I’m not sure if the Vig-test would work. First, if story is Scum, all they have to do is off Ben. Second, if the major drawbacks to killing come into play, we could end up in a worse position by having story kill Ben. Last, but certainly not least, I prefer having Town power roles make up their own minds on how to use their powers, especially when said power role has the ability to kill Town and totally screw us.
Not to wade into this, but just because you think it’s the strongest argument doesn’t mean **story **sees it that way. You can turn this round: if a Vig who can’t kill Spawn is arguing for a double-lyse, doesn’t that show that he really believes it’s a good idea?
I’m not necessarily convinced by story’s claim, but I have to agree with him that your case is based solely on the fact that he disagrees with you. If we subtract that - if we imagine a world in which he is right, or in which you agree with him - what’s he done that’s scummy?
Yeah, it probably wouldn’t work. If scum did off Ben, that would show up as a single kill, but we’d be left wondering about about blocks and protections. In any case, Chronos may find a sub if Ben doesn’t show before the end of this Summer.
No, that’s not why I’m voting him. Please see my case in #900 and #544.
A tactic I’ve seen scum use with success is to try and dictate the terms of the argument, latching on to the weakest or irrelevant points while ignoring points of substance. I’m not satisfied with Story’s reponse to either my case or the one Fluid made.
I also don’t see a pro-town motive for his soft claim. There were 5 soft claims in Screamers, and they all hurt town. We need to know if there is any way of confirming Story’s role.
The most important thing Story could give us right now are his thoughts on the other players.
I need to take another look at the other cases before I make any decisions on what I’m doing with my vote.
Since we don’t even know for sure there is a vig, having the “real vig” vig the fake one isn’t a sure test.
Still, it seems like a strange thing for scum to do this early in the game. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
I’m wondering if the restriction is that if he accidentally kills a townie, he himself gets killed?
I said this jokingly, but, it got me thinking. If Story is Vig, and as Vig, has already stated he would never [Ok, nearly enough never] Vig in this game, due to the drawback, can’t he state what the drawback is?
There is no reason why Story can’t disclose his Drawback.*
Frankly, based on the drawback, I think we can deduce if he is telling the truth or not.
One shining moment where he can offer up a mechanic, and we can look at Story, “Vig” in general, and yes, even Chronos.
… Just to say that I think Story would hang himself, if he makes up a “drawback” on his own.
… *"Unless it was “Shoes”. [Can one have shoes on their shoes? Can Story not claim his Vig power, AND can he not state his reason to not claim his vig power?]
Balance of game, Gastardness, and everything else I hardly know can be argued by someone else.
Can the Mod put wine in front of you?
**Where is the game witch Scuba? Is it worthwhile to vote him, if he reamains AWOL for the rest of the game? **
I am thinking it might reference Spawn. And this is why he didn’t want to kill Spawn.
First, the argument against storyteller is not because he disagrees with me, it is because he has taken a position that he has not been able to adequately defend. Special Ed also took a stance with which I disagree, but he argued his point (okay, there was some bad math, but the point is he took a stand and defended it.)
The turning point for me was storyteller’s post #619 where he says:
This statement by storyteller encapsulates everything about the case against him. Essentially, storyteller’s inability to defend his position with logical statements is significantly off the mark from what one would expect from storyteller. Here he defends his position by saying we don’t have to worry about mislynches as long as we don’t mislynch! I’m unable to accept that a town-aligned storyteller would make such a statement. That is the reason I am suspicious of him.
If I told you “Hey, let’s lynch storyteller – there’s no reason not to – it’s only a problem if it is a mislynch.” Wouldn’t you think I was crazy? Wouldn’t you be at least suspicious of me?
storyteller replies to the fluiddruid’s charge that storyteller is playing differently:
Notes:
(1) storyteller does not deny that he is playing differently, nor does he attempt to show that his play is the same as it has been in the past. All he does is attack fluiddruid’s ability to distinguish whether or not his play has changed and asserts that play style changes never work.
