I usually line out what someone would do as town/scum, and once I have posted, what scum!player would respond as. I was not attempting to poison the well, this is me lining out my thought process because I have a lot of incidents where people can't follow my reads. I do it to everyone, it is not personal.

And I am saying that your plan doesn't work, and I can't see why you have ignored totally why it would not work.

I am not daring you to be defensive. I am pointing out that you come off as that way.

Ok, I'll tone it down.

I called you on softing because I thought it was scum behaviour. Catching scum is pro-town. I think you are scummy, I call you out to catch you.

I am not mudslinging. And sure. I'll do that right now. Also maybe I wasn't clear enough, apologies. The inconsistencies stems froma) you perceive my role-fishing as 'bad' feeling BUT IN THE END OF THE SAME POST
'Irene won't be role-fishing if Irene's scum'. Therein lies the inconsistency.
Also from hannibal mafia:
"I'd still like an answer to the cop thing... Jan, Zenzao, why are you guys convinced cop doesn't have a N0 check? Or that there even is a full cop and not like a parity cop? Or that there is definitely a cop in this game?"
"I think the point stands, though - they're both talking about things like they have more information than I do, and I'd like to know why."

In both cases this is genuine questioning since you are new to the game, but while figuring out the roles you were also trying to role-fish about why they have the info regarding the roles. I'm not saying this is bad behaviour. I'm saying you did it too. You're the one who accused me of being scumming for doing it.

Yes, that will happen if priest checks Lump. You are almost daring the Priest to check you at this point. But what if the priest doesn't want to check you? Your plan depends a lot on you telling the priest what to do, and everyone else's benefits comes from the priest.
And you want to figure my town role for soup? Thanks. (I'm kidding, but I still think you're scum.)

I think scum would target strong vets regardless of lump unless the new lumper is exceedingly dangerous to scum.

 

Newcomb:
Missread something there, sry!

In previous games the person carrying lump was immune to lynch d1. I somehow read it as immunity n1, while scimming over it.


One important difference would be:

This game witches have full chat, while in the other game one witch had to use a path to activate daychat. (I assume they did not have chat d1, since they could not choose a path n0)

There is more, but i don't want to spoil all the fun.

 

I for one don't think it's a bullshit push. Why exactly do you think it's bullshit? Because of the premise or the arguments or which part?

What about the part where scum know the lump is town and kill the lump guy straight away, because that's a bunch of town power lost straight away? See, this is why we have that one rule which is DON'T TELL POWER ROLES WHAT TO DO. That's what I think of your plan. The only upside is getting the clown and priest to land on someone together, but then again the clown and oracle will already be coordinated. So why not just have the clown and oracle always target the lump? Because that plan makes sense. Aaaand just realized the Demon gets that information, so there are in fact downsides (nice setup Eidolonic), so I need to mull this over. Besides, who said I'd want to check you even if you were the lump anyways?

---------- Post automerged at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

Sorry to hear it Riley, and super looking forward to you being here in full steam ahead mode, it's been a long time since we've been in a game together if I recall!

 

All fair. So we'll see how Newcomb responds, though I mean if he did not pre-write it would he admit it and make himself look scummier?

Though the part about 'going beyond his usual townplay and pushing himself into the limelight"

See this is utterly my own theory, nobody has to buy it, you just have to understand the thought process.

I feel like mafia players are usually 3 stages regarding town.

stage 1 when they are new they are focusing not mislynching and getting mislynch. Defensive playing that may come off as scummy, but mostly understandable

stage 2 where they gain confidence of their reads and start prodding and pushing and basically getting better at the game.

stage 3 is where newcomb appears to be in now. He's pushing himself into the limelight and attempting to take on the leader role of town because he believes he's the real deal. It matches.

But newcomb is also highly intelligent as proven by previous mafias, and he should know that by so doing he needs to take into consideration of why his plans as a leader may not work.

Which is why I find it so suspicious that he's following this improvement progression scale thing like town!Newcomb will but ignores the alternative, if his plan doesn't work. The backup plan, as you will. It feels like scum!Newcomb playing up to stage 3 Town!Newcomb but making a mistake that new scums make regardless of intelligence--> They are so intent on coming off as a sure townie that they don't consider from a point POV the consequences of benefits to SCUM if plan is hijacked by scum.


