World Dom would be World Domination 3 Mafia, as both World Dom 1 and 2 were done by the great Hvirfilvner a long time ago. Both great games.....if that's chosen you've got a lot to live upto WoD.
Okay for the record this is getting ridiculous. AI, please PROD THE SHEEP OUT OF TANARIN, who's lurked all game and now hasn't posted in 11 freaking days.
A prod of JSkura too while you're at it.
------
Killjoy, Mechanically how would such a trigger make any sense?
The reason you gave for doing what you did last night was that, between the two people who obviously hit their triggers (Loran and Reya), Reya was the scummier of the two.
As to the second part: If I had that ability, and that choice, I would've probably chosen Loran because of what I thought his trigger was.
So your argument to defend him is completely WIFOM? Because if I were scum about to be lynched, and I professed something to the death, if it's what caught me as scum (or the opposite ideal is what caught me as scum), I would sure as hell push the issue to the grave in the event that it might clear me. I can not accept your stance on this unless you can prove without a fair amount of doubt that Dagger is town. And if Dagger is town, then we need to figure out who is not.
I phrased it poorly* (Reason 2 of why I'm not a good mafia player, I can't phrase things to make good arguments very well), it's not a WIFOM bit I don't think.
What makes me think it's a natural belief is quite simply how he's gone about it. Rather than trying to seem like he's going along with it, if it was killing him, he's been clearly against it the whole way. It just strikes me as real honesty in there.
Now a scum might still make the point about it being poor if they honestly believed such - I've been known to complain about bad scumhunting as scum for example. But on his deathbed? Strikes me as unlikely.
-For a contrast, please consider my last game i recall with Dagger, Harry Potter Mafia, where we were both mafia. The town did cryptoclaims at first, severely screwing the scum....who took the hit without complaining IN thread (we complained like hell out of thread and got the tactic banned) so as not to call attention to ourselves. The standard scum tactic is to avoid attention, go along with such clear town plans and attempt to maneuver within the situation that results. Dagger hasn't done that - for instance, his keeping on about me - while very very strange and a bit much - and his going on against Iso before we'd really cleared anyone (the start of his insistence against single actions clearing anyone ) are a little bit too high profile for scum for me.
Note: The HP Mafia comparison isn't great as cryptoclaims were obviously pro-town at that point (Hence the banning) whereas the town clearing here, not so much.
"The difference of opinion is in the bolded. Coming from your point-of-view, you reach a perfectly reasonable conclusion. However, I'm coming from the point of view that we are closing in on the scum team due to the large amount of players that are more or less cleared right now. As a scum, I would be doing my best to attempt to discredit that. Since we've established that I'm atlseal, remember the basic you hosted where you had two town Ewoks? What did I do as scum? I tried to cast doubt on the fact that they were both town ewoks and in the end, it worked perfectly. It was the only thing a scum in my position could do. Had we not been able to remove the confirmeds, there was no way we were going to win that game."
Oh god, Star Wars Mafia, that was classic. Good times. But I don't think the comparison completely works....that was more of the standard mafia tactic of attempting to cast doubt on a player who should have been confirmed. If that makes any sense.
Also, I'm not privy to the scum's state in this game, but it strikes me as bad form to compare a situation with one scum dead to one in which the scum were utterly screwed and had to resort to an emergency tactic.
Also, in all honesty, like I said, I can SEE his role on a town player.* It's NOT a roleblocker, more like a temporary nullifier. But we shouldn't be lynching him based upon roles automatically - we should be lynching him based upon play. And I no longer think that his actions seem scummy.
Anyone not voting for Dagger as of this post (except for Roja who does not have a vote and kill-joy who said he will hammer Dagger) needs to give a damn good reason why.
Well that's an unproductive way to about this. But Okay.
loran, I don't feel your answer is enough to merit a change on your stance of Dagger. Please offer something besides the way he phrased his "lynch me and you'll see" comment.
"To me the post is a null-tell. I'm pretty sure I've posted something to the same effect before as scum. It is a hail mary in an attempt to appear town."
Atlseal, since we know who you are, please give me an example of this.
