Do you actually have an opinon on this topic you bring up? Is this your way of suggesting we should lynch ZDS no matter what. If so, why aren't you voting for him? If not...why did you bring it up?
I thought my opinion was obvious in what I said. I'm not voting for him because my original thought was that we should have his mason buddy come out. But for those who can't grasp the subtlety of my statements... Vote ZDS
I'm just going to speculate here, but I tend to doubt that ZDS' masonry of invalids is nothing but a liability to the town. Masons are a balanced role, for the most part. It is a fairly reasonable conclusion to come to that there is something else important about their roles that allows them to be more than a liability.
Even if there's not, I don't think the mafia can afford to find out, which makes it probable that we can get the mafia to kill at least one of them, at some point. That way, they aren't necessarily the endgame liability they seem. Scum would love to have them gone, without having to kill them, I'm sure, and the town can't afford to waste a lynch now just so the town can potentially have an extra lynch later on.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Really? We can't afford to waste a day-1 lynch which rarely hit scum? I would much rather have an extra lynch later on in the game than now. Not to mention the fact that ZDS claimed that there is absolutely nothing else about their masonry except that he (or both of them) take less to lynch.
ZDS is probably lying, for which I don't blame him.
If it were just a question of wasting a lynch now to get a lynch later with more info, then I'd be all for it, but that's just the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that they had relevant abilities to balance the drawback of their roles, which seems tremendously likely.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
1) ZDS is acting scummy, so people vote for him.
2) ZDS says he has 2 votes less to lynch than normal.
3) ZDS says he's an obscure character that hardly gets any screen time.
4) loran says he must be a mason, ZDS agrees.
5) People quickly hop off of the bandwagon.
6) ZDS says he doesn't have any other abilities.
7) CP doesn't want to waste a day-1 lynch
Conclusion: Instead of thinking that what ZDS says is either all truth or all a lie, and either getting the other mason to come forward or lynching ZDS, lynch Sutherlands, because you don't want to waste a day-1 lynch. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.
Yeah, that's right. Sutherlands wants to waste a day 1 lynch, but that doesn't make him scummy, because he says it doesn't. Just ignore my last two posts. My explanation of why that is an unhelpful, scum-aligned attitude is obviously specious, because Suth disagrees.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Really? We can't afford to waste a day-1 lynch which rarely hit scum? I would much rather have an extra lynch later on in the game than now. Not to mention the fact that ZDS claimed that there is absolutely nothing else about their masonry except that he (or both of them) take less to lynch.
I've heard this argument before... Just because day-1 lynches statistically (by only the sheer fact of ratios of scum to town) fail to get scum, doesn't mean they shouldn't be used to look for scum just like any other lynch. You mention that the masons would be a liability later in the game. While this is true, they are hardly a liability right now. So why not use day 1 to actually look for scum instead of a liability? I think your logic is severely flawed...
Unvote, Vote: Sutherlands
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
1 Last comment @xyre, since i actually missed your response to my response. (My apologies about that)
So in otherwords, you've decided that i wasnt voting zds because of the 2 cases against him and his defense (which i interpretted much differently as i stated before), but rather that i was actually OMGUSing. Okay. I'll tell you that's untrue, but apparently you can't be convinced.
----------------------
@Sutherlands' recent comments....wtf? Dood, what the hell are alking about? A mason claim like this can be handled later (through either night actions or whatnot) and seriously. If ZDS is lying then we'll catch him later. If ZDS is tellling the truth, then for the moment we've got 1 confirmed and 1 potentially confirmed townie. Why would we lycnh him when that's the case?
Major FOS Sutherlands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
I've just read through 10+ pages of posts that sprung up overnight. Feel free to correct any of these statements.
1. A wagon sprung up on ZDS over his apparent-precognitive abilities.
2. Pressured to claim, ZDS roleclaimed Dujour, an obscure character.
3. loran16 guessed at ZDS' being a mason, which was confirmed 5 minutes later by ZDS.
Cyan is unconvinced.
atlseal, Sutherlands and loran16 are convinced and unvote.
Alx2 unvotes without further comment.
Axelrod unvotes but remains skeptical and wants answers.
arminaes unvotes and directs his vote towards Vampyr, then subsequently unvotes and votes for Alx2. If I didn't know better, I'd say that unvote-vote was a posting restriction.
Disrupt_Your_Hymn is convinced and retracts his vote by proxy.
4. fadeblue states that he believes ZDS to be less scummy than Sutherlands, and states that the logical target for the ZDS wagon would have been Sutherlands.
5. Sutherlands retaliates with a vote on fadeblue, claiming among other things to have been second on the ZDS wagon.
6. fadeblue gives evidence of Sutherlands having been fourth rather than second. STILL no vote from fadeblue. Clarifies that the vote counts are more suspicious than they are scum tells.
7. Pod gave a PBPA on Xyre - I've never played with Xyre before, so can anyone else substantiate that Xyre is typically non-chalant about being lynched in games where he is town?
8. Both Cyan and fadeblue have stated that their rolenames are outside typical Matrix canon, explaining his disbelief of ZDS' claim.
9. fadeblue disagrees that this is sufficient ground to disbelieve ZDS' claim.
Grakthis and Sutherlands believe the mason buddy should reveal himself.
Alx2 and RafaelK believe the mason buddy should stay hidden.
I agree with Alx2 and RafaelK. There is no reason for the mason buddy to come out. Unlike most masons, both ZDS and his partner have specific rolenames and if Choi is killed at night, his existence will confirm ZDS. Choi is also safe from a lynch since ZDS just has to vouch for him when the time is right.
Two of the more relevant quotes on how the invalid-mason roles could play out:
Quote from RafaelK »
If the mafia feel the need to take out masons tonight, ZDS is available already. If they don't, let's leave the other mason in the pool of people they might kill instead of killing a more powerful townie, hmm?
Quote from carrion pigeons »
Even if there's not, I don't think the mafia can afford to find out, which makes it probable that we can get the mafia to kill at least one of them, at some point. That way, they aren't necessarily the endgame liability they seem.
Assuming the invalid role portion is true, I don't see the Mafia taking out either ZDS or his mason buddy on purpose (assuming he comes out - I'm not taking into account a random kill from the Mafia that takes out an unclaimed mason buddy).
Sutherland's position, as I understand it, is that the two masons represent a liability to the town, one that grows as the number of players shrink. He would rather exchange a Day 1 lynch now for an additional lynch in the future. That's a rather pessimistic outlook, since it assumes that the town lynches a townsperson on Day 1, which granted, is statistically more likely than lynching scum. This approach however doesn't serve to draw out the other mason, who will most likely fakeclaim to avoid being lynched, unless they're feeling particularly self-sacrificial for the good of the town. As a result, we still undertake the liability of the invalid, without any of the benefits of having a mason pair around (two confirmed non-scum). I don't agree with this position, but I'm trying to understand it - maybe Sutherlands himself would like to correct me?
The potential downside to this of course is that ZDS could turn out to be lying scum in which case all this speculating on invalid-mason scenarios will be moot.
@ZDS - any particular reason that you mentioned the invalid portion of the claim, rather than just sticking with a vanilla mason claim?
1 Last comment @xyre, since i actually missed your response to my response. (My apologies about that)
So in otherwords, you've decided that i wasnt voting zds because of the 2 cases against him and his defense (which i interpretted much differently as i stated before), but rather that i was actually OMGUSing. Okay. I'll tell you that's untrue, but apparently you can't be convinced.
