Himelander Mafia Thread (Over! Scum Win!)

[El Cideon]

Oh god you people already posted three pages what.

Just got home from work, embarking on the daunting task of getting caught up here.

[Kefit]

Wow nice job jumping into things without even bothering to analyze the game rules properly. The best option for the townies at this early stage in the game is to not initiate any duels absent some incredibly strong proof, available to all the townies, that a given player is scum. Here's why:

Let's assume there are five scum and ten townies. This is probably unrealistic, as five scum is quite the powerful voting bloc. But hey, maybe the scum need the help in this game. This means there are 105 possible duels. Of those, there are:

45 townie vs townie
10 scum vs scum
50 scum vs townie

So on a random duel selection, that's a less than 50% chance of even getting a duel that could lead to a scum victory upon random selection. And then even after getting this duel they still have to actually WIN it. Fuck if I know how you ruffians vote in these things, but I get the feeling that, at least early on, the chances of the scum winning the duel are roughly 50%. All in all, about a 25% chance of scum getting their first of five victories. These chances are even smaller if there are fewer scum.

A townie death that is not a scum victory (ie what will happen about 40% of the time) is both a benefit and a detriment to the scum. It is a benefit because it increases the power of the scum voting bloc. Once #scum > #townies, the scum win as long as there are enough townies left to eke out five victories. It is a detriment because it reduces the number of townies available for a scum victory. Before, the scum had to be responsible for five out of ten potential townie deaths. Now they need to be responsible for five out of nine potential townie deaths. This is a delicate balance, and the net detriment or benefit to the scum depends upon number of living scum, number of living townies, and number of attained scum victories at any given time. I think that, at this early stage of the game while we are still working with large numbers, the benefit or detriment from this will be slight.

This analysis will probably not hold up in later rounds - that is, random duel selection may begin to favor the scum once players start dying. It may also not hold up under the weight of strange and wondrous roles that you ruffians have dreamt up as a result of playing this game way too fucking much. But based on what we know, for the first round it seems pretty clear that it is only beneficial for the scum if a player initiates a duel. This increases that 25% chance of obtaining a scum victory while simultaneously eliminating that pesky 10% chance of a scum vs scum duel.

Oh wait I seem to remember someone who proactively started a duel (rather than waiting for the random number generator to select the duel, a process which favors the townies) and who also claimed that townie vs townie kills were a strict detriment to the wolves.

##Vote Pesco

[Bardiche]

Kefit: Might I point out to you that your champion over there initiated the duel pro-actively, and not I? At least get your facts straight, please.

[Ranmilia]

Hiya.  I generally agree with Kefit's analysis here, but his vote for Pesco at the end is a bit confusing - you realize we're voting for who we want to WIN the duel here, right?  Pesco's the one throwing out the quick challenge, which given the rules I do indeed think is pro-scum enough to want to see him lose it. 

##Vote: Bardiche

Aside from that I think it's important to keep in mind that this isn't a normal mafia game and therefore normal scum finding tactics and attitudes aren't likely to be too incredibly helpful.  We're looking for a group that wants to take risks, get in duels and take heads here, as opposed to the normal process of looking for a group that is trying to avoid conflict and being lynched.  So I'm not particularly sold on any of the analysis so far.  I think it's clear that scum can't win the setup as given unless they have massive numbers and/or role shenanigans... but even if Pesco does have a proscum role, the only thing we can really do about it is kill him in a duel.  So.

[Pesco]

WoT of wafflenumbers. Zero anal is rather scummy don't you say?

[El Cideon]

Okay, initial thoughts:

-Talk of regulating challenges = alarming. My problem with all of these plans is that they assume the game is sufficiently unbalanced for town organization to be easy. I admit I'm still grappling with the mechanics here, but I am not willing to make assumptions about a setup this early on, especially not that either side has an innate advantage that makes a specific course of action obviously the best. Seeing such plans put forth makes me wary of those promoting them.

