Mafia: Cecilvania [Game Over]

[ShadowFacts]

@sachertorte

I’m troubled by storyteller.

OK, so here is where I put my tinfoil hat on, because this post by sach set off some alarms in my head. I admit up front that these alarms are based on pure speculation, but I’m going to lay them out anyway and you can decide if I’m nuts.

Let’s assume for the moment that storyteller is the Constable. If so, scum are in a bit of a bind – they want to kill him, of course, to prevent investigations, but there is probably a Physick and that person cannot protect themselves, so storyteller is the likely person to protect. Do they risk a kill attempt that would be blocked or do they try to find the Doctor? This problem for them is good for us. (Last night, obviously, they did not try to kill storyteller, but we can’t draw any conclusions from that, I don’t think.)

Their optimal plan of action would be to get us to lynch him, and that’s where sach’s post comes in, because it’s a perfect doubt-seeding post that subtly advocates for a story lynch without openly calling for it. In fact, the pros and cons construction gives it a very balanced appearance, and sach is careful not to come to a conclusion either way, but there are several anti-story insinuations in there, and the whole thing gave me the willies (or is it the scummies?) He starts with:

@sachertorte

I’m troubled by storyteller. His lack of participation Yesterday and the holiday reduced Day Today is making analysis of storyteller quite difficult.

Right off the bat, there is a (totally valid) criticism of his participation level. Valid point, yes, but right at the start story is already put on the wrong foot.

@sachertorte

If this were a more standard game, like the original M1 or Simpletown, then leaving storyteller alive would be the optimal play. However, the existence of scum power-roles in the game setup makes storyteller a potential scum power-role. Allowing a scummy storyteller powerrole to live hurts the town, especially if storyteller is the scout.

As he said, normally the best play is to let the powerful claimee live while the claim is evaluated, as the risk of lynching the power role is too great and false claims will eventually be sniffed out. However, he implies that this may not be the case in this game, and plants that seed that story may be the scout, and thus it might be better to lynch him. Again, there’s nothing wrong with the logic here – obviously if story is the scout, it would be best to lynch him, but there’s no possible way to know if story is or is not the scout without lynching him (aside from a competing Constable claim, of course), and no reason offered why we should think he might be the scout, other than that he might be.

Then come the various cases, which are logical and look correct to me. Then there is this:

@sachertorte

In my view, allowing storyteller to live might give the town more readings, but it might also enable scum to find the town powerroles faster. There is no obvious advantage to either course of action.

Here I disagree strongly. There is a HUGE disadvantage to us if we lynch our Constable rather than making scum try to kill him. Additionally, we have almost no info at this point, so the value of a potential Constable (the only role from which we can get info other than lynching) is far greater than the risk of leaving a (potential) Scout alive.

Next comes this:

@sachertorte

I’m skeptical that there is no roleblocker. The possibilities as I see them:
No roleblocker - storyteller could be town or scum
Roleblocker - storyteller could be town and scum chose not to block him or storyteller is scum
My expectation was that there is a roleblocker in the game.

Note the bolded part and see what sach did here. Under his scenario, *if *there is a roleblocker, there are two options: 1 – story is town and scum chose not to block him (which I think we can all agree is extremely unlikely) or 2 – story is scum. And the kicker, of course, is that sach thinks there is a roleblocker, as he said twice. Therefore……. story must be scum, right? Isn’t that the plain implication of what sach is proposing? He doesn’t spell it out, but it’s right there when put that way - either scum are crazy/stupid, or story is scum.

Put it all together, and you have a post that appears on its face to be very balanced and logical, but actually quite subtly advocates for a story lynch by doing the following:
[ul]
[li]mild criticism of story’s participation level[/li][li]speculation (with no evidence) that story is the Scout[/li][li]speculation (with no evidence) that there is an Alchemist in the game, so story must be scum since if he was town, he would have been blocked[/ul][/li]So what do we have here? Do we have a scummy sachertorte who went out of his way to defend townie OAOW yesterday, gaining townie cred, then subtly and craftily proposes that we can’t afford to let story live today? Or is this a balanced, reasoned analysis by a townie troubled by story’s claim?

I really don’t know yet, to be honest. It seems like a pretty scummy construction to me, but every time I think that, I also think I might be jumping at shadows here. I’m not going to vote for sach right now, but I will say this: I think it is decidedly NOT in the town’s interest to do the scum’s work for them and kill storyteller at this point, and I think those who advocate that position better have a really, really good reason for doing so. And I’ll be watching sach very closely now.

