Good afternoon.

I see I have another Lump supporter. Excellent.

 

A little more on that:

Let's say scum often don't bus. Player A doesn't vote player B, and B turns out to be scum.

There's now pressure on A. According to you, it's illogical to focus on B just because scum not bussing was common in other games.

And that's beyond the fact that:

You LITERALLY did the exact thing scum do when attacked by the way. You called them stupid or called them mafia.

Tell me that's not a decent reason to find you pretty scummy, adding to previous arguments against you.

Oh and I'm going to be very disappointed if you call me stupid. At least jump straight to calling me mafia if you're going to take the exact same approach to me as well

---------- Post automerged at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

1. I don't see the difference. I found it similar actually, though I'm operating from memory. You're going to need to go into at least a little more detail on that.

2. Yes you have. I've already brought up what exactly about your play this game makes it like that (hint: it's also related to point 3)

3. Wanna bet on #3?

---------- Post automerged at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

Snowvon, if you can convince me you're town to a relatively confident degree AND will use the lump wisely, I just may in fact vote to lump you.

But I'm currently not feeling very good about it becaue of your interactions with Fontisian + her play in general.

Let's start with your readwall you posted a few pages ago. Potential scum-teams you can draw from it?

 

Lump the Irken!

Kill the Witch!

Also I am interested in this supposed towntell.

---------- Post automerged at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

I'll get back to you within the hour.

 

Ah here it is!

Why is Waco gray? Is Waco same tier as Riley or slightly townier?

Why is Newcomb town but at the bottom of tier town?

Are these reads ordered too, or just in color tiers for the most part?

Why are Jan and Fontisian both upper-weak-town reads considering how they've interacted and played this game. You think they're both town and not town/scum?

---------- Post automerged at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

Man people need to post more, I've got these mental cogs spinning and not much more for them to crunch on

 

I know what you mean. I'm starting to get into a game groove. I'd be Actual Posting now but class.

 

I'm Actual Posting because I'm in class.

I mean, I think my posts count as actual posts (til this one).

---------- Post automerged at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

Totally not trying to buff up my post-count now (but actually not because of auto-merge)

 

I've been thinking about how best to allocate my lump vote. So far I've come up with the following criteria:

1. Someone who isn't likely to end up being lynched early on. This excludes people who have been under extended and wide suspicion (including me). We don't want to waste the power on someone we kill a few days later.

2. Someone who hasn't claimed an important role. We don't want all our eggs in one basket.

3. Someone who is generally considered reasonable.

4. Someone who will probably follow the "wisdom of the crowd".

Now go look at Newcomb's posts in #287, #270, #224. He's shown that he's willing to admit error, to take on advise, but only if it's justified by argument, and to be generally balanced and fair. He hasn't claimed any role that would put him in soup or in the night kill crosshairs, he's generally liked and considered reasonable. There was the small kerfuffle with Irene, but he seems to have emerged from it unscathed.

For these reasons I'm going to return my lump vote to Newcomb.

Resind lump vote.

Lump vote: Newcomb

Further, I am going to revise my lynch vote in light of my above analysis. I put Naeblis as the most likely to be a witch, and there's a bandwagon on him so it's consistent with the principle of securing a day 1 lynch.

Rescind lynch vote.

Lynch vote: Naeblis

---------- Post automerged at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Not sure what happened with the colour code there, but I won't edit due to the general rule against. I'll just repeat it here.

Rescind lump vote.

Lump vote: Newcomb

 

Sadness.

/ten

 

Priest's not important, I promise.

---------- Post automerged at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

Newcomb, where are you standing right now on reads of everyone in the game? Feel free to quote if you posted this super recently (I think the last one you did was awhile ago)

 

Snowvon

Can we please lump Citrus?

 

I literally can't remember anything Waco has posted beyond his initial RVS vote on me and his last joke post that I acknowledged. I'll have to go back and see if I want to move him up or down, but as of now I have no read on him. But I know he's posted more than Riley, so slightly townier by default.

I think Newcomb is town but there's a little part of me that wants to believe Irene was right, especially after I wrongly doubted her Day 1 reads in Endgames.