I'm amazed at how shallow you think I am. I'm always open to being convinced, and if I made it seem like anything else was true, then I'm sorry.
Your response bothers me, but the last sentence feels like something a townie would say. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and Unvote.
Sutherland's position, as I understand it, is that the two masons represent a liability to the town, one that grows as the number of players shrink. He would rather exchange a Day 1 lynch now for an additional lynch in the future. That's a rather pessimistic outlook, since it assumes that the town lynches a townsperson on Day 1, which granted, is statistically more likely than lynching scum. This approach however doesn't serve to draw out the other mason, who will most likely fakeclaim to avoid being lynched, unless they're feeling particularly self-sacrificial for the good of the town. As a result, we still undertake the liability of the invalid, without any of the benefits of having a mason pair around (two confirmed non-scum). I don't agree with this position, but I'm trying to understand it - maybe Sutherlands himself would like to correct me?
You're pretty close. Although the ideal situation if they really are masons that are liabilities is for the other one to claim a power role so the mafia uses a kill on them. Right now I'm more in the camp that ZDS is just lying, which is why I'd like the other mason. But remember, all pessimists prefer the term "realist." If it takes majority-2 to lynch them, then for all intents and purposes, they count FOR the mafia win condition, since the mafia can control the lynches one day earlier than normal.
Sutherlands' plan for lynching ZDS in this scenario is completely dumb, as has been highlighted by several other people. Dear Sutherlands- killing ZDS (assuming for the moment he is truthful) also puts the mafia one step closer to their win condition. All we can do is remember that we are closer to LYLO than it appears, keep the 2nd mason under wraps as long as possible in the hope the mafia blow a kill on them, and keep trying to lynch scum.
I'll refrain from voting Sutherlands on the dangerous logic that this is too stupid to be scummy- I don't see how anyone would expect this plan to succeed (other than to succeed in drawing attention for Sutherlands).
I still like the Xyre wagon. I think he's BSing a lot, and his "PBPA" on loran was a perversion of the term.
(Turns back to the group.)
“Good lord you guys talk and talk and talk.”
“Hey, I’ve got a question for you guys. Have anyone been in a game that had a multi voter who was a non-townie? I’m, you know, just curious. I seem to recall one but don’t remember what game it was. “
“I’m all for any further masons to remain hidden, for the usual reasons and I’d like to hear the answer to this question as well.”
@ZDS - any particular reason that you mentioned the invalid portion of the claim, rather than just sticking with a vanilla mason claim?[/color][/color][/color]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
Sutherlands: Are you claiming to have two votes? I'm assuming your vote count is just inaccurate, but I'd like that clarified.
I still don't see why a push against ZDS is justified. I have only seen four arguments against ZDS so far today:
1) He may have had inside info about Suth.
This only makes him scummy if both he and Suth are scum, and seriously, Suth is by far the scummier of the two, which makes him the better lynch.
2) His claim is questionable.
Seriously, a lot of claims in Mafia games are questionable - you simply can't have everyone be "Confirmed Townie." I already pointed out that obscurity isn't an issue, so this one only comes down to whether you believe the role is plausible mechanically. And I find it strange that people are already willing to determine what is and isn't plausible in an *Azrael* game themed on *The Matrix*.
3) He's giving off "scummy vibes."
I'm sorry, can someone actually provide a real case against him in terms of behavior? Because if not, this is a foolish choice for a D1 lynch.
4) Either he's scum or he's a liability.
No, we don't know that he would be a liability yet. The effect is also not as dramatic if one mason remains hidden, because then the scum can only safely win 1 day earlier, rather than 2. Only if we actually outed the other mason (*as some have suggested*) does the masonry become more dangerous.
I still don't see why a push against ZDS is justified.
I'll note here that I don't think a push against ZDS is justified now at all, so for the most part I agree with your post. I think it was justified when Axel started it, though, so I've made comments accordingly.
The short version is I believe there were legit reasons to consider him scummy before he claimed (inconsistent/insincere opinions regarding Xyre among other things), and for that reason he was a better initial wagon based on Axelrod's "slip" detection than Suth. I disagree that Suth was scummier at that time.
In full agreement with you (fade) about ZDS' claim, however. I don't think the claim is questionable, and honestly all the prodding about major/minor characters seems to me to have housed an attempt to get people to indicate whether or not they're a minor character. Raised a few people a few notches on the suspicion scale in my mind.
The claim is currently very solid, and accordingly there is no basis to continue pushing at him (I think everyone but Sutherlands is agreed that Sutherlands' plan is a nonsense).
The short version is I believe there were legit reasons to consider him scummy before he claimed (inconsistent/insincere opinions regarding Xyre among other things), and for that reason he was a better initial wagon based on Axelrod's "slip" detection than Suth. I disagree that Suth was scummier at that time.
I recognize that other people may have had different opinions about which of the two was scummier. However, there were certainly some people jumping on that wagon with nothing more than Axel's argument (if they had other reasons, they didn't voice them), and those are the people I'm concerned about. ZDS did have some questionable posts at that point in time, but I at least felt that a much better case could be made against Suth than ZDS.
In any case, pushing against ZDS was unjustified at the time Suth put the 4th vote on him with no justification (other than a "scummy vibe"), and it's unjustified now.
At the moment, though, I'm kind of unsure about pursuing a wagon on Suth. On one hand, I really don't think he's this bad a player as scum, but on the other hand, he's exhibiting the same traits that he did in DotA Mafia (where I also thought he couldn't be that bad a player as scum).
Ok, so 2 cases: ZDS is lying or ZDS is telling the truth. Mutually exclusive. If he's lying, he's almost guaranteed to be scum. If he's telling the truth, do we want to let him live? The mafia are going to leave him around until endgame, and then just use him as a free lynch.
Oh, my, god. Are you out of your mind? If we are at 4 players left alive, and 2 of them are masons, and we can't figure out amongst the last 2 which one is scum, AND the mafia have gotten us to that point having left 2 masons alive the ENTIRE GAME we DESERVE TO LOSE.
This is like saying "we should just pull our goalie in the first period, because in the end game, if we're down by a goal, he can't score."
WAHT?!? How about you play the game right, so that your two masons do their JOBS and either the mafia are forced to kill them, or we use the two masons to eliminate possible scum candidates and we outright win the game LONG before that becomes relevant?
Lynching the two masons costs us both of them AND TWO FULL NIGHTKILLS.
That's a damn good way to put us into LOL really early.
Seriously, weren't you recently attacking me for my poor logic?
Awfully heady from someone suggesting we lynch our two masons.
This is either super scummy, or you just didn't think this out. Not sure which.
Sutherlands' plan is horrible. We may never even reach a situation where those two would become a liability. We're certainly not getting off on the right foot if we whack a townie to start.
Frankly, the day is still young, and there are other people to examine. I'd rather take my chances with one them. I really dislike Atlseal's quick jump onto the Sutherlands wagon- granted, the plan is bad, but it's opportunistic - again.
I don't find you townie anymore. His response bothers you, but because of one single sentence, you find him townie-like ?
You're incredibly not hard to convince, are you ? FoS : Xyre
That wasn't the only thing that convinced me, but it was one part. Overall, loran seems townie in his reactions to everything, and this was something I noticed in the PBPA. What overshadowed it was a feeling that his votes weren't those of a true townie.
