Mafiascum.net

In post 96, saulres wrote:No. Because if you're wrong, that means you picked me, and I won't vote you unless I think you're scum. Tierce doesn't have credibility in my eyes to call your claim a false one; she has given no evidence to the contrary.

And I won't give any such evidence. We've been over this.

You do realize that the person who doesn't hammer is the immediate lynch, yes? If you're scum, there's literally no way out if he asks you to hammer. Either Zach is lynched or you are. There is no point in trying not to hammer; it just means that Zach gets to keep his not-mislynched-since-2009 state. Whoever he calls to be the hammerer either hammers Zach-scum or dies, directly or indirectly.

PEdit: Well thanks for saying there's no need for me to scumhunt? There wasn't a real point in trying to figure out Nacho/Plum's alignment in ADwD because a mechanic would reveal their alignment a few Days in. That didn't stop me then and you being the for-sure lynch won't stop me now.


PEdit again: ...Except I marked the whole thing as null and was just giving you non-game-related advice on how not to address such things. It'd be tampering with randomness, and I didn't call you "immoral", I called immoral.

saul... you once asked me in a game where was my "anger" or something the like. You know I have a moral code that I bring into games and that I tend toward the :justice: end of the mercy spectrum. And now you are trying to call me giving you advice I...

Okay, I guess. Never mind, then. Carry on. But please don't ever go into one of my games and speculate I'm doing something like that, because it's ridiculous to bring it into question when the person has given no sign they do something like that .

So now I'm leaning saul scum...

In post 100, Tierce wrote:I didn't call you "immoral", I called

deciding the setup without randomness

immoral.

Hm, okay. You were criticizing me for suggesting he would do something immoral, and linked it to me modding, and I took that as tying me to immortality. You did call me "offensive" though.

And I know you won't claim. That's fine. But could you please do something for me, which I do for you? Could you try to see how it looks, with me town, from POV? Why should do what you suggest? You're more persuasive than I am; as a scum tactic you could suggest what you did if you thought you'd be more likely to convince Zach that I'm scum than I would be to convince him you are.

pedit: zach: Why?

Tierce likes to pull up history all over the site. I don't have that kind of memory. Tierce makes very convincing (not necessarily good) arguments for me being scum , and I don't recall flipping scum when she's done so.

We're back to exactly what I predicted

In post 103, saulres wrote:

In post 100, Tierce wrote:I didn't call you "immoral", I called

deciding the setup without randomness

immoral.

pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

In post 103, saulres wrote:tying me to immortality.

I think I left the vorpal sword in the Jabberwock neck. One moment...

In post 103, saulres wrote:You did call me "offensive" though.

"this is kind of offensive to suggest regardless of whether you believe it or not"
Everyone makes offensive statements once in a while. I didn't call you offensive nor do I think you are an offensive person, otherwise I wouldn't be playing with you.

In post 103, saulres wrote:And I know you won't claim. That's fine. But could you please do something for me, which I do for you? Could you try to see how it looks, with me town, from

my

POV? Why should

I

do what you suggest? You're more persuasive than I am; as a scum tactic you could suggest what you did if you thought you'd be more likely to convince Zach that I'm scum than I would be to convince him you are.

You'd still have to persuade him to vote me. What's the difference? The only potential difference I can see is that the decision is not in your hands. And it would never be in your hands, no matter how skilled a player you are or Zach is, once he claims supersaint. Skill levels are irrelevant since you're both good thinkers and neither of you is a troll. We're looking at a play that eliminates two players and the only way Town loses is if Zach Town chooses Town to hammer him. It makes a 50% LyLo instead of a 33% one.

It's numbers play. Call me Hoopla.

In post 104, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 103, saulres wrote:pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

When did your read change?

In post 106, Tierce wrote:

In post 104, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 103, saulres wrote:pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

When did your read change?

After I read your posts this morning and looked at your reasoning for not claiming from your POV. (What I thought up to that point was that you were softclaiming to keep me a viable scum option. Your posts got me to see the town motivation for doing what you were doing.)