-First Post Mindhax = what? I assume this is some local meta thing. I don't place much stock in metagaming in general. I also see no reason to assume a correlation between posting first in the game and that poster being a certain alignment/having a certain probability of being correct. If that's what this frequently repeated acronym suggests, color me skeptical with a bright magic marker.

-Very much disliking Pesco's undue haste in issuing a challenge. I think it's extremely reckless to do this before a substantial portion of the player base has had a chance to talk and his reasons for initiating the challenge against Bard in particular are meager verging on flippant. I'm not inclined to side against him in the challenge, however, for a couple reasons: A) I don't really buy scum behaving this flamboyantly this early on; B) Bard's response has been very underwhelming. Point A doesn't imply that Pesco can't be scum; it just makes me suspect him less than Bard, who has reacted by being very...passive-aggressive was the term used by someone else and I think that sums it up pretty well.

Voting Pesco for now, largely due to Bard response giving an overwhelming impression of mehness. Will likely still wish to see Pesco challenged and flipped tomorrow due to not being comfortable with the loose cannon playstyle.

##Vote: Pesco

[Pesco]

FPMH is where I look at a player's early post and declare them scum from that alone.

I just read over the signup OP and see Siralex being credited for the setup. Care to explain the optimal play for us all?

[El Cideon]

FPMH is where I look at a player's early post and declare them scum from that alone.

Skepticism confirmed, then. Logic >>> mindhax.

[Chaore]

Well. Huh. Looks like Carth was pretty wrong. I get day two this time, at least.

Pesco looks completely suicidal. Bardiche, however, seems to be putting up a facade of 'tactics are key'. They're the complete opposite, good for trying to think up 'Which is scummier, tactics or jumping into things?'.

Frankly, I'm going to have to go with tactics. More chance to justify their challenge. Scum absolutely NEED to win their duels, but they also need to be the ones -starting- the duel. Assuming five scum, the chance of a town hitting a town is 66%, compared to a 33% of hitting a scum. If a town picks out a town, Scum gets nothing in the ways of victories from the match. Leaving town to pick the matches isn't a good idea for scum, but just rushing INTO the duel is likely to get you lynched. Letting town do this 5 times DOES let scum win easier, but it also fucks them over completely, because if ONE more town challenges another town. That is it, Game over. So, Before they take the majority, they want at least a bit of leeway with how many they need to kill.

Therefore, I'm lead to think most scum would want to build some sort of case, shoddy or not, before starting a challenge.

The best thing then, would be to have a random townie jump into a match against another townie and win. Then they have a good reason to claim a challenge against the winner with a scum, and win.

Pesco may have thus, just put us all in an annoying situation if he IS town. This also somewhat makes me believe smart scum wouldn't antagonize challenges, but act reflexively. This would give a better chance of victory, and in fact, given all the calls for ordered lynching of people who've won... It'd give them the leverage they may need.

However, I see exactly where he is coming from with that post. 'What town wants to do the most is win their duels'. Yes. It is also exactly what scum needs to do. Town doesn't need to lynch all scum to win, but scum needs to lynch town. Winning duels is a scum priority, not a town one, I'm not about to say all townies should die- But can you mention why you felt the need to tell us that winning duels is a town priority, Bardiche?

Obviously leaning Bardiche lynch here. Given that this is a shoddy case over all, I want to hear the man address my concerns. Or at the very least, see what both think of my view. In fact, I invite everyone to nit pick and correct what I'm thinking here.

Skepticism confirmed, then. Logic >>> mindhax.

You'd be completely and utterly surprised. There is a reason 'It is pesco' actually justifies some MOTK members.

[Kefit]

Hiya.  I generally agree with Kefit's analysis here, but his vote for Pesco at the end is a bit confusing - you realize we're voting for who we want to WIN the duel here, right?  Pesco's the one throwing out the quick challenge, which given the rules I do indeed think is pro-scum enough to want to see him lose it.

No, actually I didn't realize that votes work that way. It's completely ass backwards from every other game like this I have ever played. Thus

##Vote: Bardiche

[El Cideon]

You'd be completely and utterly surprised. There is a reason 'It is pesco' actually justifies some MOTK members.