I am going to take the unpopular stand and say that although I don't agree with Sutherlands' plan, I see where he's coming from. The presence of the masons, even if ZDS is truthful, is a liability, and people seem not to understand the gravity of the situation:
Oh, my, god. Are you out of your mind? If we are at 4 players left alive, and 2 of them are masons, and we can't figure out amongst the last 2 which one is scum, AND the mafia have gotten us to that point having left 2 masons alive the ENTIRE GAME we DESERVE TO LOSE.
Herein lies the rub: In this scenario, it doesn't matter if we can figure out who the scum is. The scum simply votes for the mason and wins (3 to lynch normally = 1 to lynch a mason). To make things worse, ZDS said outright that his PM is identical to the masonbuddy PM. This removes all need to guess from the mafia; they know the masonbuddy has the same drawback.
In fact, any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 1 or by 2 (2-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-2, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as one mason is revealed.
And any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 3 (5-2, 4-1, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as both masons are revealed.
Working backwards from this, 1 scum vs. 2 masons + 4 other townies is actually LYLO, strange as it may sound. On the other hand, remove the mason(s) from all the equations above, and the town is actually doing better.
eg:
- 1 scum vs. 2 masons and 4 townies is LYLO.
- 1 scum vs. 2 masons and 4 townies is NOT LYLO.
- 1 scum vs. 1 mason and 2 townies is autoloss.
- 1 scum vs. 1 mason and 2 townies is NOT autoloss.
So, while I still think lynching ZDS offhand is silly, something needs to be done here. LMK what you think.
The difficulty with your math is that we can't just make it go from "1 scum vs 2 masons and 4 townies" to "1 scum vs 4 townies". That's the fallacy in the logic. If we lynch masons, the scum gets to kill townies.
Assuming ZDS is telling the truth, we already have the liability. It is built in. We don't get to avoid it. Using two lynches on the masons and letting the scum get two nightkills before we lynch any scum at all just digs in deeper. And that's practically a best case scenario. If we have an SK, then that's two more kills while we waste lynches on the masons.
It makes no sense at all to lynch the masons unless you believe ZDS is lying. Period.
Who said lynch? Not me. In case it's not entirely obvious, I want to explore a possibility of a vig on ZDS, on the grounds of him being either a scum or an endgame liability.
Are we seriously going to operate under the assumption that Az design two roles in the game to be strictly worse than a standardized role? Can someone explain to me why that seems likely? Because if it's just because ZDS said so, I'm not buying it.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Are we seriously going to operate under the assumption that Az design two roles in the game to be strictly worse than a standardized role? Can someone explain to me why that seems likely? Because if it's just because ZDS said so, I'm not buying it.
Are you seriously going to game the mod on Day 1?
I have yet to see a single person actually bring a case of scumminess against ZDS. Right now, all of his attackers are pushing solely on the basis of his claim, and it's not even a situation like a counterclaim or an impossible role. Since when has this become good Mafia strategy?
I'm really having a hard time with the whole 'it takes 2 less votes to lynch you' bit.
However, I doubt that someone of ZDS' experience would make such a knee-jerk reaction as trying to use something like that to discourage people from voting for him. I think we can let it go for the moment, and look at other suspects, like alx and atlseal.
However, I doubt that someone of ZDS' experience would make such a knee-jerk reaction as trying to use something like that to discourage people from voting for him.
It's exactly because of that that I believe ZDS has that drawback, or at least some other kind of penalty for reaching -2 to lynch. He could still be lying about being a mason, but he seemed genuinely intent on not reaching -2 to lynch.
I'm really having a hard time with the whole 'it takes 2 less votes to lynch you' bit.
I really don't see what's so hard to believe about such a thing. You said yourself that it doesn't make much sense for him to make something like this up. Could you explain what's so hard to believe about it to you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I have yet to see a single person actually bring a case of scumminess against ZDS. Right now, all of his attackers are pushing solely on the basis of his claim, and it's not even a situation like a counterclaim or an impossible role. Since when has this become good Mafia strategy?
First of all, I'm not trying to game the mod. I'm saying that we shouldn't go vigging ZDS on the assumption that he's a liability. Sure, part of the reasoning for that is that Az is known for making balanced roles, but I wouldn't be making the assumption that there are roles that are strictly worse than standardized roles no matter who the mod was. We shouldn't act on this until there's more info, and it isn't like we risk going to LoL this early in the game in any case.
Second of all, who is still attacking ZDS? I don't think I've seen a single person come in and say that lynching ZDS is a good idea since the last time you came in and said it was a bad idea. Who are you arguing against?
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
CP: Sorry, I thought you were arguing *for* dealing with ZDS (I forgot about your earlier posts regarding the issue). I agree with you we shouldn't act on this yet, though I do think vigging is reasonable, either now or at some later point (as long as our vig remains alive).
Second of all, who is still attacking ZDS? I don't think I've seen a single person come in and say that lynching ZDS is a good idea since the last time you came in and said it was a bad idea. Who are you arguing against?
It's just a reiteration of my earlier protest, which is mainly aimed at Sutherlands (and for the moment, I thought you too), though to a lesser extent it's also directed at Axel and minor detractors, such as Hvir and Hawkeye who continued to ask a question that had already been answered (ZDS had made it clear at the time he claimed the invalid part that he was trying to avoid being lynched).
Do you actually have an opinon on this topic you bring up? Is this your way of suggesting we should lynch ZDS no matter what. If so, why aren't you voting for him? If not...why did you bring it up?
"Kettle?"
"Yeah Pot?"
"Are you ponderinging what I'm pondering?"
"That with bucket of fireworks, a jug of moonshine and some farm animals we'd have a down home West Virginia 4th of July?"
"The fact that you're still swimming in the gene pool is a testament to how lax someone is at cleaning this place up."
If you think he's so scummy to point it out, any reason you aren't voting him?
Also not in favor of having the mason partner come out. Leave the scum more unknowns. If the other mason isn't outted once the game is down about a third of it's participants, then would be a good time to come out. That way the town can work around the drawback.
I'm also not liking the garbage that Suth is spewing. Especially the part of the other mason coming out claiming to be a power role. Even if it's to be done in an "ideal situation." So what's supposed to happen? Mason 2 steps up, says "I'm the cop. Oh and by the way, I'm also mason 2." How is the town supposed to know when it's mason 2 coming out and lying and when it's the real deal. There's too much of a chance for boat loads of confusion for the town and information leakage to the scum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Soul Collector count: 184
PM me if you have any to trade or sell.
Games finished:17
Games ongoing:1
Town/Mafia/Other - 13/2/2
Won/Lost/replaced/modkilled- 4/13/3/1
NK'ed(vig'ed)/Lynched/Endgamed(Survived) - 7(2)/5/5(1)
Matrix Mafia Town MVP
Medieval Mafia Mafia MVP
Ye have enemies? Good, good - it means ye've stood up for something, sometime in thy life. - Elminster of Shadowdale
What do you call "invalid portion" ? If you're talking about the -2 to lynch thing, I had to reveal it before claiming, to avoid being lynched by players who wanted to put me at claim range.
ZDS had made it clear at the time he claimed the invalid part that he was trying to avoid being lynched).
I asked the question about claiming your invalid part because it looks like you were already prepared to claim mason anyway. Instead of admitting that you were more subsceptible to lynching, why not just go ahead with a mason claim at that point? Was there a genuine risk that the town would disbelieve a mason claim on Day 1 and barrel on through with a lynch?
I have been trying to catch up with my reading in this game for the past two days. The pace set here is insane.
