Mafia Reunion Day 5

[paulwhoisaghost]

Since no one has bothered yet, and its seems to be in high demand… here are Pleo’s posts D2,3,and 4. I didnt bother with D1 because he wouldn’t have had results.

Just putting it out there… I’m remembering why I thought Pleo was scum… I know he wasn’t, but I still don’t like a lot of his posts. YMMV.

D2

@Pleonast

Omnibus post again. Sorry I can’t participate more frequently, but I want to make the contributions I do make useful.

I’m reading through Day and Night One afresh, with the knowledge of the alignment of the dead. If my notes are correct:
Town:
Lakai
Normal Phase
septimus
Suburban Plankton
colby11
Gah, this still pings me badly. There is no threshold above which being helpful to Town is too much. Calling out players for being helpful to Town is by definition anti-Town. I’m having trouble seeing any Towny motivation for this.
I missed something when I first read this, probably because I was distracted by the aggressiveness. There seems to be some underlying “perfect” information that only Scum would have.

First, what is meant by “this particular strategy”? I don’t see what it’s referring to. Second, the “scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat”. While Scum roles do not include teammate information, we have no indication whether or not their secret boards include teammate information. But Thing Fish does know that.
On re-read, this post really bothers me. It’s too defensive and misrepresents what bufftabby said.
I apparently missed this before. Taunting another player for calling them out for anti-Town behavior. Votes, and reaction to votes, is the best info we have in the early game. Why be so aghast for being called out for not engaging?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is taking to long… Going to have skip ahead to Night 1. I’ll try to finish reading Day 1 later.
Yes. All I have to offer is my analyses, so I’m going to make them as clear as possible. Plus, I find having an explicit list prevents me from getting tunnel vision. I think too many players find someone to vote for and park it there. That’s lazy and does little to help us. If it makes you feel better, I’ll not color them blue.
I hate meta-arguments, but this exact one has been bothering me.
I appreciate jsgoddess doing so. They were reiterating their suspicions from the previous Day. Calling out one’s own mistakes is not anti-Town.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My votes, in no order except most suspicious first:
unvote
vote Thing Fish for knowledge about secret Scum boards in D1.253.
vote Scathach for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35.
vote Johnny Bravo for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265.
vote Plumpudding for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401.

What players will potentially be subjected to moderator action at the end of Day 2 due to lack of participation?

I see no good reason to lynch anyone on that list. On the other hand, I do see good reason to lynch anyone who’s participating little and not on it. (Yeah, I’m probably subject to that; so be it.)

vote Idle Thoughts for participating just enough to avoid the mod-hammer but otherwise contributing almost nothing for us to work with.

@Pleonast

Please reread my argument:

We do know that each Scum team has a secret board in this game. We do not know what information is contained there. Thing Fish has implicitly stated that each secret Scum board does not state who is on that team. It is impossible for anyone not Scum to know that. Thus, Thing Fish is Scum.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Repeating for better signal to noise:
What players will potentially be subjected to moderator action at the end of Day 2 due to lack of participation?

@Pleonast

ToeJam did not post in Night 1. If they do not post in Day 2, shouldn’t they be mod’d at beginning of Night 2?

@Pleonast

If it’s past a certain point on Day 1, I haven’t read it yet. (I want to finish Day 1 later today). And do you mean ToeJam?
I feel there is a significant difference between voting for someone who participates little once they’re under imminent threat of lynch and voting for someone who is participating little in general. If colby11 had played the game, by commenting on other issues and making cases against other players, I never’d have voted for them.
Calling it skimming if you like, but I didn’t notice Johnny Bravo’s reaction the first time through. Note that I’m still suspicious of the votes on Johnny Bravo, but they don’t rise above my vote threshold at the moment.
There’s no information in saying that someone who does not read a secret board gains no information from it. That’s basic deduction: a player cannot know what’s on a secret board they haven’t read. And that deduction is completely independent of what’s on the board. Whether or not there’s information on the secret board, the player not reading it gains no information.

Thing Fish has implicitly stated something else: that a player who has read the secret board does not know a particular piece of information. How can anyone who has no knowledge of the secret board know this? The information gained from reading a secret board is extremely dependent on what’s on that board. The only possible conclusion is that Thing Fish has knowledge of what’s on that board.

This is a clear-cut case of perfect information. It’s probably clear-cut enough that we should leave it to the Vigilante to take care of, since we’ll gain little information from lynching a self-revealed scum. But it’s good for an early vote in the Day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On multi-lynching: I’m in favor of it. We get information from lynches and voting records. I am not in favor of forcing players to move votes to make it happen. Players must be responsible for their own votes.

For myself, when I put someone on my voting list, that means I’m willing to see them lynched. While I put my most suspicious vote first, I have no problems switching to anyone on my list. And that means you should hold me accountable for any vote on my list, even if it isn’t counted by the mods.