Iso, (and The Doctor), the key is the phrasing. Saying "You'll see when I'm town that I was right" is one thing - heck normally in mafia games this is a last ditch effort that also produces some WIFOM. Another standard scum reaction is to claim that the evidence against you doesn't add up (this is a town reaction also, so it IS a null tell).
But Dagger's been harping on the clearing of townies for small tells for a bit now, and he does it again in his defeatist post. This reads to me pretty strongly as a real honest belief of Dagger's - that this concept is bad for hunting scum.
Now if this is an honest belief of Dagger's - what's the point of raising it as scum in a post that's totally defeatist - one which near always results in you getting lynched? Nothing. We disregard if he actually is scum entirely. (I guess I could sort of see a WIFOM situation if there is a scum we've accidentally cleared, but eh, long shot).
It's just an odd belief to cling to as scum about to be lynched. This isn't "after I come up town, go after player X" or "be careful of the leadership of player X" or the like. It's genuinely an attempt at helpfulness.
No, you're implying that this is a sign of Dagger being scum. (Or at least you listed it among reasons for Dagger being scum). Which makes no sense if you allege your attackers were town.
Once again of course, your wagon was not started for what you think it was, soooo yeah.
I would like to say that what he said was ambiguous. It could be referring to him getting lynched or what you said.
But again, moot point.
No. It's not ambiguous. Especially if you read the game.
Sigh, this is what I hate: I can't tell if kill-joy's constant misreadings and irrational behavior is due to him being scum or him being....not so good at this game. I'm leaning toward the former.
Firstly, the fact that he and Seppel (Seppel who is obviously scum and Dagger who is striking me as scum) jumped on my wagon. Everyone else who was on my wagon is clearly town.
As stated before, jumping on a town player's wagon IS NOT A SCUM TELL.
Secondly, if Dagger truly viewed Seppel as town, why did he insist on pressuring him and Manders for buddying?
If I'm reading correctly (and admittedly I just skimmed), Dagger's comments on Manders were for BARNING Seppel. In other words, it wasn't that "Manders is agreeing with Seppel who is scum, thus Manders is scum" but that "Manders is not giving original thought and is trying to hide behind the ideas of someone who is."
In addition to that, Dagger was not touched by a wagon for stating the same thing I did. That can heavily be inferred as being the case because he is scum. Add that to the fact that he was on my wagon, well...
Ummm, you weren't wagoned for that. At all. (Also please think about it: your wagon was started by myself really and had several others you think of as town on it. If your wagon WAS started for the reason you think, why wouldn't the townies have attacked Dagger for it also?)
That, and I really just don't like Dagger vs. Roja.
Also, I never saw a new town/scum list from Dagger. Which I would like to see, as he is not lynched yet.
@Iso: Sorry for this but I'm finding your accusation post on him kind of hard to follow (I understand it's a stream of consciousness thing). But two parts of it were:
1. Attacking me --> Can be done by town, see Manders.
and
2. A misunderstanding of why he voted Roja.
So are you suggesting that I am scummy through this statement?
No. Just because scum are less likely to vote a player who has a very obvious public reason not to be voted doesn't mean that NOT voting said player is a scum tell.
At least that's as much as I can get out of this suggestion.
loran, according to your interpretations of everybody, I feel you are starting to grasp at straws. You seemed a lot more certain of your reads earlier in the game. Now you're just saying that it's POSSIBLE that certain people are scum.
I tend to zone in on people, if you haven't noticed. Makes me overlook others and makes me tend not to have second targets (people I think are scum) once I change my mind on the first person. As such, I simply highlight those who are not clear town in my mind.
You are willing to remove your votes based on the smallest of tells that really are just starting to look like poor excuses to unvote people. :/ You are undoubtedly the town vig, at least, I feel it's not something doubtable. But your sudden lack of confidence in your reads is going to make me have to ask you to please do a re-read on your top scumspects and tell me what you could possibly see as scummy about them as opposed to Dagger. Because I'm not convinced.
Well for them, none of them have committed any obvious town tells and I have bad hunches about Kill-Joy, The Doctor, and SP/Jskura. But the only one of those hunches that I can point a finger to the cause is Kill-Joy, the others may simply be paranoia, and in the case of SP/Jskura, I hope to find out more when he recovers his memory.
