Scum mafia: On Cecil pond [Game Over]

[storyteller0910]

@DiggitCamara

What I’m saying is that you’re one of those players whose basic philosophy is to always play as honestly as they can (indeed, didn’t you state that much yourself after your legendary first game? ) Therefore you won’t show up as scummy. Ever. (As long as you hold true to your basic philosophy)

Well, that’s the theory, anyway. So yeah, I see what you’re saying theoretically.

What I’m also saying is: You gave us (almostly) your exact PM, because it’s consistent with your basic philosophy as a player. Your role, as you stated it, simply doesn’t make sense as a townie role to me.

There are two problems here:

1. Analyzing a role to decide if it makes sense, especially from a position of partial ignorance about the setup as a whole, is bound to be fruitless. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Chia Bingo Manager? Also:

2. If your theory is that I am telling (most of) the truth about my role, then you are theorizing that either: (1) I’m a Serial Killer or third-party role who has decided never to kill; or (2) I’m Scum with an extra kill that would hide the alignment of the dead player (!!!) and have decided not to use that ability. Neither of these things is particularly reasonable, really.

My role has only one practical application - I can kill someone who has been definitively outed as Scum, whether by confirmed Detective or disproven role claim or what have you. From that perspective, it makes more sense and is far more balanced as a Town role than as any other.

I can understand doubting the veracity of my claim, as I have offered no evidence that it is true. But if you are accepting the truth of my power, I really can’t understand thinking I’m anything but Town - the power as I’ve described it in the hands of Scum would be extremely powerful, ditto in the hands of an SK, and in either of those instances, I’d have used the power by now.

[DiggitCamara]

@storyteller0910

Well, that’s the theory, anyway. So yeah, I see what you’re saying theoretically.

There are two problems here:

1. Analyzing a role to decide if it makes sense, especially from a position of partial ignorance about the setup as a whole, is bound to be fruitless. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Chia Bingo Manager? Also:

2. If your theory is that I am telling (most of) the truth about my role, then you are theorizing that either: (1) I’m a Serial Killer or third-party role who has decided never to kill; or (2) I’m Scum with an extra kill that would hide the alignment of the dead player (!!!) and have decided not to use that ability. Neither of these things is particularly reasonable, really.

My role has only one practical application - I can kill someone who has been definitively outed as Scum, whether by confirmed Detective or disproven role claim or what have you. From that perspective, it makes more sense and is far more balanced as a Town role than as any other.

I can understand doubting the veracity of my claim, as I have offered no evidence that it is true. But if you are accepting the truth of my power, I really can’t understand thinking I’m anything but Town - the power as I’ve described it in the hands of Scum would be extremely powerful, ditto in the hands of an SK, and in either of those instances, I’d have used the power by now.

1. Well, I see the Chia Bingo Manager as a pretty crazy role, created by a wacky player(Idle Thoughts). It’s the exception not the rule. And this game is about competition for resources in our little shallow pool. Viewed that way, an amoeba would try to outcompete everyone else.
2. As a permanent ability, your power to mask your kills wouldn’t make sense (it would be too overpowered IMHO). However, if one your teammates or the collective had the power to mask one of your kills as a one-shot, your claim would very much help you survive.
3. I frankly still think you’re a SK. I think you’re a very good player and, like your stance on Vig’s reveals, you have given extra kills a good thought. You know very well that a SK’s primary objective isn’t to get to the endgame quickly. It’s to survive to the endgame. So, not using your power makes perfect sense to me (as a survival strategy)

[sachertorte]

@Meeko

Well then, explain. Now is no time for a cryptic town. At all. For lack of better terms. You are smudging with a side of nayh nanh nah. Town should never do this ever. Let alone here in this game this late.

(1) I find it hilarious that you of all people are accusing me of being cryptic.
(2) I feel my statements and positions have been upfront and plain. If you are confused, then ask me to clarify for you. Vague references to ‘cryptic’ doesn’t do anyone a lick of good.

Come clean or claim or take your votes.

(3) Again, I have been upfront with my thoughts.
(4) It is not your position to demand a claim.

@Drain_Bead

The other thing I don’t like about sachertorte’s incessant detective-talk is that if he’s Town, the Scum can be pretty sure he’s not the detective, and can weed him out of the potential power role pool. Honestly, when I’m Vanilla, I try to avoid saying things like that, because then the Scum know I’m not the detective. When I’m vanilla (it’s been a while…) my goal is to get nightkilled, and I do everything within my power to make it so.

