Mafiascum.net

In post 298, Ghostlin wrote:Matt can only answer the question two ways: if he says yes, then milkshake can then use this to try to lynch him under the fact he's a liability to town because he might be lying to us. If he says no, then suspicion can safely ride with him all game because he's willing to lie to Town.

That's rubbish. If he says yes, then that makes us more willing to pursue a Lynch All Liars policy lynch, which is a common enough with current site meta that Matt's answer won't affect it significantly. If he says no, then he's willing to lie to town . This is a given for scum, and for town it's neutral at worst.

What the question does is make Matt easier to read for us, which is a town-minded objective.

I'll try to read through those previous pages tonight, methinks.

In post 300, Belisarius wrote:

In post 298, Ghostlin wrote:Matt can only answer the question two ways: if he says yes, then milkshake can then use this to try to lynch him under the fact he's a liability to town because he might be lying to us. If he says no, then suspicion can safely ride with him all game because he's willing to lie to Town.

That's rubbish. If he says yes, then that makes us more willing to pursue a Lynch All Liars policy lynch, which is a common enough with current site meta that Matt's answer won't affect it significantly. If he says no, then he's willing to lie to town

in order to further his wincon

. This is a given for scum, and for town it's neutral at worst.

What the question does is make Matt easier to read for us, which is a town-minded objective.

So it leads to a bullshit lynch all liars lynch either way.

This is what I said. The problem between you and me is you're OK with this. Either answer leads directly to lynch Matt for a possible lynch all liars later, or we lynch Matt because we suspect his wincon isn't ours.

Let me rephrase this: do you see any outcome for the question that doesn't lead down a possibility where we don't lynch Matt?

Town, consider this: the question is a poisonous confirmation question. Beli and Milkshake are OK with both outcomes leading to a Matt P lynch--even when we've talked about the fact that the gambit doesn't prove to hurt anyone at this juncture of the game.

Man's a null to me with a gut town read, but it looks like both Milk and Beli want to 'set' up a push for this lynch. Permit the questions to be asked: why? to what gain?

Why would you lynch Matt when there are people who are actually acting somewhat scummy today that we could lynch? At best, Matt's lynch would be a PL confirmation lynch for alignment.

Matt P is a horribly sub-optimal lynch today.

And Beli, if you believed anything you just posted, why aren't you voting for Matt P?

Actually, given the amount of players who approve of a MattP lynch (not many, unless I'm wrong), I don't find a MattP lynch to be all that likely today. [pointless doubt-casting]Possibly because MattP is scum and his buddies don't want to vote him?[/pointless doubt-casting]

I'm actually interested in whether or not you believe in "Never lie as town," Ghostlin? Just curious (I think the answer is no?). Also still interested in MattP's perspective.

And Beli, if you believed anything you just posted, why aren't you voting for Matt P?

Nothing Beli said lead directly into a MattP lynch. Beli left open the possibility of MattP saying "I don't believe in never lie as town" and still being town. Also he didn't say that "I believe in never lie as town" meant we should lynch MattP. He said it might lead to precedence for a "Lynch all liars" policy. That would presumably only become relevant after we knew whether or not MattP is lying.



@GoodCop_BadCop, for more information about post #196, you might refer to post #198 where Ghostlin demonstrated an understanding of post #196. As for your comments on post #136, how do you ever determine if someone is scum? By looking at their words and the motivation behind them. And seeing if the two align.

(Whether or not informationless "reads" are better than random chance is a discussion for another day. Or we can have that discussion now if you like, actually?)

In post 305, milkshake wrote:'m actually interested in whether or not you believe in "Never lie as town," Ghostlin? Just curious (I think the answer is no?)

The answer is no, but I generally don't. You have to remember any lies later, so even as scum I tend to keep it simple.

In post 303, Ghostlin wrote:do you see any outcome for the question that doesn't lead down a possibility where we don't lynch Matt?

Yes -- the town as a whole has an easier time reading Matt. One of the possibilities of this is that we decide he's not scum and therefore do not lynch him.

In post 304, Ghostlin wrote:Beli and Milkshake are OK with both outcomes leading to a Matt P lynch

Nice misrep. I did not say I was OK with a Matt lynch, since I have not yet decided if I am or not.

VOTE: Ghostlin

In post 304, Ghostlin wrote:And Beli, if you believed anything you just posted, why aren't you voting for Matt P?

Because there is no crossover between what you say I'm saying and what I'm actually saying, and I am not looking for a MattP lynch at this time.

In post 307, Belisarius wrote:Yes -- the town as a whole has an easier time reading Matt. One of the possibilities of this is that we decide he's not scum and therefore do not lynch him.