I can't give further reads on Sesc until he posts again. I can't decide if he's scum trying to buddy or really lazy town or some other motive (Getting people to push him so that he can decide who to lump, probably).

Sesc I would appreciate a reply.

 

That was pretty ballsy indeed.

Also, did you lump me because I didn't self-lump, or why did you do so?

 

I'm going to focus on the thing that won't give me a headache.

I have not gleaned the WHY from your posts thus far. If I've missed it, I apologize. Why don't you think it will work? Part of the reason I posted it right up front like that was because it was something that I didn't personally think up, and therefore it seemed good rather than it being my "bright idea" in the first place.

Just tell me, in like, a couple sentences, why it wouldn't work. Like, are you just saying people won't actually stick to it? "Priest gonna Priest"?
Citrus

I started to write that post while waiting for the game to start, maybe like 10 minutes before?

 

Irene

Going out of order because I see you replied - what do you think of my response to why I voted Sesc?

---------- Post automerged at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 PM ----------

So post-role cards but pre-game thread?

Bah you ninja's making me lose my chronology

 

Ah, I actually didn't elaborate.

Because I didn't like the way Irene demanded Citrus explain his vote for Sesc when Irene herself already claimed Sesc's post was scummy, I did like the way Citrus came to the same conclusion I did and voted with it.

That, and his posts early on (his post of "I am the Priest", which seems like a towny distraction) gives me a townread on him.

 

I'm flattered! Also:

Also, what's your read on Irene and Cobalt and the nature of Cobalt's arguments on Irene?

 

And also yes Citrus because you didn't self-lump.

 

The same conclusion I did and voted with it as in voting Sesc? Or which vote are you talking about?

 

Irene answer me this part of my posts:

If you found Sesc scummy for the way he posted, why demand an answer from Citrus as to why he shared the same read and voted on it?

---------- Post automerged at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 AM ----------

The Sesc vote. You came to the same conclusion I (and apparently Irene) did about his first post being scummy, and you voted with it. Why would Irene demand an explanation for that vote if she had shared sentiments?

 

Yes. Your plan boils down to the priest checking you N1 as lumper, then oracle/clown get their abilities activated if they target you as well. It basically comes down to: Will that one person do what I think is best? It comes off as ordering the priest around, which is scummy to me. Nobody knows who priest will check other than priest himself/herself, so why are you so certain of your plan that 1) You are using it as your basis for lump 2) Why you and not other people getting lump who can also be checked?

I think it is out of character for Sesc to post that one line. However, he might also be doing prodding via that one post and see who catches it. Won't surprise me if that's his play. As such, I don't think anything of it.

As to your response to it, it's fair enough. So I don't lean either way for you. You can be town or scum, I can't tell from what you said. I can see you saying that as scum!Citrus or town!Citrus.

Ok, let me explain myself very carefully here.

I think what Sesc did is scummy because it is unlike him, but I can see other things that would make him do it.

I wanted Citrus to explain his vote because a lot of times scums just rally behind someone else's vote and don't explain themselves, and when they are pushed about it repeat what other people say. It's what a lot of scums have done before, so I want to eliminate Citrus from my scum list by prodding him and seeing what he has to say.

In general I prod people for voting without explaining their reads. I don't get why that's scummy to you. Votes without explanations is scummy to me.

 

I would re-word that as: I think scum would target threatening players regardless of lump unless targeting the lumper is beneficial to scum.

A) Scum kill the publicly agreed on priest target
B) Scum kill that one player that doesn't read a lot of people well but reads scum 1 and 2 really really well
C) Scum kill none of the 'strong/vet' players because they have some and it also sows seeds of confusion over everything those players say as the game progresses

There's lots of possibilities. Your idea is overly-restricted (though likely, because 'strong' players tend to die early), and so is Newcomb's (why wouldn't scum just kill the town!lump?).

There's also further issues with your plan Newcomb, which I think Irene kinda picked up on but kinda didn't, but that's neither here nor there. You should both take out of this post that you can't just call things black-and-white because that's how you make bad assumptions and let scum slide by/ruin planned actions

---------- Post automerged 08-30-2015 at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-29-2015 at 11:57 PM ----------

Sooooooooooooo now that I have responses here's the fun part.