This is also extremely abusable in situations where he just happens to be scum. Making assumptions is dangerous. Sorry, absolutely not buying that making guesses completely at random can be any kind of reliable barometer.

[Chaore]

This is also extremely abusable in situations where he just happens to be scum. Making assumptions is dangerous. Sorry, absolutely not buying that making guesses completely at random can be any kind of reliable barometer.

Then why the hell are you making an assumption there?

[Bardiche]

Sorry, El Cid, for being a bit sullen! Being invited to play elsewhere and seeing your first day's going to end with "I'll challenge you based on your first post!" and others going, "Well, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, great plan bro", I must admit I've sort of thought, "Well, darn. How the hell am I supposed to dissuade them if they see nothing wrong with that?"

Anyway. Looks like this duel has devolved into "Bard, defend thyself". There's really nothing I can attack from Pesco other than, "Attacking someone based on their very first game post ever is the worst kind of decision making I have witnessed in Mafia history, discounting Deltafliers".

I can say nothing to those who'd rather see Pesco emerge victorious based on the assessment that my offense against him is lacking. I apologise, I just can't attack something insubstantial. I think his entire 'case' on me violates the very groundfests of Knox, and attacking an argument born from nothing but "intuition" isn't among my list of "hey, that's what sounds fun to do".

Never bother an intuition I know to be completely off.

Pesco looks completely suicidal. Bardiche, however, seems to be putting up a facade of 'tactics are key'. They're the complete opposite, good for trying to think up 'Which is scummier, tactics or jumping into things?'.

Oh dear, how venomous. Well, even if you think it is a fa?ade, I'm still fairly sure it's better to think things through than to rashly jump into things. Especially given your next point.

Frankly, I'm going to have to go with tactics. More chance to justify their challenge. Scum absolutely NEED to win their duels, but they also need to be the ones -starting- the duel.

Your declaration that "thinking things through = more scummy than JUST DOING IT!" lends credibility to future outbursts of "I'll just duel Person X for the heck of it", where scum will no longer need to validate any of their challenges without receiving scrutiny for it. You are setting this precedent this very moment by declaring that the one jumping in is less scummy than the one opposed to that movement on the very basis alone that "town is more likely to be rash".

Leaving town to pick the matches isn't a good idea for scum, but just rushing INTO the duel is likely to get you lynched.

I am highlighting this argument because it is hypocritical given your present stance. Rushing into things = less scummy, according to your analysis, so present your arguments in favour of my lynch in a way that still follows your initial line of thought.

Therefore, I'm lead to think most scum would want to build some sort of case, shoddy or not, before starting a challenge.

Given that this is a shoddy case over all

Again, a case of self-contradiction. Let me say that you say at the very end of the post that "It is Pesco" seems justification for some. Well, why would scum need to justify a case if their very person is enough justification for an apparently, by your account, shoddy case?

However, I see exactly where he is coming from with that post. 'What town wants to do the most is win their duels'. Yes. It is also exactly what scum needs to do. Town doesn't need to lynch all scum to win, but scum needs to lynch town. Winning duels is a scum priority, not a town one, I'm not about to say all townies should die- But can you mention why you felt the need to tell us that winning duels is a town priority, Bardiche?

As I addressed earlier. There are certain people who would throw the towel into the ring if they feel their opposition is more town than they are. Perhaps no such people exist here, but I've made it a habit to mention that wherever I go; perhaps also as a note to myself.

In most cases, town only knows his own alignment. There's ill reason to give up and let the other win despite the odds. I stand by what I've said, and I stand by it that it is neither "unnecessarily pro-town" nor "pretty scummy" to me.

I want to hear the man address my concerns.

Can you summarise your concern? All I got out of it is, "Pesco is Pesco" and "Rushing headlong into things is pretty Town", sentiments that seem less concerns and more arguments to condemn me.