[sachertorte]

Who said I wanted to lynch storyteller? I said I want to scrutinize storyteller; but there is little to scrutinize. Sheesh. Look at the common themes of my advocacy Yesterday and Today. I want people to think.

Also, I don’t get what you are saying about my roleblocker comments. By including the possibility that there is a roleblocker and scum chose not to block storyteller yields an additional instance of storyteller being town, not the other way around. Obviously if there is a roleblocker, storyteller could be scum. Yes, I think a roleblocker is a good game balancing element; but I don’t see how that shades my points in a “I really want to lynch storyteller” way. If I wanted to do that, I’d leave off the scum choosing to block someone else possibility entirely.

So I’m going to play the super scummy card of look at the dead people:
OAOW was crazy suspicious of storyteller.
Roosh was suspicious of storyteller too.

I publicly state without remorse, that I, sachertorte, am suspicious of storyteller.
Quite frankly, everyone else ought to be too.

[Koldanar]

@sachertorte

Who said I wanted to lynch storyteller? I said I want to scrutinize storyteller; but there is little to scrutinize. Sheesh. Look at the common themes of my advocacy Yesterday and Today. I want people to think.

Also, I don’t get what you are saying about my roleblocker comments. By including the possibility that there is a roleblocker and scum chose not to block storyteller yields an additional instance of storyteller being town, not the other way around. Obviously if there is a roleblocker, storyteller could be scum. Yes, I think a roleblocker is a good game balancing element; but I don’t see how that shades my points in a “I really want to lynch storyteller” way. If I wanted to do that, I’d leave off the scum choosing to block someone else possibility entirely.

So I’m going to play the super scummy card of look at the dead people:
OAOW was crazy suspicious of storyteller.
Roosh was suspicious of storyteller too.

I publicly state without remorse, that I, sachertorte, am suspicious of storyteller.
Quite frankly, everyone else ought to be too.

In my mind, I want to let him go another day, and see what we get. Let me see if I can think this through, and post again in the future about it…I want to work out scenarios with another day in and another investigation and lynching story or not. I think I made it clear yesterday that I’m suspicious of the situation with my noting of ‘slip’ before; while it wasn’t the correct way to say it, I was doubting (and still do doubt) the whole situation.

Back in #657, it was pointed out that WF Tomba isn’t reacting well to some of the questioning of his posts, whether the subject is dead or not. I want to go back and look at what he’s said during this game and see if there isn’t something there.

[ShadowFacts]

@sachertorte

Who said I wanted to lynch storyteller?

My point was that you impied that we should without actually saying it. That was part of my problem.

@sachertorte

Also, I don’t get what you are saying about my roleblocker comments. By including the possibility that there is a roleblocker and scum chose not to block storyteller yields an additional instance of storyteller being town, not the other way around. Obviously if there is a roleblocker, storyteller could be scum. Yes, I think a roleblocker is a good game balancing element; but I don’t see how that shades my points in a “I really want to lynch storyteller” way. If I wanted to do that, I’d leave off the scum choosing to block someone else possibility entirely.

Let me try to explain myself better. This is how I took that section of your argument:

1. If there is no roleblocker, last night’s actions (or inactions, really) don’t give us any information, therefore story could equally be town or scum [I agree with this]
2. If there is a roleblocker, there are two options:
   a. story is town, but scum chose not to block him
   b. story is scum
   My point here is that, as Nanook has posted already and I think you might agree, scum would have to be complete boobs not to block him last night if they could. Therefore, under your stated logic, the only logical conclusion is that, if there is a roleblocker, story is scum.
3. You stated twice you think there is a roleblocker.

So, you didn’t say story was scum, but adding up 1, 2 & 3 strongly implies it. In fact, it pretty much necessitates it.

Is that clearer? Do you see why I don’t like it?

@sachertorte

So I’m going to play the super scummy card of look at the dead people:
OAOW was crazy suspicious of storyteller.
Roosh was suspicious of storyteller too.

'Nuff said, I guess. I agree that this is a classic scum tactic, but I don’t hold it against you.

@sachertorte

I publicly state without remorse, that I, sachertorte, am suspicious of storyteller.
Quite frankly, everyone else ought to be too.

Good. I am suspicious of his claim, too, but believe strongly that we should keep him alive for now.

[sachertorte]

@ShadowFacts

Is that clearer? Do you see why I don’t like it?

But what the fuck would you have me say instead?

[Nanook_of_the_North_Shore]

@sachertorte

I don’t completely disagree with Nanook, but I think he’s underestimating the danger of the scout. He seems to think that the delay between the scout investigating and the scum killing a powerrole mitigates the danger. It does, but not nearly to the extent Nanook implies. If the scout investigated a powerrole last night, scum are going to kill that powerrole Tonight regardless of whether or not we lynch the scout Today. (I’m sure the scum know who the scout investigated and set up a signal to transmit the investigation result sometime during the day).