Can you at least attempt to refute any points on my case on Dagger? Because I think it's still a completely valid case. Your one miniscule tell isn't enough for me to change my mind (or anybody's, I feel) on who is looking the scummiest at the moment, that person being Dagger.
Basically saying that we're lynching town. Reads like fearmongering to me.
First: Fearmongering, noun.: the strategy of raising fears of things that aren't really possible threats so as to distract the town and get a mislynch.
----Saying there are two scum out there is therefore NOT fearmongering - if Dagger is scum and we lynch him, we know he's lying, if he's town...he's not saying anything that isn't true. There's nothing here that as scum actually could distract the town.
(By Contrast, what I thought was fearmongering earlier was him seeming to raise the possibility that I was making gambits as scum, when there was no reason for a scum to make such a gambit. That's kind of scummy --> it's raising concern about something that isn't a concern. Pointing out the # of scum left? Not so much).
Still more fearmongering, saying that killing potential scum based on a few reads here and there is dangerous (he would be right if that's why we were killing him. I've seen more than a few reads on him) and we will only figure that out after he flips town.
Okay first: this still isn't fearmongering.
Second: THATS NOT WHAT HES SAYING. He's saying that clearing players based upon single actions is dangerous as it leads to false clearing of townies. For example, he's talking about how Iso's 303 for example stopped both my own and the Doctor's cases against Iso and things such as my early reads of Tanarin and my current reads of Reya and Dagger himself.
It's just a bunch of fearmongering and trying to get the town to second guess their votes.
Okay if this was the definition of fearmongering, I'm pretty sure that EVERY TOWNIE WHO WAS WAGONED WOULD BE FEARMONGERING.
There's more risk that way though. Like I said, if he got caught doing it the subtle way, he would get at least 3 votes in a heartbeat. That's infinitely more scummy than doing it the way he did it, and with more risk. Why take a risk if you don't have to?
I'm not saying your way isn't possible, I'm just saying my way is equally so.
No it's not. And seriously what would "he get caught doing" if he did it subtly? Activating his ability isn't necessarily scummy, and if anything it'd explain weak votes quite well.
For the same reason as town.
Defeatism is a null tell.
I was trying to say that defeatism doesn't clear him.
Please read my post. I have never said defeatism cleared him. But he wasn't simply being defeatist. Please explain to me why a scum makes that part of the post that I quoted.
Scum would want to activate their trigger yes. Scum would not want to call attention to the fact: HEY LOOK AT ME, IVE ACTIVATED MY TRIGGER! Similarly, scum are less likely to vote Jskura/SP than idiot town. Antitown =//= Scum - in fact here, it's the opposite.
They would if it was the best option available to them.
Imagine you want to activate your trigger as soon as possible, and your trigger is you need to vote everyone in seperate posts.
Which is scummier: Doing it all at once like Reya did, or doing it one at a time throughout the game? Imagine if he had thrown an occasional vote at each person in turn... he would have needed a reason to do so each time. Most of them probably wouldn't be good reasons.
Better to call attention to yourself now for a reason that can be easily explained, than not at all and risk getting caught later.[/quote]
Errrr, doing it subtly is very easily possible, and could be explained later as trying to hit his trigger subtly - a null tell really (town as well as scum would want to unleash their ability). Doing it in a way that would draw attention to himself? Totally town.
The implication of your statement sounded like you unvoted because that one statement doesn't provoke WIFOM. Like he was cleared based on that.
I was saying that the lack of WIFOM provocation shouldn't clear him, because it lacking WIFOM =/= not scummy.
Scum could do it too, and would if they could I think.
This is implying that the post is scummy and something that a scum would post. Why would a scum post that? To what end?
That's not reason enough by a long shot. Scum would do that too. Especially considering how easy it is to pull off and, if Jscara is town it had the side benefit of shutting him down until day 3 minimum.
Scum would want to activate their trigger yes. Scum would not want to call attention to the fact: HEY LOOK AT ME, IVE ACTIVATED MY TRIGGER! Similarly, scum are less likely to vote Jskura/SP than idiot town. Antitown =//= Scum - in fact here, it's the opposite.