They are ordered as best as I could place them without feeling too jittery about it.

I'm okay with fontisian for the moment, I was neutral towards Jan but I liked his Judge proposal and thought it was really towny (especially since he was working off the assumption that it wouldn't hamper town in any way before the mechanics were tweaked). Gun to head, I'm probably wrong on fontisian, as she hasn't really done anything especially concrete I can point to and say 'I really liked that and think it's towny.' My read on her is mostly a vague tangle of feelings.

---------- Post automerged at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

Are you expecting a different answer since the last time you asked?

---------- Post automerged at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Just looked at Waco's posts. My heart didn't flutter.

Stay ashy, Waco.

 

Advanced warning: the afternoon (BST) of September 1st and the whole of September 2nd I'm going to be afk due to family commitments.

 

Citrus phone posting, so from memory, will go into detail later. Actually a reads post is a good idea, but that will have to be after I'm free.

Where I'm at:

Cobalt

Snowvon
fonti
Citrus

Taure
Jan
Waco/Riley/Kalas
Sesc

Nae
Tyrene

If I forgot anyone, lol

Project for the day after I'm done with work:

Re-read Jan

Spool out some Taure thoughts - I have this one thing I want to bring up about "levels" but his reads post kind of fucked with that.

Pressure Tyrene to do something because I have two things with that slot - "soft claim" callout and poisoning the well that Typhon's QT explanation like, perfectly addresses in a way that seems too perfect. Watching where his FoS lands very carefully now, want to engage in real time.

 

Levels as in different levels of play?

If so, then I think I may be able to anticipate your point: the stuff in the conversation with Cobalt is one level of play, a kind of "looking in on the game from the outside" level -- it might be true from that perspective that first day lynch is essentially random, or as good as, but that's an observation that isn't part of the "immersed in the game" level of play, were everyone pretends that it isn't random and gives reasons, so that those reasons can form the fuel from which later pyres burn.

You were therefore going to say, before my read post, that I was playing entirely "outside the game". Which is exactly why I made the read post, of course. Not necessary because I think my reads are good, but rather to give you guys "immersed in the game" level information on me to make judgements with.

Well, that and to placate Cobalt. Fat lot of good that did rofl.

---------- Post automerged at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

I was just rereading my read post and thinking about Jan's no lynch plan, which originally I counted as strongly against him. But let's go into it in more detail, shall we?

I shall take it as given that we all agree that someone should die at the end of day one. It's possible that we don't agree on this, but I don't think I've seen anyone disagree with it so far (just disagree on how that person should be chosen).

What are the pros and cons of letting the judge decide the lynch target?

Pros:

- We eliminate the chance of accidentally lynching the judge, so the chance of getting a witch changes from 3/13 to 3/12.

... that's pretty much the only pro I can think of right now.

Cons:

- The judge's opinion could differ widely from the village consensus, resulting in many people being upset with the lynch target.

- If it's a mislynch (statistically likely) it won't count towards a vigilante kill.

- If not everyone is on board with a no lynch, those players who still vote get to control the lynch target. This is both unfair and could cause acrimony among villagers.

- If those players who vote despite a no lynch consensus contain the witches, they suddenly make up a greater proportion of the voting players and have much more influence over the lynch vote.

- Non-witches who deviate from the no-lynch consensus get tarred by the same brush as the witches, raising the likelihood of a mislynch on them later.

The last three cons can be avoided by making sure we only go for a no lynch if absolutely everyone agrees to it, and agrees that we lynch anyone who deviates from the consensus. but in turn has its risks, because it rather leaves things down to the last minute, which can easily lead to bad last-minute panic decisions.

But let's say the last three cons can be avoided. The bold pros and cons remain. Is the slight improvement in odds, still stacked in the witches' favour, worth the delay of a vigilante kill and the risk of an odd choice of lynch target?

 

I think I just have certain expectations for your townplay that I have yet to see/feel here. And I have stronger townleans elsewhere.

You haven't really talked about me much either, which surprises me considering I had an RVS vote on you for a while and have posted a lot and stuff.

 

Sesc, who do you think is scum atm?
Nae'blis: Have you caught up? Thoughts?