No reason to go after a claimed mason on Day 1, as was with the claimed multivoter. I would support a vig on ZDS mid-game, not now, when things are starting to look fishy though.
Now, if we are placing votes, I know where mine would be at. Unvote, Vote: atlseal. His jumps on wagons are far too opportunistic, as was mentioned by someone.
Oh yeah, Suth is scummy for his reasoning on why we should lynch ZDS on Day1, but I like my vote on atlseal better.
@Dagger: That "someone" was me. I've been on atlseal's case for a bit now, and I think it's definitely one worth pursuing.
Not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line - don't we need to know who his mason partner is beforehand, though, since the point is to avoid their liability in the late game?
No reason to go after a claimed mason on Day 1, as was with the claimed multivoter. I would support a vig on ZDS mid-game, not now, when things are starting to look fishy though.
How do you mean fishy? I don't think that an outted mason surviving to mid-lategame would be a necessarily something suspicious. I also don't want his mason partner coming out yet, as serveral other people have already said.
SEcondly, the suggestion of vigging a mason is just insane. Really, masons surviving to the game could be immensely useful. A vigging on a mason to "confirm" the masonry is just plain dumb, as the idea that their drawback is a liability that we should be dealing with now, in the first day.
Poking around the thread, altseal's constant bandwagonning has been troubling to say the least. However, what is more troubling is that Sutherland's plan was scummy and terrible, but he gets a free pass on it.
Poking around the thread, altseal's constant bandwagonning has been troubling to say the least. However, what is more troubling is that Sutherland's plan was scummy and terrible, but he gets a free pass on it.
Constant bandwagonning, hmmm? The only thing that I think could possibly be construed as bandwagonning was my vote on ZDS. I'd love for someone to elaborate on this argument. What about my votes have been constant bandwagonning?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I am going to take the unpopular stand and say that although I don't agree with Sutherlands' plan, I see where he's coming from. The presence of the masons, even if ZDS is truthful, is a liability, and people seem not to understand the gravity of the situation:
Herein lies the rub: In this scenario, it doesn't matter if we can figure out who the scum is. The scum simply votes for the mason and wins (3 to lynch normally = 1 to lynch a mason). To make things worse, ZDS said outright that his PM is identical to the masonbuddy PM. This removes all need to guess from the mafia; they know the masonbuddy has the same drawback.
In fact, any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 1 or by 2 (2-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-2, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as one mason is revealed.
And any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 3 (5-2, 4-1, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as both masons are revealed.
Working backwards from this, 1 scum vs. 2 masons + 4 other townies is actually LYLO, strange as it may sound. On the other hand, remove the mason(s) from all the equations above, and the town is actually doing better.
eg:
- 1 scum vs. 2 masons and 4 townies is LYLO.
- 1 scum vs. 2 masons and 4 townies is NOT LYLO.
- 1 scum vs. 1 mason and 2 townies is autoloss.
- 1 scum vs. 1 mason and 2 townies is NOT autoloss.
So, while I still think lynching ZDS offhand is silly, something needs to be done here. LMK what you think.
Your arguing against something that doesn't really make your point.
So I did the math wrong, regardless, it doesn't change the fact that losing a lynch and a mason just to stop a LOL situation is a terrible idea.
Immagine this.... We lynch a mason right now, then follow some lynch patern that puts us into LOL at like 5 players. Now, immagine instead, we don't lynch a mason, but then follow the same lynch patern afterwards.
Tell me if we are better off or not?
It shoudl be obvious, that NOT losing a lynch and NOT giving the mafia another night benefits us.
Of course, all of this is assuming we are SURE that the claimed mason is a mason. But if we are confident that this is not a mason gambit (by getting the 2nd mason to claim, for sure) then there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which I would support lynching one of our two claimed masons (I guess, with the exception of a cop investigation).
Your arguing against something that doesn't really make your point.
So I did the math wrong, regardless, it doesn't change the fact that losing a lynch and a mason just to stop a LOL situation is a terrible idea.
Immagine this.... We lynch a mason right now, then follow some lynch patern that puts us into LOL at like 5 players. Now, immagine instead, we don't lynch a mason, but then follow the same lynch patern afterwards.
Tell me if we are better off or not?
It shoudl be obvious, that NOT losing a lynch and NOT giving the mafia another night benefits us.
Of course, all of this is assuming we are SURE that the claimed mason is a mason. But if we are confident that this is not a mason gambit (by getting the 2nd mason to claim, for sure) then there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which I would support lynching one of our two claimed masons (I guess, with the exception of a cop investigation).
I agreed with your post up until that last paragraph, and only had a problem with one little piece of it: why are you in such a rush to get the other mason to come out? There really isn't much to gain by it right this second because if a wagon arises on them, they won't get lynched but we will be able to get reactions and votes on record.
OK, I spent part of the holiday debating this... and I've decided it's worth mentioning. As Abbey and Axel can attest, my tendency is to put information in front of the town and decide as a group rather than hope things secretly align properly.
What if I were to say that my role has a way to remove the -2 vote limitation from one of the masons, IF a specific set of circumstances align and IF the mason is telling the truth about his alignment? Like, it is such that I would argue my role's ideal interaction is probably with one of these masons.
Would that change people's opinions about the plausibility of the roles existing?
What I am saying here, is I really don't want to see the masons vigged, but I do want to know for sure that they are townies.
Constant bandwagonning, hmmm? The only thing that I think could possibly be construed as bandwagonning was my vote on ZDS. I'd love for someone to elaborate on this argument. What about my votes have been constant bandwagonning?
Another tell I've seen in scum: You can't win the arguments against [my] superior points (see posts 320 - 344; you stop discussion after my 344 and jump into other topics), so instead you wait until someone brings up an breachable attack - AG in this case - and focus quickly on that.
Have you been a constant bandwagonner? No. Have you been an opportunistic one? Yes. Particularly your quick vote on spoon after the ZDS wagon disintegrated and now the vote on Sutherlands.
As I've pointed out before, you seem far too concerned with how you appear to the masses (hence the Stormblind reference and the "isn't this how a townie plays?" post), and have been inconsistent in your reasoning (medium-sized conversation in 344).
Honestly, I think that lynching the masons is the wrong strategy, at least for now. Instead, vigging them sometime in the near future is the prime strategy. With a lynch, at least we have some input into the decision, whereas a vig is acting alone.
Also, I'm intrigued by Grakthis' idea, but considering they're not really in danger of being lynched any time soon, I don't think it's worth using such an ability on them.
@Dagger: That "someone" was me. I've been on atlseal's case for a bit now, and I think it's definitely one worth pursuing.
Not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line - don't we need to know who his mason partner is beforehand, though, since the point is to avoid their liability in the late game?
No. There's no liability if the mafia doesn't know who it is, and ther's the chance that the mafia will randomly kill whoever it is.
This has been explained previously (by myself and others) and it is a mild stretch of my incredulity to believe that you wouldn't work that out for yourself anyway, so FOS DYH for that.
For this reason, it is also important that the second mason is not exposed for the time being.
The truth of ZDS' claim will come out at some point, whether when he/his mason partner dies (via mafia kill, via vig, via whoever) or if we reach the point where we can establish there is no possible mason partner. As such, it is not necessary to force this issue today.
Honestly, I think that lynching the masons is the wrong strategy, at least for now. Instead, vigging them sometime in the near future is the prime strategy. With a lynch, at least we have some input into the decision, whereas a vig is acting alone.