(2) I’ve played several games with storyteller, and I think his playstyle has changed too. I’m not willing to say that playstyle change in and of itself is sufficient evidence to lynch storyteller. It is possible that storyteller is busier, trying to change his lifestyle choices regarding mafia, etc., but he says none of these things as reasons for a play change. He diverts by insinuating that fluiddruid is incapable of judging his play and that play style isn’t a ‘scum tell’ anyway.
(3) I disagree that play style changes are an indicator of scum, I think they are (though there is wiggle room in that playstyle changes could be due to having a shiny power role). I’ve been making a conscious effort to change my playstyle simply for my own sanity and work and stuff… but I can’t do it. I always end up playing the same long-winded way.
storyteller’s claim:
Meh. I’m divided on the claim. On the one hand, I feel that claiming Vig/Amoeba is ridiculously dangerous for scum because I’m running under the assumption that scum don’t know what the power roles are or what the corresponding cellular organisms are. That is, storyteller can easily claim a standard role, but having to assert himself as a non-plankton organism makes things extra difficult. In other words, I think it is highly likely that storyteller is an amoeba.
On the other hand, storyteller’s ‘very significant drawback’ gives me pause. I’m not sure what to make of it. As scum he would have an easier time simply leaving that part off. As town, he would be stating so simply because it is true. If the drawback is so terrible that storyteller will never kill, then I have a harder time seeing why he needs to be secret. Though he doesn’t really say “never” just ‘highly unlikely.’
storyteller, please weigh the cost-benefit between your ‘very significant drawback’ and proving your power. In other words, is throwing out a Winter Kill worth it to show Town you aren’t lying about your power?
Scenario: storyteller kills during Winter. storyteller uses the don’t talk during night but there is no punishment loophole and posts his target just before Summer.
(Yes, scummy storyteller could just use the scum kill to perpetuate his lie, but then we would only see one death, which would be suspicious. Double yes, scum could forgo their kill to make storyteller look bad, but hey, no scum kill is a good thing right?)
storyteller, could you post your role PM? Feel free to redact your ‘very significant drawback.’
So I really wasn’t kidding since i just wnet back and reread those two votes for Mahaloth and there doesn’t seem to be anything there just an OMGUS and Sach’s vote which boils down to Mahaloth created a bandwagon on Day 1 and the Day is moving on might as well get a vote in. I don’t find either persuasive.
I did get this how ever I still think you were premature especially for a role that you’ve claimed you’re going to play like a vanilla. Basically what I see is that you’ve claimed vanilla with an asterix(sp?) and you did it less then halfway through the day when a majority of the votes weren’t in let alone on you. The asterix only makes you a scum target since you claim you won’t be killing so you’re power won’t help the town.
All in all it’s a pretty good claim for a scum to make since it’s verifiable through use of the night kill but also an easy explanation for why there is only one kill every night. That being said I’m leaning towards believing your claim simply because of the way you’ve been playing.
You don’t have to be persuaded, but that is a terrible summary of the Mahaloth case.
Mahaloth asserted that his vote on peeker was ‘not lame’ and other votes for peeker were ‘lame.’ I called him on this assertion, to which he dissembled.
He also defended himself by saying he didn’t join a bandwagon.
I then pointed out that he contributed to the building of the bandwagon (adding fuel to the peeker fire). The point isn’t that he contributed to the bandwagon (though he did), but that Mahaloth tries to duck responsibility.
I see OMGUS has been explained, but don’t even try to make it sound like your “noobish” behaviour has made you look scummy. No one has stated that at all. I don’t know why you think that is. Ask any questions you want; no one is suggesting that your noobishness is scummy.
Now, let me say what I believe about the claims:
-
I believe Drain Bead is a mason. Obviously, I’m not 100%, but I think lysing him today is not the best move. If I’m reading it correctly, he is saying the game had a total of 2 masons, with one dead. Is that about right for a game of 21 players?
-
I kind of believe the vigilante claim. Not sure, and I’m wondering what the drawback is, but I lean toward believing it for now.
Well, that’s all for now, but I’ll post more later.