[UncertainJakutten]

1. Scum needs to beat Town in challenges to win. If we reduce the field to less than 5 Townies, Scum cannot win.
2. Why not do both?

That said, having done some reading I'm pretty sure I understand what Pesco was talking about, and I fucked up. Hard. Yes, I'm overly paranoid and I should have paid attention to the background material. >_>

Why do both?

Either way, this is kinda making my brain hurt. We...want townies to die? I understand the idea scum needs to beat a townie five times, but it seems too easy to say "You two are town, kill each other"

[UncertainJakutten]

Sooooooooo...wait. We don't want town to win unless we are SPECIFICALLY in town v. scum and feel in general that it is so. That's...

Wow. This is weirder than I thought.

[El Cideon]

Then why the hell are you making an assumption there?

Stating that making random guesses is unreliable isn't an assumption. It's statistics. I made no assumptions in the post and I'm not sure what inference you're drawing here.

Also pointing out that giving undue weight to a particular player's methods or behavior even based on past experience is terribly risky because they can use that against you and will do so if they turn out to not be on your side. I've just never found it very helpful to rely on information outside of the immediate game.

[Pesco]

It's statistics.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. :V

Like it or not, the challenge being issued has gotten us off our bums trying to find wagons and we can get into serious business of voting. You fellas want to restate your vote reasons?

Still want to hear how Siralex would break the setup he made. That's useful info for the town he's holding back.

[Bardiche]

Moving on, I'm going to attack one of Pesco's supporters instead. It seems the best case to do in this point, because I think that, while Pesco is not necessarily scum, his actions harm town more than they do good.

So, UncertainKitten. Let's have a round of explanation from you as well, shall we?

Hmm? I think I missed this. I honestly glazed over his D1 Walls o' text...perhaps I should reread them today?

The "i missed this" Kitten is referring to is this statement of mine:

The only thing that leaves me nervous is Roukanken's meta-play on alleged scum actions, making statements as "scum would avoid scum vs scum" and "mafia are looking for ways to throw themselves into fights without looking suspicious".

I see no acknowledgements of Kitten that the declared action was followed up on. "Maybe I should read Day1 Wall of Texts". Pardon? It's still Day 1! I submit this as an admission of "I didn't even read others' posts if they were too long for my tastes". I don't find Roukanken's earlier posts to be sizable at all.

if the day drags on, knowing MotK, we'll force two bad players to challenge each other and get less information than we would otherwise.

Advocating that "rushing headlong" = "good", where at the same time saying it's important to gather a lot of information. Deferring alignment from someone's words is the very basis of regular Mafia: discarding that in favour of doing things ASAP is contrary to the very way I play the game, so I can't agree with this piece of thought.

You were tunnel-visioned into two options before the Day really began and everyone'd posted even once. I fail to see how you can still feel that "two good options" were presented at the time Pesco declared his choice of target. I wouldn't even cede that "one good and one bad option" was present.

Now then, moving on:

Focusing so much on you would be pointless.

At the time this was said, Pesco had issued his challenge, and Kitten acknowledged seeing this in the previous post. So... why is focusing on one of the two targets for the day's death "pointless"? Explain yourself.

I think everyone needs to post their progressive thoughts on you and pesco as the day goes on, but cases should still go around so we can figure out what we are doing tomorrow.

There's a saying, "To lead, a man must first move". Kitten here declares a preferred course of action, and does not follow the homebrew advice at all!

Moreover, rather than "state thoughts on both", he just goes into defending Pesco:

But I think thought was indeed involved. It just might not be 'satisfactory thought'.

In response to Kilgamayan's "I don't like this 'don't think just act' attitude".

Says that we don't need to know if Pesco softclaimed etc, follows up with:

Please, tell me what you think Pesco's role is, and why fakeclaiming it would give him ANY advantage?

And... looking over the latest posts, Kitten continues the passive stance of declaring "Everyone should do this" and proceed to thumb-twiddle on.