Tierce point

If I distilled this correctly, your claim here is that my voting for the mod is scummy because it looks fake and I had nothing better to do. Mea cupla to the latter, as expressed earlier.

As to the digression of reading KK's other game, yes I read it (but not the rules). It had three players with the same ability, even though there was in giving the scum a cop role. So I expected something funny in this one too. And I got VT. Big disappointment, but there has to be funniness in it, and there wasn't enough to go on then. So why vote the mod? Or did you want me to come out and say "Hey, um, can everybody claim or something? Because I got a lame role and I want to see what you got."

pedit: ( getting tired of "pedit"): LOL on my typo. As to your final statement, yes, yes, you could be right, and if we're both town then Zach is really enjoying watching this. But the key thing is, the decision to vote for Zach in my hands. I can't stop you both from voting me (giving scum the win) but I stop from guaranteeing a loss if I don't think he's scum.

p. p. e. dit. What about the possibility she's not claiming in order to get you to think she's a supersaint and you'd lose by hammering? Seems solid scum strategy to me. And of course she'd have to come up with a believable reason for it.

In post 108, saulres wrote:p. p. e. dit. What about the possibility she's not claiming in order to get you to think she's a supersaint and you'd lose by hammering? Seems solid scum strategy to me. And of course she'd have to come up with a believable reason for it.

Her role doesn't matter to me. Her alignment does.

You still with us Tierce?

My point is, if she's scum, then her goal is to get you to pick me to hammer you, and to convince you to vote me when I don't. If she claims anything, she's reducing the chances of that happening, because what claim could she make that you'd believe, or that wouldn't add confusion? (Don't answer that, just think about it.) Better to stay mum and just try to argue more effectively than I.

pedit: I think she's sleeping now, yah? She was yesterday...

In post 107, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 106, Tierce wrote:

In post 104, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 103, saulres wrote:pedit: zach: Why?

Understanding Tierce's reasons for not claiming kinda shifted the balance.

When did your read change?

After I read your posts this morning and looked at your reasoning for not claiming from your POV. (What I thought up to that point was that you were softclaiming to keep me a viable scum option. Your posts got me to see the town motivation for doing what you were doing.)

Had to go and check that. I was confused because on page 3, you mentioned you were thinking about hammering me before my "last couple of posts", so I thought that the wall was not the turning point. But you did say you "had to go and actually think about things", so the 'reading this morning' bit matches up.

saulres wrote:pedit: (

Really

getting tired of "pedit"): LOL on my typo. As to your final statement, yes, yes, you could be right, and if we're both town then Zach is really enjoying watching this. But the key thing is, the decision to vote for Zach

is

in my hands. I can't stop you both from voting me (giving scum the win) but I

can

stop

myself

from guaranteeing a loss if I don't think he's scum.

...So you're saying that, in your position, you'd give scum a guaranteed win (by lynching you, a VT) over lynching a Townread that could be wrong?

Or are you just afraid to lynch Zach because he's a claimed supersaint and you lose if you die?


PEdit: Apparently.

In post 111, saulres wrote:Better to stay mum and just try to argue more effectively than I.

Better to play Mafia, you mean? ^_^

What's your point? Of course I don't want to be lynched if I am not vengeful; that would lead to a loss for my faction, whichever it is. How is this alignment relevant?

Tierce point

I was calling you scum for voting zach right off the bat and setting me up to be the one to hammer. Reason: I know I'm town. If you're scum, you know that too, so you placed the first vote on him and began building up a case that I should be the one to hammer. If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

pedit: Yes I'm afraid to lynch Zach because he's a claimed supersaint and I could lose if I do so. . Why would I just throw the game away if I don't think Zach is the scum?

peepee edit: I've given you the option of me unvoting if you agree to claim afterwards. You keep rejecting it. ScumZach couldn't quickhammer you if there aren't any votes on you.

saul's point still makes no sense. You're saying I'm trying to scare Zach away from hammering me. And I can tell you straight up that I don't want to be lynched. But that's irrelevant, because if Zach asks me to hammer me and I refuse, I am the lynch.