I voted BEFORE Sesc made that post.

So uhhh. Let's try that again shall we Irene and Cobalt hmm?

---------- Post automerged at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

Where's that popcorn emoticon? Guess I'll have to suffice for a :banana:

 

Apologies, I got caught up in my own assumption since I was attacking Newcomb's assumption. But my point was that he was overly focused on getting priest to check him as Lumper, because priest doesn't have to follow what he says.

And on the flip side, it is scum's job to wreck up plans, so there's also a likelihood that yeah, even if Newcomb is town as he suggests and wants lump, scum can easily kill him, then clown's protection is useless for the night, wasting the priest check. The only thing we will get out of it is basically Oracle knowing if D1 was a mislynch. Not very effective.

---------- Post automerged at 12:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 AM ----------
Citrus: Okay I have no idea how I read that as after Sesc posted. I thought I read it as a nonsensical vote on Sesc after Von's first random vote and jumped on you for explanation. Sorry! And you said 'lack thereof' about Sesc so I thought you were referring to him agreeing with me with no explanation. God I suck hahaha.

 

Correct.

I mean, I get that things aren't black and white, and I definitely wouldn't want to try to dictate actions beyond N1, but it just seems so beneficial to do this. Regardless of who the Lump is. Because then Lump becomes kind of a self-resolving problem, right? Townfirmed or scum. It's like, one less thing you have to worry about. And if town, Lump will probably always get Angel protect, I think?

I am willing to admit that I didn't quite grasp the nuance of it in the game I read. Which was this one, by the way.

http://www.fantasystrike.com/forums...nyhunt-5-game-thread-you-no-take-candle.9545/

"I want Lump" and "Priest should check Lump N1" are two different things. I think Priest should check Lump N1 regardless.

But! It's possible I got too focused on strategy and mechanics. It's been known to happen. I'm going to review the setup again and try to see if this thing holds water.

Citrus, are you saying we should just YOYO it and go "best judgement" on all our roles?

It just seems like we're missing a golden opportunity to pull off a good play.

 

1) But N1 there is no angel protect, so lumper can die night 1...? Also why would you want to waste lump like that. If Lump is with a townie, it's basically an extra vote we can use to lynch the witches, so it is crucial for the lumper to survive beyond N1 at least...

2) I think it entirely depends on how the lumper comes off as, and if the priest is confident the lumper is town/scum. If the lumper is obviously town, there's no need for the priest to waste a check.

3) I think being focused on co-ordinating a good play is town behaviour, but the thing is, in a no-flip game it is very very likely that unless we come up with a fool-proof plan that witches cannot twist/take advantage of discussing and agreeing to one plan (With witches input, no less) is likely to backfire on us. I would rather focus on getting reads rather than waste time on mechanics. Ultimately, the goal of mafia is to win, and we only win by getting rid of all the witches, aka lynching the right guys.

 

Tsk tsk, and you expect to be the lump?! (kidding)

*cough*

*cough cough*

Super sorry, I'm really allergic to people that don't read the game-thread (though in your case I guess it was you hadn't gotten to that post yet? Or what?)

Also, to clarify now, I was actually crumbing the fact that I voted you before you posted. The actual reason I voted was because I wanted to vote someone who hadn't posted yet as it was just a few players posting, and I realized the thread was probably sticky'd by you, and you hadn't voted yet, so I deemed you voteable to the 'lack thereof' of a post from you.

---------- Post automerged at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 AM ----------

Yeap, turns out the the third page is the charm!

To actually respond to your comments on the post: I stand by what I said. My personal read on him there is that that's probably town!Newcomb. But Irene's arguments logically make sense. But I don't make strong town-reads this early in a game until I'm convinced or I see a good reason. My point was just that I don't see a fake/scum!argument from Irene on Newcomb, but I nevertheless still think it's more likely a town!Newcomb that posted for the lump

---------- Post automerged at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

I literally already pointed out point 1.

My point was further that we lose that priest check if scum and priest both target lump (and via demon scum will KNOW this - EVEN if we lynch the demon today!)

I trust Eidolonic balanced this game such that it wasn't breakable in an unfair way from D1. Having a regiment plan like Newcomb's would fit under the "breaking in an unfair way" if it was strictly +EV