Jeez, are we even playing the same game?
I have seen your case. It says things like:
All of which can (IMHO) fairly be paraphrased as: “**Story **is wrong because he disagrees with me.” What you haven’t convinced me on is the next step, which is “Story is scum because he is wrong.”
Even in this post you argue:
Again, what you consider a point of substance may not be what **story **considers a point of substance. Take a moment, forget your disagreement on strategy, and show the scum motivation for **story **to pursue a minority argument that draws him heat. As far as I can see, if a Scum **story **had initially harboured hopes of pushing Pond into double-lysing for Scum benefit, he’d quickly have seen he was on a fool’s errand and quit. So what’s his motivation?
I’d make the same request of fluid, in fact, and I’m also interested to see what she has to say about the case against her.
As for story’s claim, it’s always good to be sceptical about untestable claims, and I doubt **story **can make it to the end-game without offering some kind of proof. On the other hand, a Vig claim isn’t a great one for scum to make because a) counter-claims come in the guise of death, b) it’s difficult to consistently mimic Vig abilities and make an ordinary scum-kill, c) if you’re making a sacrificial claim to flush out power-roles, why not try to flush out a Cop or a Doc?
Regarding b), story has more or less announced that he won’t be using his power - but by making himself less of an asset to the Pond, he reduces the chances that we’ll decide we can’t risk killing him. So tentatively I’m going to believe for now that **story **is who he says he is.
Sach -
OK, I’m going to address a few of these points, but I’m going to ask you to focus at least some attention the last paragraph of this section, OK? After the point by point thing.
That is not a correct understanding of my meaning. I won’t say it’s a mischaracterization, because I can accept that the wording could have lead you there, but that’s not what I meant. What I meant, and what I mean, is: yes, lynching twice brings the endgame closer than lynching once. My position is that this fact, in and of itself, is not relevant. If we lynch two Scum, it will bring the endgame closer, right? But that would be a good thing. If we lynch two Town, yes, that would bring the endgame closer in the “bad” way. One and one brings the endgame closer, but nets out to Town advantage. So “bringing the endgame closer is a bad thing” is true only in the case where we mislynch twice. And to me, that’s an incredibly empty thing. Yes, if we play badly (mislynch), we’ll probably lose. I think I’m still not articulating this properly, but I think what I’m trying to say is that I’m not going to play this game constantly assuming failure.
Regarding the double-lyse. I think the problem - and the reason I think it’s pointless to continue discussing it - is that the heart of the disagreement is simply a difference in the value we’re assigning to different events. I view the successful early lynching of Scum as a very high value event. I consider the value of that event to be so high that increasing the chance that it will occur early in the game is worth risking the multiple disadvantages of the double-lyse (to which I assign comparatively low [negative] values). You, and Alka, and fluid, and others who think as you do, do not see the early lynching of Scum as having value sufficient to warrant risking negative events in order to increase the chances of that positive event.
That’s what it comes down to, and it’s thus unresolvable. You’ll never convince me, and I’ll never convince you, and every minute we spend talking about it is a wasted minute.
Because they don’t. Sach, I don’t even really know what my playstyle is. Defining how a player plays is by nature so subjective that it’s an unanswerable charge. If I say to you, “you seem like you’re playing differently: prove that you’re not,” how do you respond to that? “Uhhh… no I’m not?” Or are you actually going to dig through past games and find examples of how you acted this way before? “The way I play” is going to differ in every game, depending on my role, the gamestate, and my opinion of the setup. “You’re playing differently” is a nonsensical charge in the vast majority of cases, because it’s unprovable and unanswerable.
It isn’t. Because in some of those games from which my “playstyle has [purportedly] changed,” I was Scum.
Well, there’s the reason. There are specific and unlikely circumstances under which I might attempt a kill. If those circumstances happen to arise - which again, is probably not likely - I would prefer that there not be a handbook on how to handle me available to the Scum.
Most definitely not. For me to kill at this time would be quite anti-Town in my opinion.
Sure. It’s short.
