed to be doing. You’re accusing him of failing to address something that is not relevant to his stated argument.
I think the whole concept is shaky. Why would someone assume that because they made a move for pro-town reasons, someone else did it for bad reasons? How can a fundamentally dishonest tactic be “potentially pro-town motivated”? And since characterizing other people’s actions as ill-motivated is what both town and scum always do, why is it a separate phenomenon when the action you’re characterizing is similar to one you yourself took? Frankly, although I’ve never played as scum, I would think that it would be a silly strategy to attack others for doing what you have done. When you can easily impute an ulterior motive to any of your opponents’ actions, why choose such an obviously illogical target?
I am keen on lynching a clean noser, and if the opportunity arises I’ll move my vote. I’m not constrained into voting solely for a clean noser. I don’t see why you think I should be. It is not as though all scum are going to be clean nosers; only that I expect some sub-set to behave that way.
And I’m not voting for you because you are being aggressive. I’m voting for you in a OMGUCPEMTBYSTB* sort of way.
*Oh my god, you can’t possibly expect me to believe you suck that bad
Blaster Master, so you are telling me, that if you knew right now that storyteller was 100% scum, that wouldn’t change your view on OAOW? You are perfectly fine believing that a scummy storyteller started a slow-evolving roleclaim and a scummy OAOW called him on it?
Okay. So Blaster Master and I won’t see eye-to-eye on this. I ask all others who are voting for OAOW to consider how much of their vote assumes storyteller is not scum. And how their view of OAOW would change if they knew storyteller was scum.
Coupla busy days at work where I was able to read the thread, but stuff I was going to comment on already got commented on, so I let them pass. Today I was at a spa and just got home.
I’m a little miffed that my comment and query re Fruedian Slit has been summarily ignored, so I also didn’t feel the great need to run my yap if no one is listening.
Re storyteller, I picked up on his slip as soon as I read it, commented on it, and waited to see what unfolded. I am believing his claim for now because there might be something we don’t know about his role as Constable. Could it possibly have secret information about the number of scum? I think it’s highly possible. I can’t shake the feeling that there is a whole lot more to this game than we were given. Maybe he had perfect information, but is not scum.
Even before the current **OAOW ** suspicion, he was slightly pinging my radar. Nothing I could pin down, but then the aggressivness toward **storyteller ** was…well, telling.
I’m leaning toward a vote for **OAOW ** at this point.
Of course not. But the question was whether we’d prefer to lynch Dracula or a Wolf toDay or toMorrow. In other words, to have that scenario we’d have to have certain knowledge of one Wolf.
As I said before, at this point you may as well lynch me. But do me a favour. When I come up town, dig through today. There is a wealth of infomration here. Story should be lynched tomorrow unles he provides a guilty. That is all.
Okay, I’m probably a “lurker” to all the standards floating around so I want to comment on this.
I’m aware that I have a lower post count than the more prolific and wordy posters that play in Mafia games. But honestly I’m just not capable of verbal diarrhea, so to speak. I don’t like the idea that if I don’t post X amount of times a Day, I’m going to be considered a lurker even if all my posts have been substantial. To me, a lurker is somebody who reads everything and chooses not to comment on anything and just let things be. On the other hand, I’ll read everything and if I find something to comment on, I’ll comment on it. But I don’t see the point of adding posts to my post count by either repeating things I’ve already said or other people have said. For example, if there’s a discussion going on between two posters, I’m not going to butt into it unless somebody says something particular scummy.
On that note:
Sachertorte vs. Blaster Master is making my head hurt. I feel like Blaster Master is being his usual self, aggressively defending his stance and putting forward lots of words and explanations as to his opinion. Not bad, just Blammy. Sachertorte seems very focused on defending OAOW. He seems like he’s setting himself up for an “I told you so” moment if OAOW is lynched and turns up town. It’s almost like he’s put forth more effort in proving that he thinks OAOW is town than putting out ideas on who is scum.
