One thing about all those posts (which is someone trying to make an arguement against me) is the same: The first sentence of all of them are similar to what you’re saying right now. Basically, that I repeat things over and over, saying them many times.
Well, I have news for you..in the game linked to, above, I was Town.
So, no…repeating and saying things many times doesn’t mean one is scum. How many more times is this going to come up (and be proved wrong) in games that I play in? This is just my playing style. It’s a null-tell (and a foolish thing to think someone is suspicious over, in my opinion). Seriously? Just because I keep saying I’m Loyal? Well, what else should I say?
I skimmed through International and Hotel, and then went back through Glasnost as well. In that thread I found a quote that summarizes what’s going on: “typical Idle incoherent flameout.” Given that someone other than Idle suggested well before this game started that his behavior in this game is typical, I pretty much believe he’s just a…poorly reasoned townie. It remains possible that he (and/or Mahaloth) have concocted some scheme, but it sounds incredibly far-fetched.
He’s right that his consistent repetition of your Loyalty is a null-tell now that I’ve done the research, but generally I would suspect people that are for some reason always having to remind you of the fact that they’re the good guys. Kinda like how I hear some businesses advertise that they received a high rating from the BBB, when all it means is that they’ve paid their dues and haven’t received complaints yet; if you’re actually trustworthy you wouldn’t be saying how trustworthy you were by pointing to a statement that’s true of anyone.
I meant “incoherent” that Idle’s argument lacked coherence; there was nothing connecting the premises with the conclusions other than him saying so. It’s a more academic use I suppose, but it is the first one I found googling: “define: incoherent”.
I’ll say it again…I’ve never been incoherent, in my opinion, and I haven’t had a “flameout” (that wasn’t either poking fun at myself or doing it just because it was expected of me) since the very first game I did it in (Mafia IV–about 3 years ago).
To me, incoherent means one would basically be typing gibberish. Like “Don’t vote for me, the elephant, because I shaved my Coke can on the fifth of March”.
I still don’t understand what you’re saying, totally. I was voted on, I claimed, and then was still voted on for the reason (as I seemed to see) that my role COULD be the scum-version.
To me, this still makes no sense. You don’t vote on someone who has claimed just because they COULD be lying or scum…because they COULD also be telling the truth, yes?
It strikes me as people voting for a claimed Cop, in a game, just because they could be lying.
Now, if there’s other things to go on–such as someone makes a counter-claim–fine, but if you’re only reason is “Well, they could be lying”, I’d say you were reaching.
There’s a difference between your claim and claiming to be a Cop in another game. The power you claimed is independent of alignment and unable to be effectively counterclaimed. Since there could be none, one, or multiples of each role, on either side, other people’s claims to that role are meaningless in terms of confirming or denying your claim (to a point; if 8 people claim hacker, some of them are probably lying).
In contrast, Cops are generally town aligned and not commonly found in multiples (in my admittedly limited experience). So a counterclaim is much more useful in determining the truth of the original claim, and confirming that role cements them as town. Even confirming that you were the hacker doesn’t confirm your claim to be a loyal town. It’s entirely possible to lie about one and not the other.
At this point, based on the investigation and your claim of the night use of your power, I believe you are most likely town. I can’t rule out the possibility of you being the ringleader and having a hacker fake your move for you, but I think that’s unlikely. But do you honestly not see the difference between your claim and the claim of being a Cop?
You still don’t get my point.
People were voting for me because I could be scum. I see this as pretty foolish considering the fact that the same chances exist that I could be Town, too.
It’s basically fifty/fifty odds. It should even out.
So giving the reason “I’m voting for you because you could be scum” is stupid reasoning.
The main reason I voted for you, and the reason I suspect many other did, was that you kept touting your claim as reason to not be lynched, showing that you either were desperately trying to save your scum hide or that you did not understand the mechanics of this game. Meta-game reasons combined with Mahaloth’s investigation lead me strongly to believe the latter. Given that, you clearly do not understand the arguments against you. Since I believe you are town and thus feel it’s in our best interest to get you to understand them so that you can make better reasoned arguments later, I’m going to lay out everything step by step. Not to be condescending, but to give you the ability to pinpoint exactly where you disagree.
I’m not going to provide any justification for the first few votes you picked up, as the reasons behind them are not germane to my argument. Also, I highly doubt I am misrepresenting anything you said, and will gladly provide cites to anything you dispute you said; I’m not going to bother upfront because it seems unlikely and disrupts my thought processes.
Proposition: Given you claimed “Loyal Hacker” and insisted that the claim meant you shouldn’t be lynched, you were a reasonable candidate to lynch.