I think it’d be helpful for us if everyone did the same, but it’s non-productive to try to enforce it.

@Pleonast

I’m trying to catch up on posts ToDay now, but I’ll have no more computer access after a few minutes until Monday.

@Pleonast

Yeah, I’m not going to catch up, am I? Still haven’t finished Day 1, and Day 2 has even more to read. I’ll do what I can…

@Pleonast

I’ve skimmed everything now.

I’m willing to trust the claimed third parties, at least until we’ve lynched a few Scum. To increase trust, it’s best that they all claim. Multiple reasons: 1) They can act as a pseudo-Mason bloc. 2) We can hold them accountable because their votes will be publicly known to that bloc. 3) They can confirm each other and prevent Scum from slipping into the bloc.

I realize they may be feel vulnerable doing this. But I’m willing to lynch anyone who publicly advocates lynching a third party who is a confirmed member of this group. But that guarantee can’t extend to players who claim while on the way to being lynched. Claim early if you want to be trusted!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Let’s see if I can do the numbers correctly. We had 54 players, with 7 Town dead. That leaves 47 players, of who 14 are Scum. Leaving a 33-player buffer before we lose. Each Day and Night the buffer is reduced by 1, unless there’s a cross-kill. Each mislynch or mid-Vig reduces it by 1. So that converts to something like 8 Days until we lose, worst case (33/4 = 8).

Conversely, we need to get 14 lynches correct to win.

I can’t see Town being required to lynch 5 more third parties on top of that. But, we really need to see those players publicly claim so.

@Pleonast

Well that is the dilemma. But if they have a win condition that can interfere with ours, that means we do need to lynch them before we lynch all the Scum. Thus increasing our lynch burden substantially. That doesn’t seem plausible if there is 5 of them. But what if there’s fewer, maybe 2? Then eliminating them is not unreasonable.

This is the reasoning why Town needs to see all LUTHA claim sooner rather than later. Having 5 players saying “yes, I’m LUTHA” and cross-confirming each other would completely remove them as a threat, in mine eyes. Five is the number claimed and so having five actually claiming would virtually confirm them (just like claimed Masons, one would have to die at some point to confirm the group as a whole). I’d advocate lynching anyone trying to lynch LUTHA at that point, since they’d be threatening only to Scum at that point.

But either fewer or more than that indicates someone is lying. And we’d have to start lynching claimed LUTHA once we have a few Scum eliminated.

@Pleonast

If the Vig is killing confirmed third parties, they are playing to lose, by advancing the Scum win conditions and not advancing the Town win condition. Yeah, it’s possible the Vig could sabotage us, but I wouldn’t base my tactics around it. (Also note that one player alone has the switch for the Vig now. It’s quite possible we’ll see no more Vig kills.)

But when players say “there’s 5 of us” and yet only 2 have been produced, that greatly weakens your claims. Are you lying about your numbers? We can’t tell. Your actual numbers is the part of your claim that can be verified. The longer it remains unverified, the more it looks like you’re lying to us.

@Pleonast

I agree completely. Lynching or Vigging them is a huge mistake at this point in the game. However, if by midgame, we’ve found no evidence about them beyond the two who’ve claimed so far, I think the possibility that those two have lied to us will be great. And while our win condition doesn’t require us to eliminate third parties, allowing two claimed third parties who are likely liars to survive looks untenable to me. Which is why I’ll really need to be able to count exactly five LUTHA players at some point (to confirm a claim they make) before I’ll consider them a non-threat after midgame.

@Pleonast

I’ve been skimming, but I though brewha had the Vig switch. Am I confused, or you?

D3

@Pleonast

Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative.
Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted.
:smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum.
If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time.

There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them.
Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part?

Is there a reason for your vote?
There’s Day-kills, too.
Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to.
Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF?
Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO?

Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn Meeko on us.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest.
vote Thing Fish for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253.
vote Idle Thoughts for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum.
vote Scathach for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35.
vote Johnny Bravo for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265.
vote Plumpudding for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401.
vote Meeko for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse.

I have no real opinion on ToeJam.

@Pleonast

Okay, I don’t have a problem with that, except that I think it’s too early to actually lynch them. I’m hoping that Scum kill a few them for us, which is probably made more likely by them not claiming.
Thanks. I was referring to the unknown acronyms.
Ah! I always bold poster names, so I didn’t even consider you were referring to a player. I was trying to figure what Saturday Night Fever could mean in mafia terms.

@Pleonast

Welcome to the game of mafia! But seriously, I’m spending as much time as I can on this game. I either post after skimming, or not post after skimming.
Thing Fish said “It reads to me like you could be scum advising your teammates on how to play and/or hinting to them that you are that seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat”. That implicitly states that Scum do not learn the identity of all their teammates on their secret board. Otherwise, why would a Scum player need to hint they were the seventh guy who didn’t show up to chat?