Yes, but your options were:

Belisarius wrote:That's rubbish.

If he says yes, then that makes us more willing to pursue a Lynch All Liars policy lynch, which is a common enough with current site meta that Matt's answer won't affect it significantly. If he says no, then he's willing to lie to town in order to further his wincon. This is a given for scum, and for town it's neutral at worst.

What the question does is make Matt easier to read for us, which is a town-minded objective.

The question can obviously be interpreted as scum either way. Do you see a way he can answer that in a pro-town way that wouldn't lead you down either of those conclusions? Why would you say it makes Matt easier to read when either answer leads to either a PL or something that is seen as scum-motivated.

The problem is supposedly you have problems with my no-win premise, and you outline two lose-lose situtations.

In post 307, Belisarius wrote:Nice misrep. I did not say I was OK with a Matt lynch, since I have not yet decided if I am or not.

VOTE: Ghostlin

Then why are you drawing conclusions where Matt is scum to the answer of the question. No where do you even consider a town motive, even if you write the question off as a 'not a trap' question.

In post 307, Belisarius wrote:Nice misrep. I did not say I was OK with a Matt lynch, since I have not yet decided if I am or not.

VOTE: Ghostlin

Then why are you drawing conclusions where Matt is scum to the answer of the question. No where do you even consider a town motive, even if you write the question off as a 'not a trap' question.

Read what you bolded; both answers are neutral in terms of deciding a vote in isolation. LaL is a popular PL by site meta regardless of Matt's answer, but if he's willing to lie for a gambit...it's neutral since such gambits can be explained after they work or fail. The only difference is Matt's readability.

Other head checking in. I'm a total moron that thought he had posted the post he had written, didn't bother to check it did post, and went la-de-da on a weekend of booze and moving houses.

I have one main thing to add here. Why the fuck has nobody noticed this yet?

In post 181, Amrun wrote:Posts that jumped out at me and why.

In post 30, Selkies wrote:VOTE: MattP

Nope not doing theory discussion today

In post 31, Demon wrote:

In post 15, Selkies wrote:I already have my lynchlist. You guys are so transparent.

-o

Selkies elaborate. Also I really want to keep my vote on Matt right now but youir 30 is making it hard for me.

In post 32, Selkies wrote:VOTE: Demon

Better?

This exchange makes me suspicious of Selkies. Selkies is trying to shut down discussion for no valid reason. Plus, like Demon, I am immediately suspicious of them promising a "lynch list" and then not delivering or mentioning it again.

Later on, in reading, Selkies does elaborate a bit on why they didn't like the theory post, but it doesn't put me off from my original gut reaction. His stance, while more clearly stated, still makes little sense.

Post 15 was prior to game's start. Amrun, why are you (and Demon same question, really) using pre-game jokes as a way to try and build a serious case on Selkies?

So may I assume you're totally unwilling to lynch Selkies today?

In post 313, Belisarius wrote:So may I assume you're totally unwilling to lynch Selkies today?

What the fuck is this post

GCBC: Amrun is town, you can say that RVS actions are scummy. Using it to justify "hard ping scumdar" on page 8 or whatever it was is weak, but it's not that out of order

This is the night that either makes me or fordoes me quite.

Ugh...

Damn HD

VOTE: Demon

I'm currently feeling this the strongest. his seemingly opportunistic hops on the most popular bandwagons (first milkshake, and now Beli) is far to much for me to ignore.

Ffery, why so?

~Miss

In post 304, Ghostlin wrote:Town, consider this: the question is a poisonous confirmation question. Beli and Milkshake are OK with both outcomes leading to a Matt P lynch--even when we've talked about the fact that the gambit doesn't prove to hurt anyone at this juncture of the game.

I think you're taking your concern too far. Matt isn't going to be lynched today whether he answers the question or not, or whichever way he answers the question. I think most reasonable people here have figured that matt thinks that lying as town is ok as long as there is a purpose.

In post 318, Miss Destroyer wrote:Ugh...

Damn HD

VOTE: Demon

I'm currently feeling this the strongest. his seemingly opportunistic hops on the most popular bandwagons (first milkshake, and now Beli) is far to much for me to ignore.

Ffery, why so?

~Miss

Hello it's Orci that has been posting you should feel bad for not telling us apart

How exactly is Beli vote opportunistic hop?

This post rings alarm bells

hey all...
i'm back for good now...
will be doing a full catch up today and should be regularily contributing going forward now that i'm back to my normal life...

In post 320, Selkies wrote:How exactly is Beli vote opportunistic hop?

I also want to know this.

In post 317, Belisarius wrote:This is the night that either makes me or fordoes me quite.

Yes, I get this is Shakespeare, but what the fuck is this?