“You are an amoeba, one of the largest of single-celled creatures, and as such, can completely engulf another organism to eat it. Every Winter, you may choose to PM me the name of any one other player to eat and kill. <redacted> You are aligned with the Pond, and win or lose when the Pond does.”
Now, I have had three prosecutors, basically: Alka Seltzer, sachertorte, and fluiddruid. I have tried to answer as many of the questions sent my way as possible, and I would like to ask all three of those people to answer one question for me:
Regardless of what you think of my position or even of my arguments, do you or do you not believe that I am arguing my actual beliefs. If you fed me truth serum, do you believe that I would say that double-lysing was Pro-Town or Anti-Town?
I don’t think there’s any way we can say what the right number of masons is without knowing more about what other roles (both Pond and Scum) are also out there. The game could balance with 2 masons or with 5, depending what other powers we have at our collective disposal and what kind of Scum team we’re up against.
In other words, this discussion invites speculation of a dangerous sort, because anyone in a position to offer a meaningful opinion by definition has access to private information.
Just wanted to check in. I’m trying to keep up, but I’m about 70 posts behind right now. I’ll try to get caught up enough to make a second vote before Thursday.
This is more in line with what I would have expected from you Yesterday. You have a position, one that is being attacked, and all you did was whine about not wanting to discuss it anymore. I pointed out the, um, ‘lack of reasoning’ of your statement and you took offense. You flat out refused to defend the attacks on your position. That is why I was suspicious of you. You are stating your case now, and that is good, but the suspicion is not totally gone yet.
Not that you care, but the three situations you describe are not equiprobable. You should not treat them as such and you should not ignore the possibility of failure. Furthermore, you assume success in one case (yours) while assuming failure in the other (ours). That is not a valid comparison.
Eh. You have yet to defend the reasoning that looking at the game on a day-by-day basis is inappropriate. Lynch-by-lynch is the proper metric. How is lynching two on the first day better than lynching one on each day? Furthermore, you have not proved that double lyse increases the chance of catching scum over lyse one today, lyse one tomorrow. You have offered explanations that have been refuted. The fact that you don’t acknowledge the counter-arguments and make an attempt at proving those arguments wrong is problematic for me. I made tables damnit!
And this attitude drives me nuts. I’m trying to understand you. Simply stating that we won’t resolve it so we shouldn’t talk about it sounds like avoidance. Don’t you see how that makes me want to cut you open and see if you have scummy insides?
storyteller, your style of play is thoughtful, reasonable, and logical. As Town you do not try and avoid arguments, if anything you would engage in an argument to see what’s what with whom you are arguing.
The problem with countering that such a thing is unanswerable is that if you are scum then it really is unanswerable isn’t it? I believe that as Town, you would try, or at least point out at the time of the charge that proving your play style is the same is a difficult task. But that isn’t what you did, you attacked fluiddruid instead. (Which is okay in conjunction with a reasoned response, but you didn’t do that). I mean, this isn’t the be-all tell-all indicator, but I think it is absolutely fine as part of a case. I’ve already noted that playing differently could very well be due to holding a power role.
I have been accused of playing differently before, and I did refute the accusation by pointing out that my play is consistent with previous times that I was Town. If you were to accuse me of playing differently than before I would point out my total lack of ability to keep my mouth shut. I would point to all the nitpicky annoying things I point out, simply because I can’t resist. My personal opinion is that my town play is ridiculously transparent. I’m genuinely fearful of when I eventually have to play scum. I think it will be blatantly obvious to all who know me well. Over the past several games people have commented on consistent style of play (sachertorte being sachertorte: I think I should be offended, but I choose not to be ;)), and the fear that I’m ‘pulling one over them.’
Well then, point that out! Have you been scum in all the games with fluiddruid? If so, tell us! That would be a fantastic thing to point out. At some point in the past I was in a game with someone (I think it was NAF) and he reminisced about how we fought in a previous game and how it felt the same way. My reply: “You mean the game where I was Town and you were SCUM?!”
That’s okay, I guess. I suspected as much regardless of your alignment.