I would have to "argue more effectively" just the same if I was on the line for a lynch or not. Because if Zach is a Town supersaint, whoever hammers him dies. My fight is just the same as before, only this way I guarantee that if Zach is lying he is dead scum. Shirking away from lynching Zach would let him get away from it.

What is there to argue that is different between hammering Zach and lynching someone not-Zach?


PEdit: It's irrelevant. Zach is not quickhammering me right now, there's no point in me claiming, and I don't need you to unvote.

In post 114, saulres wrote:If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

WHY SHOULD TOWN-ME FOLLOW YOUR PLAN?

I honestly don't know how best to explain "Zach plays the role of confTown and gets to pick who hammers him, he either dies as scum or takes down one person with him, making this a 50% LyLo over a 33% one" any better than that. I don't want to be mean, but I frankly don't know how I am supposed to "convince" you of anything other than presenting how it works and the benefit of the numbers. Yes, Town loses if Zach is Town and picks wrong. It's still better odds than your regular LyLo.

(I could be smug and say that Vi and I designed the Town-winning plan in xudeR aifaM esereveR and people kept trying to make us "convince" them of it when it a Twon-winning plan and we won because of it, but that... that would be mean~)

Bedtime.

No no no. Stop dodging my main point.

My main point is this: I am town. I have Person A trying to push through a lynch of either me, or a lynch of Person B, based on a claim that Person A is town. Why should town in my position believe Person A's claim?

That is what you're asking me to do. And when I say that, you say "No, it doesn't matter, because that's what's going to happen." Meaning you're trying to shove this down Zach's throat.

Your plan will bring you victory no matter your alignment. It's not a town plan. It's not a scum plan. It's an plan. So it holds no credibility.

pedit (yes it's a pedit, work called. Sheesh):

In post 116, Tierce wrote:Zach plays the role of confTown and gets to pick who hammers him, he either dies as scum or takes down one person with him, making this a 50% LyLo over a 33% one

This explains where you're coming from very well. But it's just reducing the game to a numbers game, and I'm not willing to go along with it if he picks me. If you really want to go that route, then you should just hammer him and get your 50%.

Tierce point

Near as I can tell, this is a rehash of point three. So nothing to add there.

If either of you feel I missed something, let me know.

In post 64, saulres wrote:if you remember Animal Rescue, you'll remember that if I had stuck to my "guess the KK setup"

Whoops. In the interest of accuracy I just remembered this game was run by zoraster. KK was the SK

Zach,

Thinking this over more, this why I currently think Tierce is scum: your posts read genuine to me coming from a townie with that role. I don't feel they're scum-motivated.

Tierce, on the other hand... You self-voted and I didn't hammer, then it was her turn to post. She's told us she's familiar with SS3 so that setup must have crossed her mind. So...

If she's scum, she realized she couldn't hammer for the win and so had to come up with something that would give her a chance to get you or me lynched. She came up with a plan to give her a 50% chance of winning, especially if she could make me look scummy. She's done the latter before (when we were both town) and if you want I'll find the games and link you to them.

If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

At this point you're leaning scum on me because you can see a town motivation behind Tierce's refusal to claim. Can you see no scum motivation for it?

In post 118, saulres wrote:No no no. Stop dodging my main point.

My main point is this: I am town. I have Person A trying to push through a lynch of either me, or a lynch of Person B, based

only

on a claim that Person A is town. Why should

any

town in my position believe Person A's claim?

That is what you're asking me to do. And when I say that, you say "No, it doesn't matter, because that's what's going to happen." Meaning you're trying to shove this down Zach's throat.

Your plan will bring you victory no matter

what

your alignment. It's not a town plan. It's not a scum plan. It's an

anybody

plan. So it holds no credibility.

...

I am not looking for credibility, because I don't need to. I presented the plan that gives Town the best odds of winning. Zach knows it is the plan that gives Town the best odds of winning. I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat. You've seen me before, as Town, leading strong stances and behaviors and standing for things without giving ground (, you mentioned my "anger", so you are very much not unfamiliar with me being firm, decisive and fervently standing up for things), but in this game, I'm "trying to shove this down Zach's throat". Why the loaded language for something you've seen me do before? This has not suddenly become scummy . You say that proposing the plan in question doesn't give me Town or scum points, but then bring up "credibility". I don't care about it being "credible", I care about the final result.