I apologise for the "walls of text", I just can't say any of this concise, and if "but it's Pesco!" is the strongest argument you can bring on the table against me, might as well make it clear what players I personally have problems with so you can analyse it after you're done following the jester's lead.

[UncertainJakutten]

I see no acknowledgements of Kitten that the declared action was followed up on. "Maybe I should read Day1 Wall of Texts". Pardon? It's still Day 1! I submit this as an admission of "I didn't even read others' posts if they were too long for my tastes". I don't find Roukanken's earlier posts to be sizable at all.

There are still 6 hours left in the day my time. And yes, I skimmed. I tend to skim when you post more than two paragraphs about one statement. Sorry.

Advocating that "rushing headlong" = "good", where at the same time saying it's important to gather a lot of information. Deferring alignment from someone's words is the very basis of regular Mafia: discarding that in favour of doing things ASAP is contrary to the very way I play the game, so I can't agree with this piece of thought.

There's a balance to be struck. We erred on the wrong side of the balance but with the 48 hours we have for your challenge, it's less critical.

You were tunnel-visioned into two options before the Day really began and everyone'd posted even once. I fail to see how you can still feel that "two good options" were presented at the time Pesco declared his choice of target. I wouldn't even cede that "one good and one bad option" was present.

Huh?

At the time this was said, Pesco had issued his challenge, and Kitten acknowledged seeing this in the previous post. So... why is focusing on one of the two targets for the day's death "pointless"? Explain yourself.

Um...because focusing on JUST you two would be...retarded? One of you is going to die. We need to look at other players while this battle goes on so we can set up tomorrow.

There's a saying, "To lead, a man must first move". Kitten here declares a preferred course of action, and does not follow the homebrew advice at all!

Moreover, rather than "state thoughts on both", he just goes into defending Pesco:

Well, actually, she has. Several times. She thinks you are a bit scummy for how you handled Pesco's declaration, and she obviously thinks Pesco is acting reasonably townish for him.

And... looking over the latest posts, Kitten continues the passive stance of declaring "Everyone should do this" and proceed to thumb-twiddle on.

Should do what?

Says that we don't need to know if Pesco softclaimed etc, follows up with:

I find with Rou you need to make him admit just how stupid he sounds before you'll get him off some paranoid spiel. I wouldn't have asked anyone else that question, likely.

Um...you really don't have a case on me. I see a lot of misrepresentation here. Good try though .

[El Cideon]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. :V

Pesco, man, if you want to try and convince me that you've got a better than average chance of tagging scum (who should represent maybe 1/4 of the population here) by basically rolling a d16, you're welcome to try. As it stands, though, Bard's recent rebuttal of your approach is scanning okay to me. Enough that I think I should reverse my vote.

##Unvote
##Vote

We may be having a clash in forum playstyles here, but I really can't credit your side of the challenge when time goes on and you basically stick to the initial randomness. Gut reactions never convince me.

[Bardiche]

Responding to UncertainKitten in the next post, since I just see it while trying to submit. Now you know the next post is relevant to you, Kitten.


Going to disagree with myself on attacking Pesco, on a re-read it seems there is more to it than initially thought.

Let's fight then. The win conditions favour town greatly and scum need to take big risks to get their quota.

Now then, to fall into "reporter" sty-- no, nevermind. I think you're all suitably able to look at Pesco's course of action, and I believe I highlighted earlier someone who admitted that "rushing into duels everytime will just get them lynched".

So, challenging someone in an outrageously flamboyant style before everyone's signed in and shown they're present... I'd almost say that's a pretty big risk to take, especially since you don't actually have anything to go on. Narrowing town's selections to "Me and some other guy I picked based on his very first post" is hardly not taking a big risk. It's taking a gigantic risk to assume a person is scum from the very first post they've made.

So by Pesco's own admission, he fits the bill for scum actions.

Moreover, it's always been town's goal to Kill Scum. But Pesco handwaives this as being unimportant:

I think Bardiche is scum just because and even if he was town we've denied scum from scoring once.