Fixated much?
First of all, I was not incessantly talking about the detective. I mentioned two things:

• I viewed KellyCriterion’s claim as a de facto detective claim.
• I felt we were in a situation where a detective was likely to counter-claim.
  If anyone is incessantly talking about the detective it is YOU.

Secondly, several others explicitly asked the detective to consider claiming. Storyteller has repeated this point of view Today. Yet you are fixated on me – confirmation bias.

Thirdly, for a decent portion of Yesterday, it looked as though KellyCriterion was the detective. Are you really going to chastise me for not trying to project the possibility that I was the detective when we had a detective claim on the table? Well pardon me for not divining the future. Again a strange fixation on me. Also, if you are so concerned about pointing out things that scum may or may not have pieced together for themselves: Why are you accusing me of giving away that I’m not the Detective? What if scum hadn’t figured that out for themselves? Now you’ve given them everything! I’ve been told that this is a very bad thing

Fourth, if you are so concerned about not tipping off scum as to who the power roles are not, then maybe you should keep the masons from claiming for no good reason. And maybe you shouldn’t vote for one of the few people that is giving the remaining hidden mason a tiny bit of cover.

[Stanislaus]

@Drain_Bead

Another idea I have that supports storyteller’s premise that we’re dealing with an almost all-vanilla game is the color. I can’t think of any color that would give us a single-celled detective or even a doctor. The numbers may break down to the fact that we have a lot of masons, a lot of scum, and a bunch of vanillas.

I don’t think colour is such a barrier - no-one blinked at Kelly’s “rotifier” colour, just the inconsistencies. Similarly, no-one’s saying **story **can’t possibly be an ameoba, just that they’re not convinced he’s therefore town. So I’m sure if **Chronos **wanted to have a cop or a doc, he could come up with some colour that we’d all pretty much just accept.

Speaking of which, I find Diggit’s continued case against **story **pretty weak. It seems to boil down to the argument from personal incredulity, coupled with a risk-averse approach to **story **as a player.

I still feel **USCDiver **has a case to answer - I switched my player vote to **Kelly **yesterday because he was a racing certainty, but that didn’t mean I stopped suspecting Diver. My case is here:

Your play is definitely anti-town. Is it pro-scum? Certainly, leaving no trail has big advantages for scum in a) avoiding attention and b) reducing the info town gains from role reveal. Your voting pattern looks somewhat odd: a bandwagon vote on peeker (the last one, if I’m counting right), no vote on Summer 2 (although you announced in advance you’d have little online access that week) and a one-off vote on Meeko for Summer 3. Discounting the Summer 2 absence, I find the move from a town-lyse bandwagon to a one-off vote somewhat suspicious - possibly a conscious attempt to withdraw from the attention that comes with being on a townie bandwagon.

[Oredigger77]

With Kelly coming up as scum I think it’s a no brainer to lynch Alka toDay. We’ve picked up a mislynch and his actions obviously saved Kelly a Day earlier. While it’s true he only created the tie I think combined with his other actions he is the scummiest person in the game.

Vote Alka
Vote Spawn

Something we need to start thinking about it leaving the spawn alive to screw with the scum’s night vote. With one down there are 3-4 remaining so a spawn would be 20-25% of the weight for who to kill with possibly all of our power roles exposed it might be a good idea to think about the spawn as a way to protect them if there isn’t in fact a doctor.

[Stanislaus]

@Oredigger77

Something we need to start thinking about it leaving the spawn alive to screw with the scum’s night vote. With one down there are 3-4 remaining so a spawn would be 20-25% of the weight for who to kill with possibly all of our power roles exposed it might be a good idea to think about the spawn as a way to protect them if there isn’t in fact a doctor.

For one spawn to make a difference now, the scum would need to be unable to agree on a target even knowing the spawn could spoil their votes. The chances that as a team they are that poorly co-ordinated are slim; if they were, we’d find it easy to win in any case.

When we get down to one living scum, then there’ll be an argument for introducing a spawn, because it would make the nightkill essentially random. But it would all depend on the overall state of the game at that point - there are also costs to introducing spawn.

[Meeko]

I doubt at this point that Sach is VT. Too defensive. I will take my odds. Vote stays.

**
Digger, can you perhaps do a WOW on Alka for me? **

I would consider not voting spawn today, but I am not quite there yet.

