Normal Game Thread Big Trouble in Little Salem

True things aren't hopeless just yet.

 

So we are all thinking Prada then?

@Prada how do you react to all this?

 

O wow, so that's how it is

Not going to lie, I internally died writing that post about what happens after I shoot.

Then in this case, I'll take the shot. If my ass is roleblocked or whatever, then rip me, but I might as well anyways. I guess we can treat it as a "secondary lynch" if that's how you want to perceive it. The primary one being the lynch town is dead set on and the secondary one being someone town wouldn't mind dying.

Shinto isn't a bad candidate. I'll hear from the others first before making a decision. I'll be here for EOD.

Also one last thing, how many townies are left in this game? I forgot how far away we are from lylo.

 

Up until your very recent read list, you were the same. Most players haven't given a read on most of the other players. What's your point?

Let's play a game. Show me your reads on Wowee, Glob, Falcon, and Ratchet. You may not use #386, or any other post which comes after #347 wherein you accuse me of being Scum.

I mean, what part of my playstyle prohibits voting? I personally tend not to, but I don't think I ever stated that it was suspicious to vote more frequently than I tend to. So my breaking with my usual pattern here, in this game with irksomely short phases, isn't really suspicious either. Certainly not fallacious, which would be what my playstyle would be looking for.

It's not even three real days into the game, and we've got a little over 400 posts to work with. We've got several players who are only managing a few posts per phase. To me, it's early.

No response to my accusation, or attempt to substantiate your earlier claims? Typical.

I love that you have embraced the fallacy. It really drives home the incompetence point I was trying to make earlier.

Right. Here's the context.

The player claimed last time with little to no pressure. Therefore, it stands to ******* reason that they will probably claim this game with little to no pressure. Because people don't change after one incident; they develop habits, and it takes time to break those habits. London wasn't built in a day, as they say.

So we have a player who is liable to claim with little to no pressure at the slightest provocation. Another player, one who is not new to the game and generally knows what he is doing, comes in, and provokes him in a way that serves no other purpose than to provoke him into claiming. I don't give a shit if you think it was supposed to be a joke, you don't look at a guy standing on the edge of a roof and go "jump you pussy!" because they ******* will.

After this person is called out for this provocation, which does not serve the Town's agenda, the person states that it was just a joke. Well, I guess that wraps it up, because obviously the ******* provocateur wouldn't have a ******* ulterior motive to ******* lie about it.

That's the ******* context. What about that don't you get? You prattle on about Occam's ******* Razor, but you can't even acknowledge that Nick's behavior, if it was a joke, had a high chance of provoking a new player to do something that was objectively bad for Town, and Nick was either incompetent for risking such a joke or suspicious for intentionally making such a provocation.

The difference between you and I is that I can see the possibility of it being a joke. I acknowledge that possibility. Maybe it was just a joke. But I take a moment and go "why would he make this joke when the most likely outcome of the joke would be bad for Town?" and realize, hey, maybe, just ******* maybe, it wasn't just a joke, but intentional.

Like holy shit, for a guy trying to sell me on this "different perspective" shit, you sure are incapable of considering any other ******* perspective. And the worst thing is, you are actively making Prada's defense stronger by using these idiotic arguments. If you didn't apparently have a guilty against him and a Vig lined up to shoot him, you'd probably have a tough time pushing the lynch on him because you've effectively sabotaged the case against him.

So your entire assumption here hinges on the conceit that, since you've not played with Nick before, obviously he's new to the game? It never occurred to you that the rather articulate guy who seems to know what's going on might be intelligent or have some passing familiarity with the game?

I mean, considering this is the first time you've even addressed the WIFOM angle by arguing (incorrectly) that Nick is too new to make such a rudimentary play, which hilariously contradicts your previous argument that the play was too scummy for someone smart like Nick to ever consider doing as Scum, no, I don't think you previously made this context clear.

"I didn't say it was a proof, I just said that it's a proof." If you take Occam's Razor and say "if you don't meet this requirement, your argument is automatically dismissed out of hand without any further evidence" you are using it as a proof.

That sure is what he said. And I agree with him. You are outright dismissing a possibility as impossible, and justifying this by citing Occam's Razor!

I'm curious how CR's thoughts even got brought up, but more interested in how you're willing to just completely and utterly dismiss a person's opinion as even mattering purely because they disagree with you.