Only a player who has read a secret board would know it doesn’t reveal all their teammates. It’s not stated anywhere in the rules. Thus, Thing Fish has revealed they’ve read a Scum secret board, and so must be Scum. This is a slam-dunk case of perfect information slippage.

Of course I started the conversation! That’s the whole point of discussing Scum–so that they inadvertently make mistakes when discussing themselves.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to downplay evidence from an earlier Day.
Lynching claimed cultists ToDay is anti-Town, because even if they’re lying they can’t win now and we really need to eliminate Scum. Anyone advocating lynching them ToDay is not helping us, but could be Scum or misguided Town.

Lynching cultists when 1) at least one has been alignment-verified, 2) exactly five players are known cultists, and 3) they can cross-confirm membership so no Scum could falsely claim membership, would be anti-Town and extremely pro-Scum. Anyone advocating lynching them at that point is definitely Scum.

If one or more of the conditions in the previous paragraph has not been met, and we’ve eliminated a good number of Scum (maybe half of them, but we’ll be in a better place to evaluate later), then we’ll have to start considering that their claim is false. And likely start lynching them.

@Pleonast

Yes, Thing Fish was talking about what I said, but gave information that I did not. Information that only someone who’s been reading a Scum board would know.
I’m not discounting anything. I am making my cases based on Day One reads.

@Pleonast

Why are you so confident no one else will vote for you?

@Pleonast

A perfect encapsulation of how scum think: the important thing about a vote is how many players will follow it.
You’ll have to elaborate, because I’m not understanding you.
Would explain what you think the case is?
Oh no! Did you survive?

(Really, once a game starts, you should only take questions via PM.)

@Pleonast

This post makes me feel better about Meeko. Not that I necessarily agree with poky votes, but it shows pro-Town engagement.
That’s good enough for me.

unvote
vote Prof. Pepperwinkle for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339.
vote Thing Fish for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253.
vote Idle Thoughts for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum.
vote Scathach for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35.
vote Johnny Bravo for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265.
vote Plumpudding for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401.

@Pleonast

A general comment: I appreciate players giving their opinions on the whole list of players. But I find it weird to consider someone to be “leaning Town”. I divide players into two groups: 1) those I’m currently willing to vote for, and 2) everyone else.

@Pleonast

(Thanks for the better wording.)

Why do you say I’m not taking into account later posts? My vote list has been changing. Compare my first votes list:

To my latest:

That’s an overlap of one vote. Despite the references to D1 posts, some of those votes were first made after Day One.
I think you accurately describe their fears, but it’s only going to get worse for them if they don’t all claim. Until they get to the point where their claim of exactly 5 members has been verified and they explain their investigative-chain-of-trust that eliminates the possibility of a Scum insertion, their lynch threat is going to increase.

Assuming they’re telling the truth: if they’re too cautious, they’re going to end up with three or four dead (from Scum or other kills) and one or two survivors who’ve wasted their investigations on dead cultists. And so they won’t even be able to confirm each other, let alone convince us there’s not a Scum pretending to be a Cultist. And so we’ll have to lynch the rest of them. They lose, because they refused the chance to confirm themselves while they were all still alive. And they’re likely to take us down with them if we don’t have the mislynches to spare.
This post pings me every which way wrong. Are you so incredulous that someone might play the game differently than you? I don’t think so. I think you’re simply trying to smudge a Town power role.

And ToeJam, quit filling the thread with long posts defending your actions. Either you’re what you claim which is enough to justify yourself, or you’re lying Scum jamming the signal. Spend your limited game time on something helpful.
Hugh, is that you?
Lynching third party is simply handing a free mislynch to Scum. You need to make a case why Crys is Scum.
I think this is exactly why Idle popped up. I’m all for their lynch, but I’m going to keep my vote where it’s currently at.
I’ve voted you for being irritating while you were Scum, too. My vote on you now is because you’re derailing the lynch on Prof Pepperwinkle.

And note that I loathe using grudges and other types of meta information from previous games. The only reason I’d use it here is because you hit us over the head with it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

unvote
vote Prof. Pepperwinkle for explicitly advocating a pro-Scum tactic in D3.339.
vote Thing Fish for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253.
vote Idle Thoughts for derailing the lynch train on Prof Pepperwinkle.
vote Boozahol Squid for advocating a deliberate mislynch in D3.499.
vote sinjin for smudging counter-claimable Town in D3.432.
vote Scathach for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35.
vote Johnny Bravo for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265.
vote Plumpudding for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401.

I’ll likely not have time to post again until Monday.

@Pleonast

In reference to Prof Pepperwinkle, this was stated,

This is an obvious Cultist breadcrumb. AngeloftheNorth has successfully investigated Prof Pepperwinkle as a fellow LUTHA.

You two might as well publicly claim now. Some of us are willing to give the Cult time to confirm their claim. But by hiding from us you’re simply reinforcing the case that you’re not non-exclusive.

Continued next post due to size limits.