[sachertorte]

Update on Red Skeezix’s work.
No Day 4 since it hasn’t been done yet, and I don’t have time right now.

Day 1
peekercpa: special_ed, Mahaloth, Freudian Slit, USCDiver, Alka Seltzer, Zeriel, fluiddruid, TexCat
Red Skeezix: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, Oredigger77, Meeko, Natlaw, KellyCriterion
fluiddruid: Drain Bead
Freudian Slit: storyteller, DiggitCamara, sachertorte
USCDiver: amrussell
special_ed: Rysto

Day 2
fluiddruid: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, Drain Bead, Oredigger77, DiggitCamara, Rysto
sachertorte: storyteller
Red Skeezix: Meeko
KellyCriterion: Mahaloth, Zeriel
storyteller: Freudian Slit, Alka Seltzer, sachertorte, fluiddruid
Meeko: Natlaw
Mahaloth: amrussell, KellyCriterion, TexCat

Day 3
Mahaloth: Drain Bead, storyteller, Alka Seltzer, Natlaw, amrussell, KellyCriterion, sachertorte
KellyCriterion: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, Meeko, Mahaloth, Freudian Slit, Red Skeezix, Rysto
storyteller: Drain Bead, DiggitCamara, TexCat
sachertorte: Oredigger77
Rysto: storyteller
Meeko: USCDiver

[storyteller0910]

@Oredigger77

With Kelly coming up as scum I think it’s a no brainer to lynch Alka toDay. We’ve picked up a mislynch and his actions obviously saved Kelly a Day earlier. While it’s true he only created the tie I think combined with his other actions he is the scummiest person in the game.

Hm.

Not that I’m overly enthusiastic about introducing this topic, but while Alka Seltzer created the tie that resulted in Mahaloth’s lynch preferential to Kelly’s, I broke it - and did so explicitly because I felt the lynch of the former was preferable to that of the latter.

Why vote for Alka and not mention my part in this at all?

[Chronos]

Vote count:
Spawn 5
sachertorte 2
Storyteller0910 2
DiggitCamara 1
Alka Seltzer 1

[del]1: special_ed[/del]
[del]2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies[/del]
3: Drain Bead – sachertorte (1577)
4: Oredigger77 – Alka Seltzer, Spawn
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – sachertorte (1580), Spawn (1580)
[del]7: Mahaloth [/del]
[del]8: Freudian Slit[/del]
9: USCDiver
10: Alka Seltzer
[del]11: peekercpa[/del]
12: Natlaw
[del]13: Zeriel[/del]
14: DiggitCamara – Storyteller (1596), Spawn (1596)
15: amrussell
[del]16: KellyCriterion[/del]
17: Red Skeezix
18: sachertorte
[del]19: fluiddruid[/del]
20: TexCat – Spawn (1578), Storyteller (1578)
21: Rysto – DiggitCamara (1575), Spawn (1575)

And no, I’m not counting Storyteller’s broken quote of Diggit as a vote. The chad was hanging.

[Red_Skeezix]

Here’s the day four stuff. Kelly’s claim pretty much lopsided these results.
Day 4
KellyCriterion: Drain Bead, storyteller, Freudian Slit, USCDiver, Alka Seltzer, Natlaw, DiggitCamara, amrussell, Red Skeezix, sachertorte, TexCat, Rysto
sachertorte: Drain Bead, Meeko
Alka Seltzer: Oredigger77
Rysto: storyteller

My main focus today was going to be TexCat.
Main reasons:

1. Pushing of story test vig, even after it was shown to be a poor pro-scum idea.
2. Claiming vanilla while under no pressure to do so.
3. Ignoring these two points and questions all of yesterDay.

However, since (s)he has announced that (s)he is unavailable to play this week. I am perusing other possible cases.

Also to note, I am not liking the reasoning for the sachertorte push. At this time I can’t get behind his lynch, largely because I see him pointing out the masons vulnerability as unlikely for scum to do. Since, despite the fact that it is actually IMO a pro-town move, it is generally controversial and falls under the heading of “outing other townies”.

Why is it pro-town?