Ok, that’s fair enough. I hadn’t considered that angle, which was just silly of me since I read all of Batman where the Masons used such a system. However, I think you might be overestimating the usefulness of such a system. In Batman, the system didn’t work all that well, to the point where NAF had to come in and give up his powers for a Day in order to clear up all sorts of confusion among the rank and file Masons. There was also the other game, I want to say it was Conspiracy and the Witches, where such a code was set up to relay night results. That one worked, but only by pure blind luck, since the person relaying the information screwed up and didn’t follow it correctly. It worked out, since the code the player inadvertently sent was correct, but you can’t count on such a thing.

[sachertorte]

N.B. despite the expletive that was meant as a serious question.

[Nanook_of_the_North_Shore]

Time to get at least a prelimenary vote in. WF Tomba is definately pinging me, for many of the same reasons others have outlined. I’m not however voting for him right now, so I won’t go over them at the present time.

The person I’m voting for is Hal Briston. I have no read on him one way or the other. The reason for this is that he’s made the bare minimum number of posts to stay in the game. This is in itself something of a null tell, since both town and scum are known to lurk. However, when you combine the lurking with posts like this one, number 447.

@Hal Briston

The hell? I made a nice, long, substantive post (with a vote) yesterday, but it would seem that it became hamster chow without my realizing it. Crap.

Well, the short version of it was my suspicion that OAOW played storyteller to the hilt, his actions simply reeked of a scum ploy to me, and it ended with:
Vote OAOW

Now that I’ve got that back on the record, I’m going to catch up on what’s happened since then. Updates/revisions to follow.

He says he’d be back later with updates/revisions. That was roughly 26 hours before the Day ended. He never returned that Day. Today he only has one post, the following.

It won’t be until after the holiday weekend, but yeah, I’ll get off my duff and participate more this Day, including whipping up a vote chart.

Another promise for more information and content at some later date.

When you combine the drive by pile on the OAOW bandwagon, with next to no justification, with the repeated promises of content that are not delivered on, I think we’re looking at a wolf trying to play the under the radar card. And doing a fairly good job of it, since he’s gotten very little heat.

Vote Hal Briston

[ShadowFacts]

@sachertorte

But what the fuck would you have me say instead?

Well, I don’t want you to say anything. But let me re-state something from my original post about you:

@me

Their optimal plan of action would be to get us to lynch him, and that’s where sach’s post comes in, because it’s a perfect doubt-seeding post that subtly advocates for a story lynch without openly calling for it.

My whole point was that it seems to me that you created a very logical-sounding post that did not advocate any specific course of action, and seemed to encourage people to think and draw their own conclusions. But in reality the post was not a balanced analysis, but rather was leading us down the garden path (via innuendo and assumption) to the conclusion that story is scum. That suggested to me that the intent of the post was dishonest (I hope you don’t take that the wrong way, since you seem to be a little hot under the collar - nothing personal!).

[sachertorte]

I question the notion that I’m being subtle about anything. I think I’m being blatantly transparent, which is kind of the point.

Yes, I think everyone needs to think and draw their own conclusions.
Yes, I stated what I think (about storyteller).
No, I haven’t drawn a conclusion about storyteller.
Yes, I think a roleblocker makes sense for this game.
but No, I don’t know that there is a roleblocker.
So a conclusion about storyteller based on the existence/non-existence of roleblockers is premature.

Don’t you think a discussion about storyteller would be helpful regardless of storyteller’s alignment?
Do you think it possible that by stifling a call for discussion, we’re now dead in the water?
If, as you suggest, that scum will try and get a townie storyteller lynched, wouldn’t you like to see them try?
Would you be suspicious of storyteller if no one tried?
Don’t you think that maybe you are falling into the trap of framing actions in a ‘scum would do that because’ without acknowledging the pro-town reasons for the same thoughts?

If you wanted to trap scum, you should have let the discussion continue further*. I’m not saying that you are scum for smushing the discussion, just that timing is very important to the game. You could have waited to call me out on my suggestions until later, it is not as though storyteller was in danger of being lynched; but now we are left with even less to discuss.

*as a side note: I realized this timing issue after the “no scout” Fretful Porpentine incident. I was kicking myself for jumping in so quickly and aggressively. I should have stated my side more matter-of-factly and let the opposing ideas take root and see if more people would comment on it before stomping on it. Not that doing so would necessarily yield information, but it could have. And by stomping the discussion out information clearly was not going to happen. Bad me.
Of course I’m probably being overly idealistic in thinking that people would actually comment on these things instead of completely ignore the game as is more typical.