Is this...over-the-top? I'm going to assume OTT is over-the-top, because I can't think of anything else it could be off hand. But Prada's response here specifically, the one you quoted, isn't really over-the-top. You've repeatedly and consistently up to that point entirely rejected a possibility as being so infeasible that anyone even considering it must be Scum (or stupid, since obviously not every person who doesn't align with your beliefs is Scum). He is calling attention to the fact that your whole argument about Nick here basically sums up to "it's a joke because I say it is and anyone who disagrees is a bad guy!"

Again, lying is a thing. Just because someone says that their incredibly suspicious action was actually just a joke does not somehow make it a ******* fact.

Right, but why would Nick assume that Reaper had learned his lesson? I've told you probably a dozen times now that you can't just arbitrarily declare that one thing means a second thing without giving evidence or explaining why, but here we still are, now four days later, and you're still doing it.

Reaper gave little indication during the previous iteration that he understood why claiming was bad. He was defensive of the move. When this game started, he repeated a specific mistake he made last game that was also pointed out to him; that is, claiming he must be Town because he's too new to be Scum. He hadn't learned his lesson there, so why do we think he's learned his lesson elsewhere? On top of that, Nick's "joke" post is effectively telling him that he was wrong to not claim early, because it appears to accuse him of being Scum for not making that mistake before, which would reinforce that it was not a mistake.

So we have a new player who has demonstrably not taken our advice to heart on other issues who is clearly prone to overreacting and melodrama who is already exasperated by trying to defend themselves, and Nick comes in with a drive-by "oh you're Scum for not claiming" and we're just expected to believe, not only that Reaper was going to see this and not kneejerk claim in response, but also that Nick was confident enough in this to make such a provocative joke in the first place!?

So basically, your whole argument boils down to "people always learn their lesson the first time" which we can objectively demonstrate is not the case specifically with Reaper by merely pointing out that he continued to insist the host would not give him a Scum role even after we repeatedly explained that that was not how it works in the previous iteration.

Not really. The second part is assuming a lot on Reaper's part. A lot that, contextually, doesn't add up. I mean, shit, you won't even assume that Nick knows what WIFOM is, which is like a basic ******* tenant of Scum play, but you'll assume that, after Reaper's performance last iteration and during the beginning of this game, where he is demonstrably new and not particularly well adjusted to the game, that he was capable enough to evaluate the value of his potential role and adjust his play accordingly?

You've still lost me. How is the inno/guilty thing at all connected to Reaper claiming without being asked last iteration but knowing not to this iteration? How is it even remotely part of any consideration over whether or not Reaper has taken to heart the lesson we sought to teach him last iteration?

Yes.

Ok. So then, answer me this. Are you aware of this thing called deceit. It's a thing people do, sometimes, to try and trick one another. It's sort of an important part of playing Scum. A thing you can do with deceit is make it look like you're meaning one thing, when you're actually meaning something else. That is, you can make a "harmless joke" that you know will set someone off, so that it looks like you are not at fault for them going off.

Have you considered this possibility? Because it doesn't seem like you're aware that deceit exists.

Sigh. Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? Or, perhaps, why it is generally regarded as one of the worst kinds of evidence? It's because your experiences may not necessarily be the rule, but the exception.

How long have you been playing mafia? At how many communities have you played mafia? How many games of mafia have you played? How many different hosts have you played under? How many times have you played? Any one of these things could expose you to a bias by pure chance.

Which is why logic speaks louder than experience. Especially a single person's experience.

Alright, but how is anyone supposed to ******* react if they don't even know who you have a guilty against?

I mean, you already had, so...

It's the only thing that really follows your statements. If you wanted to keep it a secret, it was kinda stupid to post it in thread, instead of entrusting it to a few people other than Maple that you particularly trust. Scum would have to be pretty stupid to see that statement and not draw the same conclusion I did.

Hinting, you see, is stupid. Just outright stupid. Because the chances of an individual Towny catching a hint are somewhat low, but the odds that at least one Scum gets the hint and explains it to his partners is rather high. So when you hint, you're not keeping information safe from Scum, you're keeping it safe from Town.