It's also covering himself in advance: "Hey I think he's scum for no reason BUT IF I'M WRONG there's silver lining."

Right. I hope I won't need to explain why that is incredibly awful reasoning.

... UncertainKitten post inbetween edging Pesco on and saying my reaction to the utterly random "Hey I'm going to challenge you TWO HOURS TIME MINDHAX POWER" is 'nervous' and that seems 'off' to him.

... I'm having difficulty imagining town being completely at ease with being selected as a sacrificial goat with such refined selection procedures.

Moreover. Time of duel: 6:02 by my forum clock.

Time of actually pointing out what his problems are with my first post: way after the duel began, 6:50. It took him fifty minutes in which he posted a few times before he actually decided to grace everyone with an actual explanation behind his decision, which... in his first post is "You're edging on suspicion" and "theorising!", which more people were/are doing.

The entire case seems to be based on the idea that I'm part of the scum team with one of the native posters here, and that we, as team scum, decided to single out Rou's paranoia and edge that on.

Aside from that, Pesco's taken no action whatsoever to steer this discussion in any direction, seemly flaunting and toting about about "Zero anal is scummy" or whatever the heck it was.

He's not even offering any suitable offense, let alone an explanation of his actions, and yet some people voice complete willingness to let this slide as a "pro-town" attitude.

[El Cideon]

And of course I leave out the actual player names in my haste to post before half a dozen other messages beat me to the punch. Let's do it right this time:

##Unvote: Bardiche
##Vote: Pesco

[Chaore]

I'm aware what I'm saying completely overturns what is scummy and what is not the moment I say it. Why are you bringing this up? The moment someone says this is scummy, it is always assumed that scum will try to avoid it. As such, it leads to the never ending paradox of 'Since this was said, OBVIOUSLY scum must do this instead.' The fact you're trying to make that post out to be some huge plan to help scum get victories is hugely ironic.

If I must say it, it is one thing that DOES seem rather scummy. It is also something neccesital, much like defending yourself. Consider it very much like another brand of defense. And never take it to such extremes as you suggest. This never applies in actual play, much like EVERYTHING ELSE.

I don't see how not instantly being convinced by a shoddy case is particularly hypocritical. If it is scummy, why would I instantly jump to the SCUMMY option, instead of deciding to hear you out?

I don't like your reason for your priority claim. I'm trying to convince myself it makes sense, but I just outright can't. It probably has to do with how it was said.

Concerns, I'm afraid, was just one base concern and things that stem from it. Having the main one addressed, it cleans them all up nicely.

Withholding vote for more discussion. I'd like Pesco to toss something in. Especially given how it has devolved to Bardiche defends self.

Ninja: Nice to see you're being honest on attacking other people. At the least.

Also, vote for winner, Cid.

[El Cideon]

And then I forget the crazy vote mechanics and do things completely in reverse. Sigh. Damned brain melting post-work, damned lack of editing.

##Unvote: Pesco
##Vote: Bardiche

There. I'll stick around a while for responses but new game rules are messing with my head augh.

[Chaore]

And then I forget the crazy vote mechanics and do things completely in reverse. Sigh. Damned brain melting post-work, damned lack of editing.

##Unvote: Pesco
##Vote: Bardiche

There. I'll stick around a while for responses but new game rules are messing with my head augh.

It appears to be the main point of the game. It is making for wonderful Day 1 discussions.

It will be a constant annoyance the entire game, I fear.

[UncertainJakutten]

Oh, hey, I missed an ENTIRE PAGE OF POSTING. Lemme get on reading that.

[Bardiche]

There are still 6 hours left in the day my time. And yes, I skimmed. I tend to skim when you post more than two paragraphs about one statement. Sorry.

I'm not attacking you on the skimming; I'm attacking you on "Oh hey maybe I should actually even read posts!" Mind, at that point you already seem quite comfortable with Pesco's declaration to duel me.

There's a balance to be struck. We erred on the wrong side of the balance but with the 48 hours we have for your challenge, it's less critical.