Preliminary:
0.1)There is no good reason for a Town to fake claim a power role. (I don’t want to have to go into a proof of it, but it seems obvious enough to not be worth going into detail about; I feel the burden of proof is not on me here and that this point is not really where anyone’s probably disagreeing with me)
0.2)Thus if you are lying about being a Hacker, you are almost certainly not town and thus a reasonable candidate to lynch.
Thus suppose the “hacker” part of your claim is true:
Part 1:
1.1)All players make an assumed claim of Loyal; if forced to pick one, no one is going to say they’re scum.
1.2)Therefore, your effective claim is “Hacker”.
1.3)A Hacker can be either Loyal or Mutinous.
1.4)Therefore, your claim does not enhance the argument that you are Loyal.
Part 2, which was not particularly developed in-thread and most likely where Idle will disagree:
2.1)The scum know the alignment of each player, while a Town Hacker knows only one player’s alignment.
2.2)The scum get a night kill (along with a potential Scum Commissar kill) at the same time as the hacker power and can coordinate their use of them. A Town hacker can only make an educated guess regarding who will be night killed (and will have no idea if a Scum Commissar kill will shake things up even more) and may end up not doing what he intended.
2.3)The scum know exactly which alignments will be in which ranks (with the exception of a Town Commissar kill, which they will probably see coming anyway given its restriction) after one of them uses their Hacker power, and can use their coordination to maximize its impact. A Town Hacker basically only knows what the rest of the town knows, along with knowledge of the veracity of their reported officer-role investigations.
2.4)Thus a Scum Hacker is potentially powerful role, while a Town Hacker is comparatively weak and needs more information to be revealed in order to be useful. While the exact utility balance is uncertain, it seems to me at least to favor the scum.
2.5)The above constitutes a reasonable argument that it is to the town’s benefit to lynch a hacker whose probability of being scum is equal to the proportion of the scum in the game. (This is quite likely the step Idle agrees least with)
Part 3:
3.1)On day 1 there are no investigative results or death reveals to suggest any player is scum over any other, only the arguments players make.
3.2)While a bad argument can be made by town or scum, scum will be often forced to use them. Additionally, if town are not called out on bad arguments, the scum will get much freer reign to use them as needed.
3.3)Thus a player who not only makes but insists on repeating a bad argument on Day 1 is a reasonable candidate for lynching.
Part 4:
4.1)By part 1, your claim does not actually enhance the likelihood you are loyal, thus by part 2 the expected value of your lynching is in the town’s favor.
4.2)Thus your argument that your claim means you shouldn’t be lynched is invalid, and by part 3 its insistence made you a reasonable candidate for lynching.
QED.
Note that I’m not saying you’re scum, as at this point you quite clearly are not. But I have provided a detailed argument as to why I was voting to lynch you until Mahaloth decided to investigate you, breaking down the logic into smaller pieces so that it’s easier for you to determine just what parts you don’t agree with.
If you continue to insist that there was no reason to lynch you, I can’t express my feelings for you politely. I invite you to clearly state what aspects of the argument you disagree with, and recognize that even if you disagree with those aspects the argument as given is reasonable and not “stupid”.
–
I stayed up way way way way too late to compose this post, but once I decided I was going to break the reasoning down to its components, I couldn’t stop until it was done. I hope this isn’t what I’m going to typically be doing, because it will seriously ruin my life.
I apologize if there’s stuff messed up, I was editing/proof-reading while half aslezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
not to chastise but this may be one of the most dangerous assumptions/conclusions that i have ever seen reached. idle has been accused of a lot of things in a lot of situations. some correctly and some incorrectly. i don’t know if idle has ever been accused of not understanding, however. and if he has i will assure you that it was done incorrectly. he’s a smart and devious bastard.
maybe so maybe no on 1). last Nights results indicate the presence of a hacker. maybe so maybe no on 3). even if we take 1), 2) and 3) as gospel (which i don’t) i am unsure how their truthfulness combined with a) necessarily prove that you are what you claim, that folks can’t have multiple roles and that you have the alignment that you also claim.
Not going to quote that long post, glowacks, but I’ll say this:
Here is the chain of events as I experienced them:
People vote for me.
I claimed.
People continued to vote for me (giving reasons like “You could be the scum Hacker”)
IMO, that’s one of the most foolish reasons to vote…because I could ALSO be the town Hacker. So basically, any suspicion should even out since it’s 50/50 (I.E. one shouldn’t vote based on this reason alone–otherwise it’s akin to just a random vote).
I tried to point this out (a few times–since it’s correct logically and statistically).