Again, fine. Totally expected and not an indicator either way.
Drain Bead, please compare this PM with your own. Does it seem consistent?
My main concern was that you weren’t taking on the argument head on. If you truly believe that double-lysing was Pro-Town, my expectation was that you would argue as such with greater vigor and logic. Since you have not, I question your motives. I do not think you think double-lysing is strongly anti-Town, but I don’t think you think it is nearly as pro-town as you purport. The lack of passion for your belief makes it difficult for me to believe that you feel double lyse is really Pro-Town.
For example, I feel double lysing is anti-Town. Strongly. That is why I have argued against it so vociferously. Had I believed double lysing was strongly pro-Town, I would have argued strongly in favor of it.
We’re getting into a problem here because we’re mixing terms. I believe, yes, true, that you argued in favor of a plan not because you genuinely believe that it is pro-Town (though certainly there are, potentially, pro-Town reasons to use said plan). My case was/is that you were espousing this plan because of the scum advantages to not only potentially using the plan, and also the scum advantages in merely suggesting it at an early stage of the game.
Now, going back to what I said:
The disagreement is here is not whether or not I believe you are arguing something that do you not generally believe is pro-Town, but your implication that this statement summarizes my case against you. It does not, and that is what is misleading about what you said. It tends to imply that someone has to agree with me (and others) that your strategy is anti-Town, which is not at all the point. It’s a way of dissuading votes by trying to tie a vote to you to a vote against double-player-lynching. Clearly, I don’t agree with such an assessment.
In other words: I would still think your posts scummy upon close reading if you were espousing a no lynch, or espousing lynching every day, or any other strategy – bad or good. The strategic value is not the only issue, it is the manner in which you have defended them, which I find alarming. As I’ve said, I believe you have continually emphasized town positives to your plan while being plainly dismissive of the negative potential.
OK, I appreciate you taking the time to break it down like this. The reason I don’t accept this argument is that I see the only true measure of how far we are into the game as the number of mislynches before lylo, so I don’t see the ‘early’ lynch of scum as meaningful. We have a better chance of making that important scum lynch the next Day.
Do you agree with the following?
- Double player lyse increases the risk of outing our power roles more quickly.
- With more information we should be able to make better decisions.
- Statistically, we have a better chance of lynching scum before lylo by lysing spawn each Day.
If you are town, unless you can refute all of these points you should be able to understand why I haven’t been willing to drop this. I don’t see a pro-town reason for your treatment of this, although to be fair I don’t see a clear pro-scum motive either.
I can’t answer that without knowing your alignment. If you are town, I’m sure you believe what you are saying. If you are scum or 3rd party, I think you are taking an anti-town stance and at least exagerating your frustration for reasons I don’t understand (possibly hidden game mechanics, or some sort of gambit).
Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree with what you’ve said. Did I take a strong role in the lynch players debate like Alka did? NO. Was I tying myself in knots over it? NO. I saw the way you were responding and my gut feeling was that something was wrong. Since then you have continued with responding in a way that I do not believe strikes me as consistent with an experienced Town player. You have, repeatedly, attempted to dismiss and undermine myself and others who have debated with you. You have repeatedly mischaracterized my case against you – as a strategy disagreement, as me not knowing you well enough, as me not being credible enough.
Story, I’m honestly not sure what to make of this. You’ve given us a role claim that is at this point unverifiable because you refuse to verify it. You refuse to verify it for reasons you won’t disclose. There’s no guarantee your role even exists, or that there is even a role in play that could confirm you are who you say you are. I really hate to push a potential power role into a corner, but what are we supposed to do with this, exactly?
I’m willing to admit that I am able to accept that I may not be on the right track with you, but frankly such a claim seems more like buying time than a pro-Town move. You only had two votes! You’re not a vote leader! Why exactly have you felt that you should role claim from the beginning of the game? What is the reasoning for a Vig claiming now (or earlier than now)?
Please explain. I’m willing to listen but you need to help me understand your reasoning here.
Heading to lunch, will return to respond to rysto and others shortly.