Pesco declared he was going to duel me in two hours. You said you were okay with that. What kind of statement IS "we erred on the wrong side of the balance" with respect to that?

Quite frankly, I find this rather fishy. How is it less critical now that there are 48 hours in which you can no longer accuse someone freely, but only two people? Face it, you've lost the initiative and, even if someone acts scummy now, you have to wait until this is over to do anything with regards to them. You lost the first move based on someone's rash behaviour and you still want to say that that is "less critical"?

Huh?

I'm saying you have two bad choices now. Pesco, who can only be blamed for jumping the gun and being generally unhelpful, and me, who was initially blamed at the time for a single opening post and who I know to be town.

Um...because focusing on JUST you two would be...retarded? One of you is going to die. We need to look at other players while this battle goes on so we can set up tomorrow.

I'll cede that perhaps my definition of "focus" differs. "To focus" doesn't mean "disregard everyone else", but to make it your main priority to decide between your given two targets and look at everyone else a-glance, making sure to raise concerns and issues at the most opportune moment. HINT: After this is over would be an opportune time to voice suspicions of others.

Well, actually, she has. Several times. She thinks you are a bit scummy for how you handled Pesco's declaration, and she obviously thinks Pesco is acting reasonably townish for him.

You talkin' about yourself in the third person? Anyway, you think I'm scummy based on me saying, "Whoah there buddy calm down, isn't it better to wait first and let everyone speak?" in response to Pesco's "LET'S NARROW DOWN TO TWO VOTE OPTIONS BASED ON A FIRST POST"? Um, wow.

Should do what?

You're forgetting what you proposed everyone to do? Voice thoughts on Pesco and me individually while looking at other cases. You haven't voiced any thoughts on Pesco at all, nor on me after it. You just voted Pesco to survive with no explanation backing it at all. I'm fairly comfortable with seeing you die on the next opportunity at this moment.

Um...you really don't have a case on me. I see a lot of misrepresentation here. Good try though .

No, I do have a case on you. It's miles better than Pesco on me. You're supporting him with faulty-to-non-existant reasoning, pretending to be some voice of reason with suggestions on how everyone should act while throwing all that to the wind yourself.

You're defending Pesco, whose alignment should be as mysterious to you as what I had for dinner, in a game where only a minority is informed of allegiances.

No, really, if you think this is a bad case, I wonder what you think is a good case for Day 1?

[Carthrat]

GUYS YOU ARE MEANT TO BE VOTING FOR PEOPLE YOU WANT TO KEEP ALIVE HERE

DAY 1 CHALLENGE SET

Pesco has challenged Bardiche.  You have 43.75 hours to vote for either player.

Vote Count
Bardiche (4) - Bardiche, Kilgamayan, Ranmilia, El Cideon
Pesco (4) - UncertainKitten, Serpentarius, Pesco, Kefit, El Cideon

16 players means 9 votes needed to resolve the duel!

And please remember to ##Unvote.

[UncertainJakutten]

Nothing relevant really. Not really sold on the arguments for Bardiche. I really don't know why. They should be compelling. But I just feel they are wrong. I have no basis for declaring this, and should ruminate more on this at some point.

I'm not attacking you on the skimming; I'm attacking you on "Oh hey maybe I should actually even read posts!" Mind, at that point you already seem quite comfortable with Pesco's declaration to duel me.

Misrep.

Pesco declared he was going to duel me in two hours. You said you were okay with that. What kind of statement IS "we erred on the wrong side of the balance" with respect to that?

retrospective.

Quite frankly, I find this rather fishy. How is it less critical now that there are 48 hours in which you can no longer accuse someone freely, but only two people? Face it, you've lost the initiative and, even if someone acts scummy now, you have to wait until this is over to do anything with regards to them. You lost the first move based on someone's rash behaviour and you still want to say that that is "less critical"?

It's making people talk, isn't it?

I'm saying you have two bad choices now. Pesco, who can only be blamed for jumping the gun and being generally unhelpful, and me, who was initially blamed at the time for a single opening post and who I know to be town.