1. The timing of meeko’s claim shows that he was unaware, or unattentive to the possible exposure. It is in town’s interest to notify masons of facts and situations which could cause them to be prematurely outed.
2. It’s something similar to the “Kerckhoff assumption” of cryptography. In that you assume that your adversary knows everything that can possibly be known based on public information. That way you don’t rely on how obscured that public information is, and you don’t get bit in the ass when you find out it wasn’t so obscured.
3. If the scum acted on this analysis, then they would have hit the other mason last night (which they did). This gives us a nice sized search pool to look harder than usual at since if the pool of people that meeko did not vote for (or vote for him), may lead to clues based on the reasoning that the pool will be the size of n scum + m town non mason + freudian, which should be heavily scummy. I’m still working on this, and will post my list for all to see when I get home (~9p EST). IIRC the list has six names on it including freudian, probably as an overlay on the pivots.

[Red_Skeezix]

NETA: ON second thought point 3 is not really a pro-town reason. But it’s where my mind wandered to.

[sachertorte]

Hi. I’m looking at Natlaw.

Essentially it goes like this: I recall Natlaw going after KellyCriterion for some reason or another and my going “really?” (I know, I feel stupid now, but…) so I look at the vote record and I see that Natlaw voted for KellyCriterion on Day 2 (which is what I thought I remembered).

But on Day 3, he doesn’t vote for KellyCriterion, he votes for Mahaloth, which I suppose could be fine, but it does make me wonder. Typically, if anything, I’m too slow to let up on someone. As far as I could tell, on Day 3 there wasn’t really anything to make Natlaw less suspicious of KellyCriterion. Now I’m all for looking at a variety of people, but when it boiled down to Mahaloth versus KellyCriterion. I find it odd that someone going after KellyCriterion on Day 2 was essentially voting to save KellyCriterion. I find this situation unusual. Not only does he drop his case against KellyCriterion, but he joins KellyCriterion in voting for Mahaloth. Furthermore, Natlaw asks KellyCriterion some questions that as far as I can tell do not get answered (post 1263 where Natlaw votes for Mahaloth), which I find suspicious as well since if Natlaw was Town, I would have expected more follow-up/annoyance at being ignored.

Full disclosure is of course that at no time during days 2 and 3 did I consider KellyCriterion was scum, and I also voted to lynch Mahaloth. But I also note that I voted to kill Mahaloth on both Days 2 (retracted) and 3 (not that that’s something to brag about).

vote Natlaw
vote Spawn

[sachertorte]

My god, that sucks. Sorry for the lack of grammar and lucidity.

[Oredigger77]

@amrussell

For one spawn to make a difference now, the scum would need to be unable to agree on a target even knowing the spawn could spoil their votes. The chances that as a team they are that poorly co-ordinated are slim; if they were, we’d find it easy to win in any case.

When we get down to one living scum, then there’ll be an argument for introducing a spawn, because it would make the night kill essentially random. But it would all depend on the overall state of the game at that point - there are also costs to introducing spawn.

I realize that the spawn cannot dominate the scum vote yet but what happens if they are divided, say there are 3 off them and one goes one way while the other two go another the spawn could make a difference or with four and an even split the spawn could decide less then optimally. As you can see from my vote I don’t think we’re quite there yet but I wanted to get people at least thinking that direction so when it is time we don’t have to start from scratch.

@storyteller0910

Hm.

Not that I’m overly enthusiastic about introducing this topic, but while Alka Seltzer created the tie that resulted in Mahaloth’s lynch preferential to Kelly’s, I broke it - and did so explicitly because I felt the lynch of the former was preferable to that of the latter.

Why vote for Alka and not mention my part in this at all?

The reason that I didn’t mention you was that I’ve been building a case against Alka for a couple of Days and I’m trying to get people to get on board. I think you aren’t scum, though you may be third party, so I don’t see scummy motivations for you in the tie.

[Natlaw]

@Meeko

Blah blah blah " This " from Drain, even if I don’t fully understand it. Blah blah blah I’ve already stated I found you scummy blah blah blah I so thought I was a gonner last night.

This isn’t really helpful if you want to make a convincing case.

I can has Mass Claim?
Dear God. Peekerese is easy.

But, in so many words, I’m kinda nonplussed with Mafia in general right now.

It’s LOLCAT speak, not peekerese

Back to the case against sachertorte:

@sachertorte

Do you realize that my expectation is now that we don’t have a detective at all? That is, I still expect a detective to have counter-claimed KellyCriterion and the fact that we didn’t see one, makes me think we don’t have one.

I think you calling for a detective to counter claim before KellyCriterion actually fully claimed is the strongest point against you (although the ‘before’ aspect hasn’t been mentioned before).
That you interpreted his half claim as a ‘de facto’ alignment detective claim (when it was more looking like a Watcher claim) and that means a real detective should counter doesn’t make sense to me.