 

@Taure; Re: My initial vote, I'd said that everything was speculative, and I was, surprise surprise, speculating that Fonti was scum based on her relatively terse replies. It's hardly inconsistent.

Yes. One comment of mine was twisted and turned to support a theory that made me look like scum. I defended myself. Is that surprising?

Here is what you are saying amounts to:

1) That I studied the past game that you mentioned and am behaving like the scum.

2) Or that my behaviour is "scummy" because I unknowingly behaved in a way similar to a scum in some past game.

Can't be 1) because I haven't looked at the game. So we're left with 2)

Not a very strong argument. You are free to draw any conclusions based on whatever perceived similarities you see. I'm sure if I were so inclined, I could find a scum in some past game that behaved exactly like you are doing right now. Does that mean you're also scum? Taure's general behaviour is same across most games. He hopes on a bandwagon. Does that mean he's town because he was town in game X? Or scum because that's what he was in game Y?

See what I mean by stupid?

Nobody likes being attacked. Especially when they know they are in the right. "LOL this is what scum would do" is no reason at all. But this does makes me instantaneously suspicious of you.

In the interest of self-preservation, I'm sticking with my vote on Fonti. Hopefully others can join the bandwagon and vote her out instead of me (which will be a significant loss for town).

More to come later. Doing an extensive read.

---------- Post automerged at 03:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 AM ----------

Ugh. s/instantaneously/instantly.

---------- Post automerged at 03:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------

Also: Why is everyone lumping Snowvon (besides him asking to be lumped?)

 

Couple of questions from your wall-post, Taure.

Just to clarify, your talking about someone who pushed with "artificial certainty," on the player that your post indicates is least likely to be scum, and that person is you see as a null (equally likely to be town or scum)?

I don't really agree with your read here, but my biggest question is why would you have considered him not claiming as a town reaction. He was at less than halfway to hard lynch in the opening half of the day. He was under pressure certainly, but certainly not in a situation to even consider claiming.

Emphasis mine. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem critical of Snowvon for being reactionary. But to quote yourself in #195

 

I think you're attributing greater certainty to my reads than I have. Sesc may be my "least likely to be scum", but he's still barely a sliver away from a lot of other players, including fontisian.

The reason why I think fontisian's pursuit of Sesc isn't indicative of fontisian being a witch is that my general read on fontisian is that she's generally planning on being pretty "happy go lucky" this game. I'm willing to accept, at this stage, that she's "trolly" rather than a witch. If later events cast greater suspicion on her, this could change, but for now I don't find it immensely suspicious.

Not every player is going to take the game über seriously. That doesn't mean they're a witch (though it can be used as a smokescreen), it simply reflects their level of investment in mafia (and free time).

To clarify, my statement about Sesc's reaction to the pressure was more "he has a good head on his shoulders" than a "he's probably a villager". My read on him being probably a villager is simply that he hasn't done anything I find suspicious yet, and other people have. he comes off looking clean in comparison. It's an absence of evidence of witchiness, rather than the presence of villageness, if that makes sense to you.

There's two main things I'd say as to why I don't think that's inconsistent:

1. I didn't say being reactionary itself is indicative of being a witch. Rather, I said that it's indicative of wanting to play safe. It was playing safe that I identified, in certain circumstances, as perhaps indicating a witch-allegiance.

Those circumstances are as follows. I think most witch-teams will adopt a strategy of spread risk. It's incredibly risky to "bunch together" as witch players, as it's too easy for the village to identify their common purpose and patterns. So witches spread themselves out in terms of playstyle. That's why I'm sure one of the "dead-cert" village reads is going to be a witch. Similarly, I think there'll be a witch who is playing the "low profile" role. Playing safe fits the low profile role, but just because someone is using a safe playstyle it doesn't mean they're a witch, because there are other players who could also fit the "low profile" role.

2. From the individual perspective, playing it safe is best in that it's probably the best way to avoid lynch: you avoid the "he's hiding in plain sight" lynch but also the "he's too inactive" lynch. It also helps you avoid the personal feud lynch.

Also bear in mind the "levels" comment above - that conversation was considerably more meta in context than my reads post.