The problem is, I agree in that I don’t think OAOW is scum. Some of his actions have been aggressive and could be construed as scummy, but there are certain actions I think lead more to a town tell than a scum tell. First of all, as he’s pretty much set on his deathbed right now, he’s done a very townie thing by listing who he thinks he is suspicious and scummy. Now granted, all the people he thinks are scummy are voting for him at the moment, but at least he’s putting it out there. Second, he said this:
Then later says:
This could be more WIFOM than conclusive evidence, but he says “scum aren’t just going to give up” and then proceeds to say “go ahead and lynch me.” You can debate that five ways from Sunday but it’s of my opinion that, according to OAOW’s mindset, he’d try to claim something like “Mason” if he were scum to possibly buy him more time or at least possibly try to out the real masons. Hell, he could even ALSO claim detective like storyteller did and cause a serious mindfuck. Pardon my french.
Finally, I feel the lynch is too perfect right now. Nobody’s really put up any solid arguments against anybody other than OAOW. Sure, storyteller is up there as suspicious but nobody wants to lynch him toDay, we’re waiting until tomorrow at the very least. OAOW hasn’t had a slip or anything to cause this overwhelming unanimous lynch train. People who are hypothesizing low amounts of scum…do you really think the other scum would just give up on OAOW this quickly if they have a short amount to begin with? I know in the two games on the other board where they nailed scum on the first Day, the votes were rather close. In Asylum Lane I think it was something like 8-5-4, and in Batman it was 6-4-4. I would think that if OAOW truly is scum, there would have been more of an effort to try and get a different lynch going.
So I’m not going to join up in voting for OAOW. However, I do need to vote for somebody, so I think I’m going to follow up on my earlier FOS and:
Vote Freudian Slit
Her “I dunno, I might be pro-vampire” could be a wolf ploy. Plus to me, her vote on OAOW of all of them seems the most "me too"ish, aside from Hal’s who considerably piqued my radar by disappearing for several Days only to jump on the leading votewagon.
Phew, that took a lot longer than I expected. I blame my ADD and wandering away from the computer at inopportune times.
Just as a heads up, I’m going to be on vacation in Florida from Friday until next Saturday. I’m going to be taking my laptop with me and hopefully catching a decent wireless signal so I can keep up with the game. Otherwise I’ll be sure to check in via internet cafe or something similar.
On catching up, I just want to say how way out in left field it seems **sachertorte ** is right now, compared to how logical and spot on he’s been before. His arguments with Blaster Master and odd defense of **OAOW ** is out of character.
I’ve been thinking a bit about the actual probability of storyteller0910’s claim being true.
There has been some disagreement over whether the original slip was a scum tell. Let’s assume for a moment that it is a null tell, i.e. a townie has the same chance of making that slip as a baddie. In that case, the pressure that was brought to bear on storyteller could just as likely have fallen on any other player, right? We can consider story to have been basically chosen at random from the entire group. Now if you choose any one player at random, which is more likely–that that player turns out to be a Constable, or that that player turns out to be a Werewolf? The latter is slightly more likely, because even though we don’t know the numbers of each role, one would not expect more Constables than Werewolves. The odds of hitting any unconfirmable Town power role are probably no greater than the odds of hitting a Werewolf. So if you consider the slip a null tell, probability seems to argue that you should lean slightly in the direction of the claim being false.
This may be intuitive, but it is incorrect. The probability of storyteller being the constable may be P(d) = d/n [note: using d for detective, instead of c for constable for clarity later] (the number of constables divided by the number of players is his probability of being the constable), but that is not the same as the probability of his claim being true. What you really want to calculate is P(d|C(d)), that is the probability that he’s the constable given that he’s claimed it.
So, we can say that P(d|C(d)) = 0 if the player is pro-town and not the constable, as why would town lie? We can also say that P(d|C(d)) = 1 if the player IS the constable. The tricky part is what the probability is that scum would make the claim? I can go on and make guesses, but that’s kind of fruitless, so I’ll simply say, it’s definitely greater than 0, but probably substantially less than 1. Depending on what value assign to that, it could mean it’s highly probable to be true or that it’s highly probable to be false.
Oh, and thanks for affording me the opportunity to do some math. I’d have done more, but I’m on a time crunch.
But doesn’t the overall probability of his being the Constable have some relevance? I mean, supposing we were playing a game of Mafia with a million players, and we knew there were exactly 250 000 Mafia and 1 Detective. Wouldn’t it be logical to disbelieve any claim of Detective in that case, absent some very strong piece of evidence arguing in favor of the claim?