Also, I'm intrigued by Grakthis' idea, but considering they're not really in danger of being lynched any time soon, I don't think it's worth using such an ability on them.
I am not in a rush to use it. But I don't want the town knocking off masons in the mean time.
The nice part about the way this works is, it makes the masons, who otherwise might not be a threat to the mafia, a significant threat. There is now the possibility that they will lose the restriction.
If we can force the mafia into killing the masons, then that's a win for us. Because, IMO, the best use for a mason is to eat a nightkill.
OK, I spent part of the holiday debating this... and I've decided it's worth mentioning. As Abbey and Axel can attest, my tendency is to put information in front of the town and decide as a group rather than hope things secretly align properly.
What if I were to say that my role has a way to remove the -2 vote limitation from one of the masons, IF a specific set of circumstances align and IF the mason is telling the truth about his alignment? Like, it is such that I would argue my role's ideal interaction is probably with one of these masons.
Would that change people's opinions about the plausibility of the roles existing?
What I am saying here, is I really don't want to see the masons vigged, but I do want to know for sure that they are townies.
I would say that you shouldn't have revealed this. Not only do the metaphoric stars have to align for this to happen, but all of you need to survive so that they can. Even then, just because your roles interact does not mean anything about either of your alignments. All it does is make their drawback more plausible (if both of you are telling the truth).
In total, this ends up being a subtle way for you to direct the cop tonite with a somewhat low probability of success.
I am not in a rush to use it. But I don't want the town knocking off masons in the mean time.
The nice part about the way this works is, it makes the masons, who otherwise might not be a threat to the mafia, a significant threat. There is now the possibility that they will lose the restriction.
Masons are always a large threat to the mafia because the leave fewer trees to hide behind in the endgame. The -2 restriction isn't even that bad of one.
You mean the "medium-sized" tell that Grak references earlier?
You are now voting spoon for trying to appear townie by using the collective. The "medium-sized" attack. Which is 1) contradictory in and of itself based on your prior statements, and 2) taken in the wrong context as spoon, himself, points out.
Wasn't voted because of trying to look townie. Only voting because of the use of we, the town, etc. I have no problem with people trying to get across towniness, but when people explicitly state over and again that they are part of the town collective, I think something is up.
"Looking" and placing a flawed, desperate-looking vote are two entirely different things.
You can't view said vote as desperate because at the time, only you were the one concerned with my actions. I'm never worried when it's just a one-man crusade against me. I've also learned by this point that there really is not going to be any convincing you. However, I will still explain myself to the best of my ability.
Another tell I've seen in scum: You can't win the arguments against [my] superior points (see posts 320 - 344; you stop discussion after my 344 and jump into other topics), so instead you wait until someone brings up an breachable attack - AG in this case - and focus quickly on that.
Like I mentioned above, it is possible for people to miss posts especially when they refresh the thread regularly and go to last post. Sometimes missing posts when two posts are made so close together.
Have you been a constant bandwagonner? No. Have you been an opportunistic one? Yes. Particularly your quick vote on spoon after the ZDS wagon disintegrated and now the vote on Sutherlands.
Again, the term bandwagonner I don't think applies to people with 0-1 votes on them at the time. Maybe you can view my votes on people as opportunistic because I've been voting people when they catch my eye with something I view as scummy. So, if you want to call that opportunistic, be my guest, but bandwagonning they are not.
As I've pointed out before, you seem far too concerned with how you appear to the masses (hence the Stormblind reference and the "isn't this how a townie plays?" post), and have been inconsistent in your reasoning (medium-sized conversation in 344).
In the style of Fade, atlseal requires attention.
I would think it was obvious in the Spoon vote that I'm not overly concerned with how I appear to the masses at this time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I would say that you shouldn't have revealed this. Not only do the metaphoric stars have to align for this to happen, but all of you need to survive so that they can. Even then, just because your roles interact does not mean anything about either of your alignments. All it does is make their drawback more plausible (if both of you are telling the truth).
In total, this ends up being a subtle way for you to direct the cop tonite with a somewhat low probability of success.
Take my word for it when I say the only danger is them killing the masons. Which, as stated, does not seem like a danger to me. Trying to kill me would only benefit us.
And frankly, once I use the ability, there will be no concern about my alignment. And if the target is a mason, there will be no concern about his either.
Quote from Abbey »
Grak, you know better than that. Eating NKs is best done by vanillas. Having strongly confirmed townies die is NEVER a good thing at all.
The best use for a mason is to cut down trees for the mafia to hide behind in the mid-endgame
Yes, yes yes. I know we'd rather lose a vanilla than a mason, but you have to trick the mafia into killing vanillas but they kill masons willingly.
When designing a setup, you have to design it with the fact that the mafia/SK will probably need to nightkill most of the masonry.
Besides, I didn't say "the best player the mafia can kill at night is a mason." I say "the best use for a mason is to be nightkilled." And it is. That is also the best use for a vanilla mafia member.
Oh, sure, it's nice to have a mason survive till the end game... but it almost never happens. And besides, a cop can basically "create" masons for 3-4 nights.. and if you do the math, the town is better off if the mafia spends 3 nights kill masons rather than cop hunting.
In total, this ends up being a subtle way for you to direct the cop tonite with a somewhat low probability of success.
I don't think that's what he's doing. Or intending to do.
Also, Grak didn't say masons are the best people in the town to eat nightkills. You're putting words in his mouth. He said it's the best use of masons, which (once they're revaled) is true- an outed mason's best use is to take a nightkill that isn't being used on a power role. A non-revealed mason's best use is to take a bandwagon and then pop up and confirm themselves and make the wagon look silly (hi ZDS!).
Pod: run the numbers again with the scum getting two kills a night and then get back to me. Making choices in an Azrael specialty game based on the assumption of a single scum nightkill is
This is stupid. You say vigging us "is the prime strategy" (to make sure we don't become a liability in endgame), but you are opposed to using an ability which can entirely remove our drawback, and therefore the need to vig in the first place. Makes sense.
@Grak : do you need to know who is the second mason ?
I need to know that I am not using my ability on a member of the mafia.
I see the 2nd mason coming forward as the best way to do that.
Also, it gives me a 2nd potential target should you get nightkilled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I thought my opinion was obvious in what I said. I'm not voting for him because my original thought was that we should have his mason buddy come out. But for those who can't grasp the subtlety of my statements... Vote ZDS
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
1 ZDS-Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Even if there's not, I don't think the mafia can afford to find out, which makes it probable that we can get the mafia to kill at least one of them, at some point. That way, they aren't necessarily the endgame liability they seem. Scum would love to have them gone, without having to kill them, I'm sure, and the town can't afford to waste a lynch now just so the town can potentially have an extra lynch later on.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
1 ZDS-Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
If it were just a question of wasting a lynch now to get a lynch later with more info, then I'd be all for it, but that's just the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that they had relevant abilities to balance the drawback of their roles, which seems tremendously likely.
Vote Sutherlands
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
1) ZDS is acting scummy, so people vote for him.
2) ZDS says he has 2 votes less to lynch than normal.
3) ZDS says he's an obscure character that hardly gets any screen time.
4) loran says he must be a mason, ZDS agrees.
5) People quickly hop off of the bandwagon.
6) ZDS says he doesn't have any other abilities.