You took number 5 (me pointing it out), for some reason, as me trying to push my role and give it as a reason why people shouldn’t vote me.
In conclusion, I think you’re mistaken about my motives.
I hope you are not referring to my vote as foolish. I was one of the original votes on you. I thought you were suspicious before the claim, and the claim really did nothing to quell my suspicions, and so I left my vote on you. Day 2, after you’ve been investigated, of course, is a different story.
Do I need to look at more games then? Does he affect a persona that appears to not have a clue so that his poor arguments can be ignored when he’s scum? All I’ve seen in the previous 3 games is pretty much the same as this one, just with sometimes less posts due to digestive problems, and he was town (I thought) in all those. I’ll take any evidence you have; while I don’t particularly enjoy reading past mafia games (and I mainly just skim), it is often instructive.
He’s just said so much that is plainly and obviously wrong this game. Intentional over-the-top dullness diverting suspicion after being investigated? I understand it’s a dangerous conclusion, but it seems to be an incredibly dangerous gambit on his part. It almost seems necessary that Mahaloth is in on it as Idle would’ve almost certainly been lynched without that investigation and there really wasn’t a great reason to investigate someone so far down the ranks. Nevertheless, if Idle is capable of pulling this stunt as the ring-leader, he may have known how act to get a Town Mahaloth to investigate him. So, as much as I want to go after Mahaloth to get information on the veracity his investigation, it’s not like Mahaloth’s guilt would imply Idle’s guilt at all; we’d have to get someone else to investigate him in which case we might as well check anyone - and that wouldn’t exactly help if he was ring-leader.
So much potential information, so little confirmation.
Hmmm…
This is an definite attempt to get less votes specifically because of your claim. I absolutely cannot see it in any other fashion. So yes, I do see you giving your role as a reason people shouldn’t vote for you. Much of what I’ve found is potentially ambiguous, but this quote has you implying that there is value in your claim.
You also prefaced your claim by saying you have 3 votes. So the fact that it came directly after mentioning how many votes you had was just a coincidence and was not materially related to a potential argument to get less votes. Am I seriously supposed to believe that? Yes, you like claiming Day 1. But you very intentionally didn’t claim until you had multiple votes and made sure people realized you did when they read your claim.
Texcat, glowacks, peeker (especially glowacks) – either you’re going to vote for the ship’s doctor today or you’re not going to. The case against Idle is not that complicated and I’m not sure what purpose is supposed to be served by continuing to harp on the details. If he’s scummy enough to vote for given his current position and role claim, etc, then do it. If he’s not, then don’t. Isn’t there anything else to talk about?
Idle’s a Scum Hacker, and Maha is also Scum lying to protect him; or
Idle’s a Scum Ring-leader, and some other Scum is the Hacker who promoted him; or
Idle’s Town.
Going back and forth with Idle is not going to shed more light on that at this point. What will shed more light is uncovering more scum. (For example, if we do find a Scum Hacker somewhere else, that will be an interesting new data point with regard to the above possibilities.) It would also be nice to get more info about Mahaloth’s alignment, but I’m absolutely not about to lynch for information.
Bottom line: the investigation parks Idle in the “Town or Ring-leader” category. I’m happy to leave him there for now and look elsewhere. (When I say “leave him there” for now could “there” be the Brig? If he’s Town he’s protected, if he’s not he’s harmless…)
Looking at the voting record (Town in blue, semi-confirmable (e.g. Doc results or Mate claims) in purple). I’ve put votes in chronological rather than rank order:
I’m running out of timehere but the obvious point is that votes for Drain Bead are weak, and late votes for Drain Bead that pushed her into lynch territory are especially weak. It’s one thing to use votes to pressure lurkers; it’s another to inadvertently kill them. Just because you’ve made three votes doesn’t mean you can “throw away” your fourth on someone who’s likely to be lynched. TexCat and NAF stand out for this. Fluid admitted she wanted to the lynch the lurker instead of Hal, but it’s still suspicious.
Given how close it was, this could be an attempt to save Hal…
I’m out of time - what I will do just now is: vote fubbleskag
ok, going back to three of mine from yesterDay. in order from most to least.
vote fubs, hal and maha
they haven’t done anything toDay to make me less suspicious than yesterDay.
also,
vote fluid.
maybe partially OMGYS but more because it was just a lame ass reason. metagame can certainly be a factor in tipping the scales one way or another but as the primary driver, not so much.
I was one of the original votes on you. I thought you were suspicious before the claim, and the claim really did nothing to quell my suspicions, and so I left my vote on you. Day 2, after you’ve been investigated, of course, is a different story.