Because every attempt you've made to analyze behavior has been insulting. Next thing we know, you're going to come back and point out that someone used ******* italics while responding to whomever you have a guilty on, AND THAT MUST MAKE THEM SCUM!!!11one You've bragged about past achievements, but you've not actually demonstrated any competence in reading people.

Actually...

@Cow Hypothetically, in your nightless system, if a player were both lynched and killed, would the writeup reflect this fact? Or would one take precedence over the other, and if so, which? Also, do failed kills appear in the writeup?

Well, that's not the role I thought you were claiming. And it seems you've put Maple up to shoot someone purely on suspicion and not based on anything actionable, which is disappointing. Part of me just wants to cite Lynch All Liars and be done with you, but I think that's the part that's just sick of arguing with you.

 

Closed setup so we don't know how many Townies are left, sadly. It could be LyLo tomorrow so not a whole lot of time to figure shit out. We have 4 dead already which is 2 days worth of Kills. In a regular game with a night, I would assume we would have 3 or 4 mislynches depending on setup. That would be 6-8 Townies dead. If its 4 days for LyLo then we have 2 days left before we NEED to lynch Scum. Otherwise, if your Kill goes through and its on a Townie, we prolly only have 1 day left.

 

This is not a productive use of time in this game any longer. Shit has happened. You don't need to make a 2,000 word posts every time you make one - it detracts from other things you could be talking about.

 

What's your thinking here; to reduce potential casualties double tap a target?

 

Yes yes, wouldn't want to bore you with this whole discussion thing in a strictly discussion-based game, or force you to actually substantiate any of the various baseless accusations or claims you've made. Carry on.

A myriad of considerations. If failed kills appear, Mafia can't block him to cast doubt on his claim. If we have him shoot the person we lynch, even if he is Mafia playing along and claims Mafia is abstaining to set him up, we're effectively wasting Mafia's kill each phase, which is still a win. In order to prevent him from being functionally confirmed, Mafia would need to kill him, which would mean not killing Quick, giving him one last chance to catch Scum with his role.

But if failed kills don't appear, and if redundant lynch/kill isn't distinct from just a lynch, none of that matters, and Quick's revealing of the plan basically defeats it.

 

That is fair. Just depends on what Cow says in terms of setup. It is a good plan in the ideal situation.

 

So I guess, flip a coin: if it lands heads, shoot shinto, if it lands tails, shoot Prada.

 

I am not against substantiating my claims, but at some point, you just have to accept what I say as truth or not. I know you like these types of back and forths that are like 3 pages long, but just because you have the ability to come up with a counter argument doesn't mean you need to. Sometimes its just best if you can understand what someone is saying instead of trying to discredit everything they say. I feel good about my last response to you and feel I substantiated myself well. If you don't think so, you're off your rocker because most people haven't substantiated themselves as much as you expect me to do. It makes it seem like you are intentionally trying to force a back and forth with me without having to actually Scum read me which makes me waste time in these long conversations when I could be making other reads, interacting with other people, and generally having a more optimal use of time. If the thread was dead, we were like in LyLo and it was like F5 or F3, I would be fine having these long engagements with you, but as it stands, there are still 11 people in this game and posts are being made more than once an hour.

 

I am going to suggest something that IDK how is going to be received.

I suggest Doc PM me and quote their role to me. this way I can quote said role PM itt so everyone knows there is a Doc or not without having to actually out the Doc. What this will do is possibly prevent both me AND LM from dying next phase. Doc will be using the same strategy as I gave to LM regarding who he decides to shoot only this time, the Doc will flip a coin to determine who they will save between me and LM. If you think LM and I are teamed you are slightly crazy, so the fact that Doc randomizes their save ensures that even if I am Scum and somehow got LM to claim to me as Scum and I am planning to Kill them that I cannot be sure that he will die if I target them. The worst that happens is that I am Scum and I kill the Doc, in which case I am prolly the next days lynch target so it would basically be a 1:1 trade which is almost always good for Town.

Thoughts?

 

Why do your put your awful read on me over a guilty?
Also if lord Maple doesn't lie your little plan means most likely lylo.
Didn't you want to stop giving me attention this dp quick? Why are you going back on your word?

 

Its not a true guilty.

So you claim Town?

I don't remember saying that, refresh my memory. I don't remember promising anything everything is:

 

here quick this is your statement