M54: Not a Carrot Conspiracy

[worcej]

You think these MIA dudes are even going to show up and notice this attention?

What do you think of the theory that scum hides among lurkers, and how it might apply to these lurkers?

Recent games confirm that usually a scum or 2 are down in the lurkers.

[BunnyGo]

##End

L-2

When at L-1, do not hammer before intent

Are we using bot to count? This is important!

[BunnyGo]

Welcome back KG. Any thoughts to contribute? Or insightful questions?

Probably nothing insightful...

I've got mixed feelings about the end votes. I don't think mafia would so obviously manipulate the situation by causing a tie, so I think it's possible that people could use concern of a tie as an excuse for certain votes. But it's also a valid concern, because not lynching someone gives us no info, so I don't know how much to read into that.

I'm vaguely wondering why Fluminator isn't voting with Balki. Maybe xorxes' comments on their interactions spooked him. What bothers me more is that Flum is still voting for Chaqa for lurking, even after Chaqa showed up and had a lot of back-and-forth with Flum.

Well never mind on the Flum-Chaqa part...

Umm...no. Not never mind. This is interesting.

[Fluminator]

Maybe assume it's L-1 until we get a hard answer, but I really think the GMs will follow what the bot says regarding this if the players are following it.

[worcej]

So, my thoughts on worcej:

(1) I felt like his apparent strong townread on Tem was really surprising, and I don't think he has justified it well. I just can't understand how someone in worcej's shoes would conclude strongly that Tem was Town on Day 1, and his continual justification that "Tem seemed like bad town," while refusing to explain why that explanation was more likely to him on Day 1 than "bad scum" strikes me as defensive and dismissive. (and obnoxious, but that's NAI)

(2) Though...defensiveness and dismissiveness are not all that alignment indicative. And, I'm getting this righteous indignation from worcej that I feel like I get a lot from people I have mislynched in the past. Worcej is so combative and refuses to compromise or capitulate in a way that I find very townie. Scum!worcej would back down and try to please me, at least a little.

So, I am leaning town!worcej for the moment.

I generally agree with this assessment of worcej. Although I do not see why worcej would be so sure Temasek was town if he thought Temasek was playing poorly, when worcej has been lynched for things like this in the past, he seems to always flip town.

I flip town when I am town - shocking revelation right?

Funny enough, and necroing a little, but when BB made the assessment that I am 'hard to lynch as town' I slightly scummed him because I believe I have only been NK'ed in one or two games since playing here. I am usually always lynched.

[kgray]

Probably nothing insightful...

I've got mixed feelings about the end votes. I don't think mafia would so obviously manipulate the situation by causing a tie, so I think it's possible that people could use concern of a tie as an excuse for certain votes. But it's also a valid concern, because not lynching someone gives us no info, so I don't know how much to read into that.

I'm vaguely wondering why Fluminator isn't voting with Balki. Maybe xorxes' comments on their interactions spooked him. What bothers me more is that Flum is still voting for Chaqa for lurking, even after Chaqa showed up and had a lot of back-and-forth with Flum.

Well never mind on the Flum-Chaqa part...

Umm...no. Not never mind. This is interesting.

Flum changed his vote from Chaqa to Bo while I was typing that.

[worcej]

And no, I'm probably not gonna read all 65 pages. Sorry. I may be a little lurky, a lack of time for playing was the original reason I didn't join. But I'll try... Anyone wanna give me a synopsis of important events to check out? I'll be skimming through the bot, but I definitely won't get through all of it.

The fact you even posted this was more contribution than your slot previously provided.

[brainbomb]

We hid in the ravine as a column of APCs rolled by. The army was gunning down patients. Janet turned to me and shook her head "no" as I clutched an onion, intending to huck it at a passing tank.

Vecna (6) Balki Bartokomous* xorxes* kgray Chaqa damo666* Fluminator*
bo_sox48 (3) Foxcastle* BunnyGo* Jamiet99uk
Pjandy (2) worcej rdrivera2005*
e.m.c^42 (1) bozotheclown


End-votes (7/17):
Balki Bartokomous rdrivera2005 BunnyGo Foxcastle xorxes damo666 Fluminator


Highest end-vote count was 4 for bo_sox48 at 27:40 before deadline.