Not so much. I’m still of the mind that **Storyteller **and **Wanders **could be in on this together- ie: Both are scum, and by busing Wanders, **Story **might hope to gain credibility for his Detective claim. So I’m erring on the side of caution here- I have two suspicious players. One claims townie, the other cop. If both have a good likely hood of being scum, I will obviously vote for the Townie first, because it’s the SAFER Choice. The Cop I know is one of two things: He’s the Cop, or he’s the Scum. Period. He’s out in the open, there’s no need to “look around” for him or anything. If he’s a LIAR. Then we’ve got a REAL Cop out there that’s going to know this within the next 2-3 Days. So I’m content with lynching the “I’m just a simple townie (especially since most scum would totally false claim)” guy
-It’s safer in case I’m wrong. Vs. if I’m wrong about Story being scum and he’s the REAL cop.
-It’s also a false thing in my mind to say that everyone would false claim always- because if mafia always false claimed, it’d simply not work. I personally prefer to just claim ordinary Townie- less chances of a Vig or another role out there taking you out at night. However, early game- I expect Scum to false claim.
And I’m FINE with that. It buys them a day or two, but they’re out in the OPEN. We’ve got our own resources and we’ve got great suspects then- so I’m content with giving it a few Days to see what turns up. And I’m always of the mind that a lynch is better than a no-lynch. So of the two most suspicious, I will vote for the more suspicious one, and I will also factor in which is the “safer” choice- the guy who claims to be Town. Because hey, if he’s not lying, then he won’t hurt us as much by losing him and we can analyze just WHY he died.
-Actually, a note: If story gives us a RESULT tomorrow, I wouldn’t lynch him right away- confirmed townies are JUST as useful to us by a Real Cop. If we set ourselves onto a path like you’re advocating we’d be screwed if we didn’t consider all the facts that could be made to us.
-It’s advice like this that really makes me question your “helpfullness” as a townie. You’re very tunnel-visioned right now, and these “suggestions” you make don’t always seem thought all the way through, as you can see the flaws in them if you take the time to think about WHY that would be a bad course of action.
If story claims he’s role blocked at night- then Fine, we look at him harder, and consider there’s a scummy Miller out there, and we consider do we lynch him or not.
If he gives us a result though- that could mean he’s a liar, or he’s ACTUALLY the cop. In those cases, I’d be curious then to hear from counter-claims. But until then, I’m not just going to narrowmindedly lynch the Cop because he gave me a Not-Scum Result.
It’s true. I’m less believing of the idea that he’d claim Mason- as if he’s scum and TRYING to delay, that’s just a failed idea that wouldn’t work. Claiming cop and all- well that’s tricky. If story is a lying cop AND Wanders is a lying Wolf- two false claims would certainly muck up the Day. it’s a possibility. But I’m also going to note the WIFOM of “Scum aren’t just going to give up” and then the possibility of him just “giving up” as it were. It’s just as much WIFOM in claiming town as there is in claiming a Power role.
THIS however is perhaps the BEST defense of Wanders. Better than anything **Sach **has been going on with. Yours makes sense, and it IS something that worries me. It’s something I wondered about. I don’t trust storyteller much at all, but I don’t want to be the idiot townie that lynches the cop. So i’m willing to give HIM the time I need. However, **Wanders **will not clear **Story **in my book. Only **story **can clear **Story **in time. That or another cop saying Story’s clean. But i believe we DO need information. Hence a lynch. I believe **Wanders **has played the scummiest, but I’m worried that NO other candidates have been offered. If such is the case though, then I believe we should easily Look at WHO voted for **Wanders **and WHY then the next day if he comes up Town. The death of a Townie can still provide us with useful information. But your defense is noted, and it’s quite a good one.
I will add the comment, if I wasn’t voting for Wanders, I’d be voting for Sach as the 2nd most scummiest- because I still wouldn’t risk putting a claimed Cop up on the gallows just yet.
I completely agree with this. The **OAOW ** lynch is so far going too smoothly. **Sach ** is acting oddly, but for now I’m going to put some weight behind my suspicion of Freudian Slit if only to get someone else’s opinion.