With posts like that I'm thinking you're a great choice. Which is really hilarious since I was saying the exact same things as town last game. My excuse was that I was trying to irritate Kerigis, who pointed out I was subtly trying to reinforce I'm town. What's yours?

I'll cede that perhaps my definition of "focus" differs. "To focus" doesn't mean "disregard everyone else", but to make it your main priority to decide between your given two targets and look at everyone else a-glance, making sure to raise concerns and issues at the most opportune moment. HINT: After this is over would be an opportune time to voice suspicions of others.

I feel that while you two need to be paid attention, that other posting with regards to you actually might be more important at this point.

You talkin' about yourself in the third person? Anyway, you think I'm scummy based on me saying, "Whoah there buddy calm down, isn't it better to wait first and let everyone speak?" in response to Pesco's "LET'S NARROW DOWN TO TWO VOTE OPTIONS BASED ON A FIRST POST"? Um, wow.

I think the way you presented it was scummy. NOT the idea that we needed to calm down, but the feeling behind the post. Perhaps I'll take another look and see if I can figure out why I feel that way.

And yes, I was.

You're forgetting what you proposed everyone to do? Voice thoughts on Pesco and me individually while looking at other cases. You haven't voiced any thoughts on Pesco at all, nor on me after it. You just voted Pesco to survive with no explanation backing it at all. I'm fairly comfortable with seeing you die on the next opportunity at this moment.

Bullshit.

Just...bullshit. You haven't been reading my posts at all. Actually, you have. And that's what makes this even MORE terrible. I've posted thoughts on both of you. Where the hell do you even get this?

No, I do have a case on you. It's miles better than Pesco on me. You're supporting him with faulty-to-non-existant reasoning, pretending to be some voice of reason with suggestions on how everyone should act while throwing all that to the wind yourself.

Really? I am? Prove it. Everything you've cited has been a miserable pile of contradiction after contradiction. You accuse me of one thing and then you accuse me of the opposite.

I really don't understand what you are attempting to do here besides piss me off.

[Bardiche]

All in a day's work, it seems...

I'm aware what I'm saying completely overturns what is scummy and what is not the moment I say it. Why are you bringing this up?

Wait, what? Whatever you say has no power of whether something is scummy or not. Either you misunderstood me, I'm misunderstanding you right now or we're both in a case of misunderstanding.

The fact you're trying to make that post out to be some huge plan to help scum get victories is hugely ironic.

I'm saying your actions promote it. Punishing the player that advocates thinking as being scummy, while exalting the one who rushes into things while saying "scum would never do that, it'll get them lynched", and then doing the exact opposite of that (namely, someone rushing into things would not get lynched if you had your way) is giving the wrong message.

If I must say it, it is one thing that DOES seem rather scummy. It is also something neccesital, much like defending yourself. Consider it very much like another brand of defense.

I'm a proponent of "act as you preach". If you say "scum rushing headlong into things will get them lynched", take actions to get people rushing headlong into things lynched.

"Scum would think, Bard thinks, ergo Bard is probably scum" advocates a line of reasoning that says, "Don't try to play the game thoughtfully, just act like an oaf because look, precedent of me voting the one that advocates thinking".

I don't see how not instantly being convinced by a shoddy case is particularly hypocritical.

You said, "I'm lead to think scum would have some sort of case, shoddy or not" as an argument to say that "Pesco has no case, I think scum would have a case, so Pesco's probably not scum". But later on you acknowledge that there is a case, and that it is shoddy. The contradiction is not in being convinced by a shoddy argument.

I don't like your reason for your priority claim. I'm trying to convince myself it makes sense, but I just outright can't. It probably has to do with how it was said.

I don't know how I can make "Town should make it a priority to win any duels they're engaged in" sound any more sensible than it already does to me. Let's try.

If you're town, you know you're town. Barring role shenanigans, you have no idea what anyone else is. Ergo, your priority should be with ensuring you win when presented the option "You or Him".