[ShadowFacts]

@sachertorte

I question the notion that I’m being subtle about anything. I think I’m being blatantly transparent, which is kind of the point.

Fair enough. I’ve stated my case pretty clearly I think - others can decide for themselves. Now, your questions:

@sachertorte

Don’t you think a discussion about storyteller would be helpful regardless of storyteller’s alignment?

Yes, I agree, and I thought that’s what we were doing.

@sachertorte

Do you think it possible that by stifling a call for discussion, we’re now dead in the water?

I don’t think I’m stifling anything. If it weren’t for me and you, there would be almost no discussion happening at all today. I also do not agree that we are now dead in the water.

@sachertorte

If, as you suggest, that scum will try and get a townie storyteller lynched, wouldn’t you like to see them try?

That’s what I thought I was (am?) seeing!

@sachertorte

Would you be suspicious of storyteller if no one tried?

I continue to be suspicious of storyteller regardless of what others are doing.

@sachertorte

Don’t you think that maybe you are falling into the trap of framing actions in a ‘scum would do that because’ without acknowledging the pro-town reasons for the same thoughts?

Yes, I think that is possible. I acknowledged it in my initial post, and that is one of the reasons that I haven’t voted for you.

@sachertorte

If you wanted to trap scum, you should have let the discussion continue further*. I’m not saying that you are scum for smushing the discussion, just that timing is very important to the game. You could have waited to call me out on my suggestions until later, it is not as though storyteller was in danger of being lynched; but now we are left with even less to discuss.

Again, I am not “smushing” discussion and I don’t know why you keep saying that I am. Please let me know where I’ve suggested anyone should not discuss storyteller (or anything else, for that matter). You may be right about jumping the gun, though. I’m not much of a “trapper,” I’ve found. I generally go after things as I see them. That might be a flaw in this case, or not. It is Tuesday, and not particularly early in the day.

@sachertorte

Of course I’m probably being overly idealistic in thinking that people would actually comment on these things instead of completely ignore the game as is more typical.

I share your ennui about the level of participation so far.

BTW, if you are feeling “dead in the water,” feel free to check out my massive post dissecting the OAOW voters. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on some of those candidates., particularly since you were #1 at hounding them yesterday.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Nanook of the North Shore

When you combine the drive by pile on the OAOW bandwagon, with next to no justification, with the repeated promises of content that are not delivered on, I think we’re looking at a wolf trying to play the under the radar card. And doing a fairly good job of it, since he’s gotten very little heat.

Vote Hal Briston

I’m not sure there’s any good reason to vote for Hal, though…he’s often been quiet in the past, as I recall, and it has been over the long weekend. I don’t see this as a wolf flying under the radar, but just as him being quiet due to business, etc.

[sachertorte]

@ShadowFacts

BTW, if you are feeling “dead in the water,” feel free to check out my massive post dissecting the OAOW voters. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on some of those candidates., particularly since you were #1 at hounding them yesterday.

I believe Nanook of the North Shore and Blaster Master were the only ones to respond to my “hounding” Yesterday. The rest pretty much ignored me.
Still seem to be ignoring any questioning of OAOW lynch motive.

The problem is NINE people voted for OAOW. Too much town cover. And many of them gave bullshit reasons for voting for OAOW (including Roosh)… again too much cover.

Personally, I’d like to lynch the lot of them for playing badly.
Though Nanook has been playing earnestly. So either he’s a good scum playing the game and putting himself out there, or he’s a good townie playing the game and putting his ideas out for all to see. Either way, I’m inclined to reward Nanook for actually playing and not lynch him.

I’ve become much less interested in playing to win and more interested in sparking good game play.

Oooh look! A Shark.

[sachertorte]

@ShadowFacts

I’m not going to vote for sach right now, but I will say this: I think it is decidedly NOT in the town’s interest to do the scum’s work for them and kill storyteller at this point, and I think those who advocate that position better have a really, really good reason for doing so. And I’ll be watching sach very closely now.

BTW, you may not want to think that this stifles discussion, but it does. Basically, you’re saying you’ll be suspicious of anyone who dares consider that we should lynch storyteller.
How is that not stifling?

[ShadowFacts]

@sachertorte

BTW, you may not want to think that this stifles discussion, but it does. Basically, you’re saying you’ll be suspicious of anyone who dares consider that we should lynch storyteller.
How is that not stifling?

Hmm, you’re right - it does read that way, although that was not my intent. Please allow me to restate: I think it is decidedly not in the town’s interest to lynch storyteller today. If others think differently, please convince me with specific reasons.