Just because it can't provoke WIFOM doesn't make it not scummy.
Why is it scummy?
How are any of those people a likely lynch for today? And why didn't you include Reya? Surely he should at least be included in your list of likely lynches.
Reya is town. Why should we lynch clear town? (Bad Town, but town nonetheless)
A prod of JSkura too while you're at it.
------
Killjoy, Mechanically how would such a trigger make any sense?
Ummm exactly what would you think my trigger is?
I phrased it poorly* (Reason 2 of why I'm not a good mafia player, I can't phrase things to make good arguments very well), it's not a WIFOM bit I don't think.
What makes me think it's a natural belief is quite simply how he's gone about it. Rather than trying to seem like he's going along with it, if it was killing him, he's been clearly against it the whole way. It just strikes me as real honesty in there.
Now a scum might still make the point about it being poor if they honestly believed such - I've been known to complain about bad scumhunting as scum for example. But on his deathbed? Strikes me as unlikely.
-For a contrast, please consider my last game i recall with Dagger, Harry Potter Mafia, where we were both mafia. The town did cryptoclaims at first, severely screwing the scum....who took the hit without complaining IN thread (we complained like hell out of thread and got the tactic banned) so as not to call attention to ourselves. The standard scum tactic is to avoid attention, go along with such clear town plans and attempt to maneuver within the situation that results. Dagger hasn't done that - for instance, his keeping on about me - while very very strange and a bit much - and his going on against Iso before we'd really cleared anyone (the start of his insistence against single actions clearing anyone ) are a little bit too high profile for scum for me.
Note: The HP Mafia comparison isn't great as cryptoclaims were obviously pro-town at that point (Hence the banning) whereas the town clearing here, not so much.
Oh god, Star Wars Mafia, that was classic. Good times. But I don't think the comparison completely works....that was more of the standard mafia tactic of attempting to cast doubt on a player who should have been confirmed. If that makes any sense.
Also, I'm not privy to the scum's state in this game, but it strikes me as bad form to compare a situation with one scum dead to one in which the scum were utterly screwed and had to resort to an emergency tactic.
Also, in all honesty, like I said, I can SEE his role on a town player.* It's NOT a roleblocker, more like a temporary nullifier. But we shouldn't be lynching him based upon roles automatically - we should be lynching him based upon play. And I no longer think that his actions seem scummy.
*There are way too many commas in this sentence.
Well that's an unproductive way to about this. But Okay.
Atlseal, since we know who you are, please give me an example of this.
Iso, (and The Doctor), the key is the phrasing. Saying "You'll see when I'm town that I was right" is one thing - heck normally in mafia games this is a last ditch effort that also produces some WIFOM. Another standard scum reaction is to claim that the evidence against you doesn't add up (this is a town reaction also, so it IS a null tell).
But Dagger's been harping on the clearing of townies for small tells for a bit now, and he does it again in his defeatist post. This reads to me pretty strongly as a real honest belief of Dagger's - that this concept is bad for hunting scum.
Now if this is an honest belief of Dagger's - what's the point of raising it as scum in a post that's totally defeatist - one which near always results in you getting lynched? Nothing. We disregard if he actually is scum entirely. (I guess I could sort of see a WIFOM situation if there is a scum we've accidentally cleared, but eh, long shot).
It's just an odd belief to cling to as scum about to be lynched. This isn't "after I come up town, go after player X" or "be careful of the leadership of player X" or the like. It's genuinely an attempt at helpfulness.
Please don't use this. Tanarin's posting in this game is what should determine his replacement. His logging into MTGS and activity should not.
No, you're implying that this is a sign of Dagger being scum. (Or at least you listed it among reasons for Dagger being scum). Which makes no sense if you allege your attackers were town.
Once again of course, your wagon was not started for what you think it was, soooo yeah.
No. It's not ambiguous. Especially if you read the game.
Sigh, this is what I hate: I can't tell if kill-joy's constant misreadings and irrational behavior is due to him being scum or him being....not so good at this game. I'm leaning toward the former.
As stated before, jumping on a town player's wagon IS NOT A SCUM TELL.