7) CP doesn't want to waste a day-1 lynch
Conclusion: Instead of thinking that what ZDS says is either all truth or all a lie, and either getting the other mason to come forward or lynching ZDS, lynch Sutherlands, because you don't want to waste a day-1 lynch. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
1 Cyan-Grakthis
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
2 Sutherlands- Dagger, ZDS
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
1 ZDS-Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
I've heard this argument before... Just because day-1 lynches statistically (by only the sheer fact of ratios of scum to town) fail to get scum, doesn't mean they shouldn't be used to look for scum just like any other lynch. You mention that the masons would be a liability later in the game. While this is true, they are hardly a liability right now. So why not use day 1 to actually look for scum instead of a liability? I think your logic is severely flawed...
Unvote, Vote: Sutherlands
So in otherwords, you've decided that i wasnt voting zds because of the 2 cases against him and his defense (which i interpretted much differently as i stated before), but rather that i was actually OMGUSing. Okay. I'll tell you that's untrue, but apparently you can't be convinced.
----------------------
@Sutherlands' recent comments....wtf? Dood, what the hell are alking about? A mason claim like this can be handled later (through either night actions or whatnot) and seriously. If ZDS is lying then we'll catch him later. If ZDS is tellling the truth, then for the moment we've got 1 confirmed and 1 potentially confirmed townie. Why would we lycnh him when that's the case?
Major FOS Sutherlands.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
1. A wagon sprung up on ZDS over his apparent-precognitive abilities.
2. Pressured to claim, ZDS roleclaimed Dujour, an obscure character.
3. loran16 guessed at ZDS' being a mason, which was confirmed 5 minutes later by ZDS.
Cyan is unconvinced.
atlseal, Sutherlands and loran16 are convinced and unvote.
Alx2 unvotes without further comment.
Axelrod unvotes but remains skeptical and wants answers.
arminaes unvotes and directs his vote towards Vampyr, then subsequently unvotes and votes for Alx2. If I didn't know better, I'd say that unvote-vote was a posting restriction.
Disrupt_Your_Hymn is convinced and retracts his vote by proxy.
4. fadeblue states that he believes ZDS to be less scummy than Sutherlands, and states that the logical target for the ZDS wagon would have been Sutherlands.
5. Sutherlands retaliates with a vote on fadeblue, claiming among other things to have been second on the ZDS wagon.
6. fadeblue gives evidence of Sutherlands having been fourth rather than second. STILL no vote from fadeblue. Clarifies that the vote counts are more suspicious than they are scum tells.
7. Pod gave a PBPA on Xyre - I've never played with Xyre before, so can anyone else substantiate that Xyre is typically non-chalant about being lynched in games where he is town?
8. Both Cyan and fadeblue have stated that their rolenames are outside typical Matrix canon, explaining his disbelief of ZDS' claim.
9. fadeblue disagrees that this is sufficient ground to disbelieve ZDS' claim.
Grakthis and Sutherlands believe the mason buddy should reveal himself.
Alx2 and RafaelK believe the mason buddy should stay hidden.
I agree with Alx2 and RafaelK. There is no reason for the mason buddy to come out. Unlike most masons, both ZDS and his partner have specific rolenames and if Choi is killed at night, his existence will confirm ZDS. Choi is also safe from a lynch since ZDS just has to vouch for him when the time is right.
Two of the more relevant quotes on how the invalid-mason roles could play out:
Assuming the invalid role portion is true, I don't see the Mafia taking out either ZDS or his mason buddy on purpose (assuming he comes out - I'm not taking into account a random kill from the Mafia that takes out an unclaimed mason buddy).
Sutherland's position, as I understand it, is that the two masons represent a liability to the town, one that grows as the number of players shrink. He would rather exchange a Day 1 lynch now for an additional lynch in the future. That's a rather pessimistic outlook, since it assumes that the town lynches a townsperson on Day 1, which granted, is statistically more likely than lynching scum. This approach however doesn't serve to draw out the other mason, who will most likely fakeclaim to avoid being lynched, unless they're feeling particularly self-sacrificial for the good of the town. As a result, we still undertake the liability of the invalid, without any of the benefits of having a mason pair around (two confirmed non-scum). I don't agree with this position, but I'm trying to understand it - maybe Sutherlands himself would like to correct me?
The potential downside to this of course is that ZDS could turn out to be lying scum in which case all this speculating on invalid-mason scenarios will be moot.
@ZDS - any particular reason that you mentioned the invalid portion of the claim, rather than just sticking with a vanilla mason claim?
I'm amazed at how shallow you think I am. I'm always open to being convinced, and if I made it seem like anything else was true, then I'm sorry.
Your response bothers me, but the last sentence feels like something a townie would say. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and Unvote.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You're pretty close. Although the ideal situation if they really are masons that are liabilities is for the other one to claim a power role so the mafia uses a kill on them. Right now I'm more in the camp that ZDS is just lying, which is why I'd like the other mason. But remember, all pessimists prefer the term "realist." If it takes majority-2 to lynch them, then for all intents and purposes, they count FOR the mafia win condition, since the mafia can control the lynches one day earlier than normal.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
1 Cyan-Grakthis
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
3 Sutherlands- Dagger, ZDS, atlseal
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
1 ZDS-Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I'll refrain from voting Sutherlands on the dangerous logic that this is too stupid to be scummy- I don't see how anyone would expect this plan to succeed (other than to succeed in drawing attention for Sutherlands).
I still like the Xyre wagon. I think he's BSing a lot, and his "PBPA" on loran was a perversion of the term.
(Grade A Raf!)
******************************************************************************************
(Que the overhead……ready……now!)
???????
(Stops in mid-step. Looks right, looks left, looks up.)
“Who… are… you?”
(Turns back to the group.)
“Good lord you guys talk and talk and talk.”
“Hey, I’ve got a question for you guys. Have anyone been in a game that had a multi voter who was a non-townie? I’m, you know, just curious. I seem to recall one but don’t remember what game it was. “
“I’m all for any further masons to remain hidden, for the usual reasons and I’d like to hear the answer to this question as well.”
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
I still don't see why a push against ZDS is justified. I have only seen four arguments against ZDS so far today:
1) He may have had inside info about Suth.
This only makes him scummy if both he and Suth are scum, and seriously, Suth is by far the scummier of the two, which makes him the better lynch.
2) His claim is questionable.
Seriously, a lot of claims in Mafia games are questionable - you simply can't have everyone be "Confirmed Townie." I already pointed out that obscurity isn't an issue, so this one only comes down to whether you believe the role is plausible mechanically. And I find it strange that people are already willing to determine what is and isn't plausible in an *Azrael* game themed on *The Matrix*.
3) He's giving off "scummy vibes."
I'm sorry, can someone actually provide a real case against him in terms of behavior? Because if not, this is a foolish choice for a D1 lynch.
4) Either he's scum or he's a liability.
No, we don't know that he would be a liability yet. The effect is also not as dramatic if one mason remains hidden, because then the scum can only safely win 1 day earlier, rather than 2. Only if we actually outed the other mason (*as some have suggested*) does the masonry become more dangerous.
I'll note here that I don't think a push against ZDS is justified now at all, so for the most part I agree with your post. I think it was justified when Axel started it, though, so I've made comments accordingly.
The short version is I believe there were legit reasons to consider him scummy before he claimed (inconsistent/insincere opinions regarding Xyre among other things), and for that reason he was a better initial wagon based on Axelrod's "slip" detection than Suth. I disagree that Suth was scummier at that time.