@sachertorte

I’ve become much less interested in playing to win and more interested in sparking good game play.

I don’t think these goals are mutually exclusive, so if you’re Town, please don’t stop trying to win.

[NAF1138]

Day 2 Vote Count (as of Post 676)

1- Hal Briston (Nanook)

No Current Vote: Fretful Porpentine, Blaster Master, storyteller, Freudian Slit, Koldanar, Hal Briston, Darth Sensitive, Pollux Oil, Hockey Monkey, Santo Rugger, DiggitCamara, ShadowFacts, WF Tomba, sachertorte

You all know that the Day ends on Thursday right? 45 hours and 20 minutes from now, give or take?

If you do, then don’t mind me. If you didn’t, then consider this your reminder.

Also, not everyone has met the minimum posting threshold. In fact several someones haven’t. Pollux Oil is only semi exempt since I know for a fact that he has some limited net access.

Post more, or there will be a lot of death come morning.

[Hal_Briston]

Ok, prelim vote chart is up. Unfortunately, it does not contain the Day 1 individual votes, just the final results. There were instances of unvotes not matching up with votes (ones that I must’ve missed when creating the list, not that they weren’t cast in the first place), which caused me to ditch the entire day and start again with Day 2. I may go back at some point and patch Day 1 back in there, but no guarantees. Our tag-teaming scum-suspects can make of that what they will.

If our mod would like to add http://www.sirblah.com/misc/cecilvania.htm to his sig list, go right ahead.

[Blaster_Master]

@Nanook of the North Shore

Bolding mine. I’m not sure what we can assume about CIAS(now Santo) if story comes up wolf. It certainly seems like a great way to sow some WIFOM for the town by naming someone town. Did he name a townie as such to gain cred? Or did he name a wolf town in order to protect them? Impossible to say short of death or reinvestigation by the real detective.

Sadly, if storyteller IS scum, it tells us precisely nothing about Santo. Trying to figure anything else out of it at this point is an exercise in futility.

If story is telling the truth, then there is definately not an alchemist. The wolves would be morons to not block him last Night. It prevents an investigation, and most likely would have resulted in story being lynched toDay, both of which are very favorable outcome for the furry ones. Does this mean there’s definately a scout then? It seems very likely, though not guaranteed. Either there’s a scout, or there’s a lot more wolves than we expected(like 5, rather than 3-4), or there’s a more normal number of wolves(say 4) and no or next to no town power roles. I can’t see our illustrious mods making the flavor and rules text for the Scout, Alchemist and town roles and then not including at least some of them. Therefore, if story is telling the truth, I’d say it’s >90% likely there’s a scout.

I will agree that it’s a safe bet that there is no Alchemist if storyteller is telling the truth. I also don’t think that it necessarily means that there is a scout, but I do think it makes it more likely. Either way, until we have evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to make assumptions that roles don’t exist.

Of course, this leads into wondering, if story is telling the truth, why did he survive the Night? Such thoughts are terrible for WIFOMing though, so I’m not sure what, if anything we can read into it. Maybe they were trying to avoid the almost certain doc block if they went after story. Maybe they felt like they could drive a bandwagon on him today, thereby getting us to do their dirty work for them. I’m leaning towards the dodge the doc option, but it’s impossible to say for certain at this point.

This is a dangerous question. We can’t necessarily figure out why, but we can figure out why based upon various scenarios. For instance, if storyteller is truthful, then the scum have no reason to believe there isn’t a doctor, it also means that there isn’t an Alchemist. Either way, you’re correct that it’s impossible to tell whether storyteller is scum or not based upon his survival at this point, so it’s best not to base any judgments on that.

[Blaster_Master]

Oh, I nearly forgot. I promised my vote for sachetorte Today. I didn’t like his implicit defense of OAOW Yesterday. Of course, he was set up for “well, why would scum do this?”

I do not think that a lynch of storyteller is prudent at this time. I will not vote for him Today unless there is a substantial bit of damning evidence revealed.

[Blaster_Master]

Oh, I nearly forgot. I promised my vote for sachetorte Today. I didn’t like his implicit defense of OAOW Yesterday. Of course, he was set up for “well, why would scum do this?”

I do not think that a lynch of storyteller is prudent at this time. I will not vote for him Today unless there is a substantial bit of damning evidence revealed. I also think the lynch vote for Hal is, at best, premature. He hasn’t been lurking; he just plain hasn’t participated at all, but it’s been very blatant. I’d prefer to wait and see how he posts before putting a vote there.

vote sachetorte