If I'm reading correctly (and admittedly I just skimmed), Dagger's comments on Manders were for BARNING Seppel. In other words, it wasn't that "Manders is agreeing with Seppel who is scum, thus Manders is scum" but that "Manders is not giving original thought and is trying to hide behind the ideas of someone who is."
Ummm, you weren't wagoned for that. At all. (Also please think about it: your wagon was started by myself really and had several others you think of as town on it. If your wagon WAS started for the reason you think, why wouldn't the townies have attacked Dagger for it also?)
1. Attacking me --> Can be done by town, see Manders.
and
2. A misunderstanding of why he voted Roja.
What am I missing?
No. Just because scum are less likely to vote a player who has a very obvious public reason not to be voted doesn't mean that NOT voting said player is a scum tell.
At least that's as much as I can get out of this suggestion.
I tend to zone in on people, if you haven't noticed. Makes me overlook others and makes me tend not to have second targets (people I think are scum) once I change my mind on the first person. As such, I simply highlight those who are not clear town in my mind.
Well for them, none of them have committed any obvious town tells and I have bad hunches about Kill-Joy, The Doctor, and SP/Jskura. But the only one of those hunches that I can point a finger to the cause is Kill-Joy, the others may simply be paranoia, and in the case of SP/Jskura, I hope to find out more when he recovers his memory.
Errr One second.
First: Fearmongering, noun.: the strategy of raising fears of things that aren't really possible threats so as to distract the town and get a mislynch.
----Saying there are two scum out there is therefore NOT fearmongering - if Dagger is scum and we lynch him, we know he's lying, if he's town...he's not saying anything that isn't true. There's nothing here that as scum actually could distract the town.
(By Contrast, what I thought was fearmongering earlier was him seeming to raise the possibility that I was making gambits as scum, when there was no reason for a scum to make such a gambit. That's kind of scummy --> it's raising concern about something that isn't a concern. Pointing out the # of scum left? Not so much).
Okay first: this still isn't fearmongering.
Second: THATS NOT WHAT HES SAYING. He's saying that clearing players based upon single actions is dangerous as it leads to false clearing of townies. For example, he's talking about how Iso's 303 for example stopped both my own and the Doctor's cases against Iso and things such as my early reads of Tanarin and my current reads of Reya and Dagger himself.
Okay if this was the definition of fearmongering, I'm pretty sure that EVERY TOWNIE WHO WAS WAGONED WOULD BE FEARMONGERING.
No it's not. And seriously what would "he get caught doing" if he did it subtly? Activating his ability isn't necessarily scummy, and if anything it'd explain weak votes quite well.
Please read my post. I have never said defeatism cleared him. But he wasn't simply being defeatist. Please explain to me why a scum makes that part of the post that I quoted.
They would if it was the best option available to them.
Imagine you want to activate your trigger as soon as possible, and your trigger is you need to vote everyone in seperate posts.
Which is scummier: Doing it all at once like Reya did, or doing it one at a time throughout the game? Imagine if he had thrown an occasional vote at each person in turn... he would have needed a reason to do so each time. Most of them probably wouldn't be good reasons.
Better to call attention to yourself now for a reason that can be easily explained, than not at all and risk getting caught later.[/quote]
Errrr, doing it subtly is very easily possible, and could be explained later as trying to hit his trigger subtly - a null tell really (town as well as scum would want to unleash their ability). Doing it in a way that would draw attention to himself? Totally town.
This is implying that the post is scummy and something that a scum would post. Why would a scum post that? To what end?
Scum would want to activate their trigger yes. Scum would not want to call attention to the fact: HEY LOOK AT ME, IVE ACTIVATED MY TRIGGER! Similarly, scum are less likely to vote Jskura/SP than idiot town. Antitown =//= Scum - in fact here, it's the opposite.
Errrr, you said that just because it doesn't provoke WIFOM, doesn't mean it's not scummy.
The implication of that statement is that it is still scummy. Wanna try again?
His activation of his trigger on day 1.
@Iso: What makes you think all four are town?
I thought we learned that this was a terrible way to play mafia.
Why is it scummy?
Reya is town. Why should we lynch clear town? (Bad Town, but town nonetheless)