In full agreement with you (fade) about ZDS' claim, however. I don't think the claim is questionable, and honestly all the prodding about major/minor characters seems to me to have housed an attempt to get people to indicate whether or not they're a minor character. Raised a few people a few notches on the suspicion scale in my mind.
The claim is currently very solid, and accordingly there is no basis to continue pushing at him (I think everyone but Sutherlands is agreed that Sutherlands' plan is a nonsense).
I recognize that other people may have had different opinions about which of the two was scummier. However, there were certainly some people jumping on that wagon with nothing more than Axel's argument (if they had other reasons, they didn't voice them), and those are the people I'm concerned about. ZDS did have some questionable posts at that point in time, but I at least felt that a much better case could be made against Suth than ZDS.
In any case, pushing against ZDS was unjustified at the time Suth put the 4th vote on him with no justification (other than a "scummy vibe"), and it's unjustified now.
At the moment, though, I'm kind of unsure about pursuing a wagon on Suth. On one hand, I really don't think he's this bad a player as scum, but on the other hand, he's exhibiting the same traits that he did in DotA Mafia (where I also thought he couldn't be that bad a player as scum).
Oh, my, god. Are you out of your mind? If we are at 4 players left alive, and 2 of them are masons, and we can't figure out amongst the last 2 which one is scum, AND the mafia have gotten us to that point having left 2 masons alive the ENTIRE GAME we DESERVE TO LOSE.
This is like saying "we should just pull our goalie in the first period, because in the end game, if we're down by a goal, he can't score."
WAHT?!? How about you play the game right, so that your two masons do their JOBS and either the mafia are forced to kill them, or we use the two masons to eliminate possible scum candidates and we outright win the game LONG before that becomes relevant?
Lynching the two masons costs us both of them AND TWO FULL NIGHTKILLS.
That's a damn good way to put us into LOL really early.
Seriously, weren't you recently attacking me for my poor logic?
Awfully heady from someone suggesting we lynch our two masons.
This is either super scummy, or you just didn't think this out. Not sure which.
Frankly, the day is still young, and there are other people to examine. I'd rather take my chances with one them. I really dislike Atlseal's quick jump onto the Sutherlands wagon- granted, the plan is bad, but it's opportunistic - again.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
That wasn't the only thing that convinced me, but it was one part. Overall, loran seems townie in his reactions to everything, and this was something I noticed in the PBPA. What overshadowed it was a feeling that his votes weren't those of a true townie.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Herein lies the rub: In this scenario, it doesn't matter if we can figure out who the scum is. The scum simply votes for the mason and wins (3 to lynch normally = 1 to lynch a mason). To make things worse, ZDS said outright that his PM is identical to the masonbuddy PM. This removes all need to guess from the mafia; they know the masonbuddy has the same drawback.
In fact, any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 1 or by 2 (2-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-2, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as one mason is revealed.
And any scenario in which the amount of townies exceeds the amount of mafia by 3 (5-2, 4-1, etc) is an autoloss for the town as long as both masons are revealed.
Working backwards from this, 1 scum vs. 2 masons + 4 other townies is actually LYLO, strange as it may sound. On the other hand, remove the mason(s) from all the equations above, and the town is actually doing better.
eg:
- 1 scum vs. 2 masons and 4 townies is LYLO.
- 1 scum vs.
2 masons and4 townies is NOT LYLO.- 1 scum vs. 1 mason and 2 townies is autoloss.
- 1 scum vs.
1 mason and2 townies is NOT autoloss.So, while I still think lynching ZDS offhand is silly, something needs to be done here. LMK what you think.
Assuming ZDS is telling the truth, we already have the liability. It is built in. We don't get to avoid it. Using two lynches on the masons and letting the scum get two nightkills before we lynch any scum at all just digs in deeper. And that's practically a best case scenario. If we have an SK, then that's two more kills while we waste lynches on the masons.
It makes no sense at all to lynch the masons unless you believe ZDS is lying. Period.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Are you seriously going to game the mod on Day 1?
I have yet to see a single person actually bring a case of scumminess against ZDS. Right now, all of his attackers are pushing solely on the basis of his claim, and it's not even a situation like a counterclaim or an impossible role. Since when has this become good Mafia strategy?
However, I doubt that someone of ZDS' experience would make such a knee-jerk reaction as trying to use something like that to discourage people from voting for him. I think we can let it go for the moment, and look at other suspects, like alx and atlseal.
It's exactly because of that that I believe ZDS has that drawback, or at least some other kind of penalty for reaching -2 to lynch. He could still be lying about being a mason, but he seemed genuinely intent on not reaching -2 to lynch.
I thought it was a townie's job to appear townie...
I really don't see what's so hard to believe about such a thing. You said yourself that it doesn't make much sense for him to make something like this up. Could you explain what's so hard to believe about it to you?
First of all, I'm not trying to game the mod. I'm saying that we shouldn't go vigging ZDS on the assumption that he's a liability. Sure, part of the reasoning for that is that Az is known for making balanced roles, but I wouldn't be making the assumption that there are roles that are strictly worse than standardized roles no matter who the mod was. We shouldn't act on this until there's more info, and it isn't like we risk going to LoL this early in the game in any case.
Second of all, who is still attacking ZDS? I don't think I've seen a single person come in and say that lynching ZDS is a good idea since the last time you came in and said it was a bad idea. Who are you arguing against?
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
It's just a reiteration of my earlier protest, which is mainly aimed at Sutherlands (and for the moment, I thought you too), though to a lesser extent it's also directed at Axel and minor detractors, such as Hvir and Hawkeye who continued to ask a question that had already been answered (ZDS had made it clear at the time he claimed the invalid part that he was trying to avoid being lynched).
"Kettle?"
"Yeah Pot?"
"Are you ponderinging what I'm pondering?"
"That with bucket of fireworks, a jug of moonshine and some farm animals we'd have a down home West Virginia 4th of July?"
"The fact that you're still swimming in the gene pool is a testament to how lax someone is at cleaning this place up."
If you think he's so scummy to point it out, any reason you aren't voting him?
Also not in favor of having the mason partner come out. Leave the scum more unknowns. If the other mason isn't outted once the game is down about a third of it's participants, then would be a good time to come out. That way the town can work around the drawback.
I'm also not liking the garbage that Suth is spewing. Especially the part of the other mason coming out claiming to be a power role. Even if it's to be done in an "ideal situation." So what's supposed to happen? Mason 2 steps up, says "I'm the cop. Oh and by the way, I'm also mason 2." How is the town supposed to know when it's mason 2 coming out and lying and when it's the real deal. There's too much of a chance for boat loads of confusion for the town and information leakage to the scum.
PM me if you have any to trade or sell.
Games finished:17
Games ongoing:1
Town/Mafia/Other - 13/2/2
Won/Lost/replaced/modkilled- 4/13/3/1
NK'ed(vig'ed)/Lynched/Endgamed(Survived) - 7(2)/5/5(1)
Matrix Mafia Town MVP
Medieval Mafia Mafia MVP
Ye have enemies? Good, good - it means ye've stood up for something, sometime in thy life. - Elminster of Shadowdale
I asked the question about claiming your invalid part because it looks like you were already prepared to claim mason anyway. Instead of admitting that you were more subsceptible to lynching, why not just go ahead with a mason claim at that point? Was there a genuine risk that the town would disbelieve a mason claim on Day 1 and barrel on through with a lynch?
No reason to go after a claimed mason on Day 1, as was with the claimed multivoter. I would support a vig on ZDS mid-game, not now, when things are starting to look fishy though.