And since when am I trying to push a lynch of you or Zach? I've repeatedly said I will hammer Zach . Because if he asks me to hammer him and I do not, , which means there is no chance of hitting scum if I am not vengeful. In a choice between being lynched and hammering Zach, I will hammer Mr. Annoyed.

The only way you have addressed the fact that I will hammer is to demand that I hammer him myself without waiting for his decision:

In post 82, saulres wrote:So

VOTE:

. Otherwise it's just lip service.

In post 118, saulres wrote:If you really want to go that route, then you should just hammer him and get your 50%.

You are not going to pressure me into doing anything, because it's not decision.

You've seen LyLo before. You say you love LyLo, IIRC. What is it that is so strange and new and about the decision not being in your hands, when in a 'regular' LyLo you would have the same force-of-argument between the players? How is it that making a plan like this is suddenly scummy? I've put Zach in a situation where he cannot win if he's scum. You're far more focused on than on anything else. I'm done addressing posts about it, it's going around in circles and repeating myself.

saulres wrote:She came up with a plan to give her a 50% chance of winning, especially if she could make me look scummy. She's done the latter before (when we were both town) and if you want I'll find the games and link you to them.

If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and

then

suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

This is a rehash of what you were saying before. How is presenting a plan that gives scum a lowered chance of winning, which you said "is not Town, is not scum", ? "Tierce-scum came up with a plan in which she's less likely to win, but she didn't explain it step by step, look how scummy that is."

Your argument is that Town-Tierce would work on her Towncred before presenting that kind of plan. What the heck? I don't care about my credibility, because . You know who would be desperate for credibility? Scum. I don't need to go in a mad dash for cred before presenting the best-odds plan, because I'm Town.

Jesus. Damned if I call myself obvTown, damned if I don't and . You know that you're pushing on bullshit, saul.

Tell me. How is presenting a plan that is a version of this...

In post 24, Zachrulez wrote:By the way that means lynching me is a town autowin provided that town votes me first should you guys go down that route... it's just a matter of which one of you is actually town... that's the fun part.

...scummy because "I didn't work on looking Town before doing so"? It's a matter of priorities. "Let's not do something stupid", like picking the 33% chance LyLo over a 50% LyLo, is a priority. "Looking Town" is not a priority action, because I'm not scum. It's something that .

In post 118, saulres wrote:Your plan will bring you victory no matter

what

your alignment.

Seriously, what. No, my plan will not bring me victory if I am scum and Zach-Town asks me to hammer him. Because in that case, either I hammer him and lose to a supersaint, or I am lynched and lose. My plan will not bring me victory if I am Town and Zach-Town asks me to hammer him, because you-scum win.

Two different instances with two different alignments in which . It is still better odds than a regular 3p LyLo. Why are you trying to sell it as a plan that always gives me a victory and trying to scare Zach away from it? It's not a plan that makes things better for me alone, it's a plan that makes things better for .

Go figure, presenting those is scummy. The puppy hydra would know. U@.@U

I hear you, I really do. The reason I say it gives you a win is because of the way you're pushing me as scum. If I lynch him, you win no matter what your alignment.

And I've said that I won't lynch him if I think you're the scum. Because that would be playing against my wincon: If you're scum, then my hammering him causes town to lose. So if I don't, then you and he are going to vote me, and town loses. This is why it's not a good plan. I'd rather forget about the super-saint claim and win this by scumhunting, not by randomly rolling dice on a player whose alignment isn't known to me. There's a lot of discussion and things to question and challenge. So I hope Zach starts doing that. would be playing LyLo like I'm used to.

In case it's still not clear: The difference between your plan and regular LyLo is you're saying "Whoever Zach picks is dying" when Zach is confirmed town. In normal LyLo there's crossvoting which either results in a scum win or a conftown. That's not the situation we have if he picks me and I don't vote him.