Note that that doesn’t mean that a detective with some result couldn’t have claimed as suggested, but that Kelly’s claim wasn’t really a reason to.

(responding in order, I’ll get to you vote against me later).

[Natlaw]

@storyteller0910

Time for the excitement of game-state analysis. Thirteen remain. Claims to date are listed in red.

1: Drain Bead - Mason
2: Oredigger77
3: storyteller0910 - Vigilante
4: Meeko - Mason
5: Freudian Slit
6: USCDiver
7: Alka Seltzer
8: DiggitCamara
9: amrussell
10: Red Skeezix
11: sachertorte
12: TexCat - Vanilla
13: Rysto

Freudian Slit is dead, I’m still in the game.

My conclusion - we’re likely to have either no additional power roles, or else a minimum of six Scum to start the game.

Four masons (12) + twelve vanilla (12) = 24 vs 22.5 = Five vanilla scum.
Scum do need strict majority (+1 for town), Day start (+1 for town) = 26 vs 22.5.
If you are indeed town vigilante, 27.5 vs 22.5 - meaning either that’s six scum (26.5 vs 27) or five scum with some powers and/or a PFK/Third party (or a balanced differently).

For the record, I think KellyCriterion was vanilla scum since he was just labeled ‘Scum’.

[Rysto]

@Oredigger77

I realize that the spawn cannot dominate the scum vote yet but what happens if they are divided, say there are 3 off them and one goes one way while the other two go another the spawn could make a difference or with four and an even split the spawn could decide less then optimally. As you can see from my vote I don’t think we’re quite there yet but I wanted to get people at least thinking that direction so when it is time we don’t have to start from scratch.

If there’s still a spawn alive the scum would have to be idiotic to leave themselves in a position that the spawn’s vote could interfere with their kill. Short of the scum just flat-out forgetting to vote, I don’t see how leaving a spawn alive would ever interfere with their kill until there’s only one scum left.

[sachertorte]

@Natlaw

That you interpreted his half claim as a ‘de facto’ alignment detective claim (when it was more looking like a Watcher claim) and that means a real detective should counter doesn’t make sense to me.

People keep shoving KellyCriterion’s early false claim into the “watcher” box, and I still don’t get it. How does KellyCriterion’s list of random names push people to think “watcher?” I simply do not understand this at all. I get a list, and the first thing I’m going to think is alignment. How does KellyCriterion’s early claim function as a “watcher?” Are people saying that the list is a list of people who did something during winter? That doesn’t really make sense either. It’s pretty useless, and a pretty ridiculous game mechanism.
So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that KC wasn’t scum and we really did have a whacked out role as claimed. Are you saying that we would believe those names are a list of people who did something during the winter? How does this make sense except to confuse the role even more than it already is? Are you actually saying that ‘list of people who did something during the winter’ is more plausible than ‘list of people who are Town?’ It doesn’t make sense. It didn’t make sense, and I never thought of KellyCriterion’s role claim as anything but a de facto detective claim.
I can accept that people wanted to keep the Watcher possibility on the table, but to say that “it was more looking like a Watcher claim” is ridiculous.

[sachertorte]

@Natlaw

I think you calling for a detective to counter claim before KellyCriterion actually fully claimed is the strongest point against you (although the ‘before’ aspect hasn’t been mentioned before).

Here is the actual quote:

@sachertorte

Pro-Kelly:
Essentially, KellyCriterion has claimed Detective. At the current state of the game, my expectation for a counter claim is high; that is, if KellyCriterion were lying, I would expect a pro-Town detective to counter-claim at this point. A counter-claim has not happened, therefore I am inclined to believe KellyCriterion. I reject the alternate explanation of there being no Detective as being infeasible.

Anti-Kelly:
The main problem I have with KellyCriterion is the change in story. Initially KellyCriterion announced he was in possession of two names. Most recently, Kelly has amended this story to having three names. I don’t like the inconsistency. There really isn’t any reason for it (scum or town), but there it is, staring me in the face. Taunting me.
I guess I just don’t understand how Kelly could have gotten into this situation. As Town, I see no reason for the mistake. As scum, I see a larger possibility, especially in light of the fact that several players had made mention of being suspicious because there were only two names.

I did not ask for a detective to claim. I said I would expect a detective to have counter-claimed and since one didn’t, it makes KellyCriterion’s claim more believable. In other words I was believing KellyCriterion’s claim.