Now, if we are placing votes, I know where mine would be at. Unvote, Vote: atlseal. His jumps on wagons are far too opportunistic, as was mentioned by someone.
Oh yeah, Suth is scummy for his reasoning on why we should lynch ZDS on Day1, but I like my vote on atlseal better.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line - don't we need to know who his mason partner is beforehand, though, since the point is to avoid their liability in the late game?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
How do you mean fishy? I don't think that an outted mason surviving to mid-lategame would be a necessarily something suspicious. I also don't want his mason partner coming out yet, as serveral other people have already said.
SEcondly, the suggestion of vigging a mason is just insane. Really, masons surviving to the game could be immensely useful. A vigging on a mason to "confirm" the masonry is just plain dumb, as the idea that their drawback is a liability that we should be dealing with now, in the first day.
Poking around the thread, altseal's constant bandwagonning has been troubling to say the least. However, what is more troubling is that Sutherland's plan was scummy and terrible, but he gets a free pass on it.
Constant bandwagonning, hmmm? The only thing that I think could possibly be construed as bandwagonning was my vote on ZDS. I'd love for someone to elaborate on this argument. What about my votes have been constant bandwagonning?
Your arguing against something that doesn't really make your point.
So I did the math wrong, regardless, it doesn't change the fact that losing a lynch and a mason just to stop a LOL situation is a terrible idea.
Immagine this.... We lynch a mason right now, then follow some lynch patern that puts us into LOL at like 5 players. Now, immagine instead, we don't lynch a mason, but then follow the same lynch patern afterwards.
Tell me if we are better off or not?
It shoudl be obvious, that NOT losing a lynch and NOT giving the mafia another night benefits us.
Of course, all of this is assuming we are SURE that the claimed mason is a mason. But if we are confident that this is not a mason gambit (by getting the 2nd mason to claim, for sure) then there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES under which I would support lynching one of our two claimed masons (I guess, with the exception of a cop investigation).
I agreed with your post up until that last paragraph, and only had a problem with one little piece of it: why are you in such a rush to get the other mason to come out? There really isn't much to gain by it right this second because if a wagon arises on them, they won't get lynched but we will be able to get reactions and votes on record.
What if I were to say that my role has a way to remove the -2 vote limitation from one of the masons, IF a specific set of circumstances align and IF the mason is telling the truth about his alignment? Like, it is such that I would argue my role's ideal interaction is probably with one of these masons.
Would that change people's opinions about the plausibility of the roles existing?
What I am saying here, is I really don't want to see the masons vigged, but I do want to know for sure that they are townies.
Another tell I've seen in scum: You can't win the arguments against [my] superior points (see posts 320 - 344; you stop discussion after my 344 and jump into other topics), so instead you wait until someone brings up an breachable attack - AG in this case - and focus quickly on that.
Have you been a constant bandwagonner? No. Have you been an opportunistic one? Yes. Particularly your quick vote on spoon after the ZDS wagon disintegrated and now the vote on Sutherlands.
As I've pointed out before, you seem far too concerned with how you appear to the masses (hence the Stormblind reference and the "isn't this how a townie plays?" post), and have been inconsistent in your reasoning (medium-sized conversation in 344).
In the style of Fade, atlseal requires attention.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Also, I'm intrigued by Grakthis' idea, but considering they're not really in danger of being lynched any time soon, I don't think it's worth using such an ability on them.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
No. There's no liability if the mafia doesn't know who it is, and ther's the chance that the mafia will randomly kill whoever it is.
This has been explained previously (by myself and others) and it is a mild stretch of my incredulity to believe that you wouldn't work that out for yourself anyway, so FOS DYH for that.
For this reason, it is also important that the second mason is not exposed for the time being.
The truth of ZDS' claim will come out at some point, whether when he/his mason partner dies (via mafia kill, via vig, via whoever) or if we reach the point where we can establish there is no possible mason partner. As such, it is not necessary to force this issue today.
I am not in a rush to use it. But I don't want the town knocking off masons in the mean time.
The nice part about the way this works is, it makes the masons, who otherwise might not be a threat to the mafia, a significant threat. There is now the possibility that they will lose the restriction.
If we can force the mafia into killing the masons, then that's a win for us. Because, IMO, the best use for a mason is to eat a nightkill.
I would say that you shouldn't have revealed this. Not only do the metaphoric stars have to align for this to happen, but all of you need to survive so that they can. Even then, just because your roles interact does not mean anything about either of your alignments. All it does is make their drawback more plausible (if both of you are telling the truth).
In total, this ends up being a subtle way for you to direct the cop tonite with a somewhat low probability of success.
Masons are always a large threat to the mafia because the leave fewer trees to hide behind in the endgame. The -2 restriction isn't even that bad of one.
Grak, you know better than that. Eating NKs is best done by vanillas. Having strongly confirmed townies die is NEVER a good thing at all.
The best use for a mason is to cut down trees for the mafia to hide behind in the mid-endgame.
Wasn't voted because of trying to look townie. Only voting because of the use of we, the town, etc. I have no problem with people trying to get across towniness, but when people explicitly state over and again that they are part of the town collective, I think something is up.
You can't view said vote as desperate because at the time, only you were the one concerned with my actions. I'm never worried when it's just a one-man crusade against me. I've also learned by this point that there really is not going to be any convincing you. However, I will still explain myself to the best of my ability.
Like I mentioned above, it is possible for people to miss posts especially when they refresh the thread regularly and go to last post. Sometimes missing posts when two posts are made so close together.
Again, the term bandwagonner I don't think applies to people with 0-1 votes on them at the time. Maybe you can view my votes on people as opportunistic because I've been voting people when they catch my eye with something I view as scummy. So, if you want to call that opportunistic, be my guest, but bandwagonning they are not.
I would think it was obvious in the Spoon vote that I'm not overly concerned with how I appear to the masses at this time.
Take my word for it when I say the only danger is them killing the masons. Which, as stated, does not seem like a danger to me. Trying to kill me would only benefit us.
And frankly, once I use the ability, there will be no concern about my alignment. And if the target is a mason, there will be no concern about his either.
Yes, yes yes. I know we'd rather lose a vanilla than a mason, but you have to trick the mafia into killing vanillas but they kill masons willingly.
When designing a setup, you have to design it with the fact that the mafia/SK will probably need to nightkill most of the masonry.
Besides, I didn't say "the best player the mafia can kill at night is a mason." I say "the best use for a mason is to be nightkilled." And it is. That is also the best use for a vanilla mafia member.
Oh, sure, it's nice to have a mason survive till the end game... but it almost never happens. And besides, a cop can basically "create" masons for 3-4 nights.. and if you do the math, the town is better off if the mafia spends 3 nights kill masons rather than cop hunting.
I don't think that's what he's doing. Or intending to do.
Also, Grak didn't say masons are the best people in the town to eat nightkills. You're putting words in his mouth. He said it's the best use of masons, which (once they're revaled) is true- an outed mason's best use is to take a nightkill that isn't being used on a power role. A non-revealed mason's best use is to take a bandwagon and then pop up and confirm themselves and make the wagon look silly (hi ZDS!).
Pod: run the numbers again with the scum getting two kills a night and then get back to me. Making choices in an Azrael specialty game based on the assumption of a single scum nightkill is
I need to know that I am not using my ability on a member of the mafia.
I see the 2nd mason coming forward as the best way to do that.
Also, it gives me a 2nd potential target should you get nightkilled.