Non-votes
bo_sox48, e.m.c^42, Pjandy, BobMcBob, Vecna

With 17 alive it takes 9 End votes all on the same player at the same time as recorded by the bot.

Currently Vecna is scheduled to be burned alive

26.5 hours remain in Day 2

[worcej]

Also, since it's a relevant variable.

Hammer Vote: The second level of voting is whether or not to employ the hammer mechanic. By default, days and nights are set to 24 hours long; however, players may instead elect to activate the hammer mechanic. Notate this vote with a pair of hashes before the word end. (EX: ##END). The day will end as soon as a majority of players are voting to endhammer. Please note that a majority of players on the same wagon is NOT required, simply a majority end votes will end the day with the current vote totals. If you are not able to vote before the hammer is dropped, you will not be penalized for failing to vote during that day. Every player must vote end to activate hammer mechanic during night phases.

And reviewing the bot at this point, we are two votes away from a majority.

Not gunna lie - this excites me. This provides some interesting analysis on who wants to be the last one to pull the trigger.

##end

[worcej]

This end voting is a mistake given the vote distribution is not considered. It is too easily manipulated by scum.

Anybody not unending I will consider to be a scum.

Happy to vote any of the lurkers.

I think that is part of the point. It can create more exposure that scum actually do not want to experience.

[brainbomb]

Also, since it's a relevant variable.

Hammer Vote: The second level of voting is whether or not to employ the hammer mechanic. By default, days and nights are set to 24 hours long; however, players may instead elect to activate the hammer mechanic. Notate this vote with a pair of hashes before the word end. (EX: ##END). The day will end as soon as a majority of players are voting to endhammer. Please note that a majority of players on the same wagon is NOT required, simply a majority end votes will end the day with the current vote totals. If you are not able to vote before the hammer is dropped, you will not be penalized for failing to vote during that day. Every player must vote end to activate hammer mechanic during night phases.

And reviewing the bot at this point, we are two votes away from a majority.

Not gunna lie - this excites me. This provides some interesting analysis on who wants to be the last one to pull the trigger.

##end

##GM NOTE
this is incorrect
you will notice that the bot records both who is end voting, and how many people are end voting.

In order for majority to be hammered all "9" end votes must all be on the same player.

[worcej]

How about this for a theory?

There is always an example of busing on day 1.

Top 3 wagons were TvTvT ( worcej the only unknown but widely townread).

Xorxes never busses.

Hence EMC and Flum are a scumpair.

Voila!

I don't think this is a bad theory.

[worcej]

Also, since it's a relevant variable.

And reviewing the bot at this point, we are two votes away from a majority.

Not gunna lie - this excites me. This provides some interesting analysis on who wants to be the last one to pull the trigger.

##end

##GM NOTE
this is incorrect
you will notice that the bot records both who is end voting, and how many people are end voting.

In order for majority to be hammered all "9" end votes must all be on the same player.

Umm, not according to the rules Neph made.

[Fluminator]

Also, since it's a relevant variable.

And reviewing the bot at this point, we are two votes away from a majority.

Not gunna lie - this excites me. This provides some interesting analysis on who wants to be the last one to pull the trigger.

##end

##GM NOTE
this is incorrect
you will notice that the bot records both who is end voting, and how many people are end voting.

In order for majority to be hammered all "9" end votes must all be on the same player.

Ok, so we're not L-1, We're still L-5

[brainbomb]

Hammer Vote: The second level of voting is whether or not to employ the hammer mechanic. By default, days and nights are set to 24 hours long; however, players may instead elect to activate the hammer mechanic. Notate this vote with a pair of hashes before the word end. (EX: ##END). The day will end as soon as a majority of players are voting to endhammer. Please note that a majority of players on the same wafgon is NOT required, simply a majority end votes will end the day with the current vote totals. If you are not able to vote before the hammer is dropped, you will not be penalized for failing to vote during that day. Every player must vote end to activate hammer mechanic during night phases.

Okay I am mistaken.

Neph has made the rules that the bot is 100% accurate and the end votes do not jeed to all be on the same target. I apologize.

[Fluminator]

OK RED ALERT BACK TO L-1
Don't end without intent

[worcej]

##Call GM:
The rules specifically say a majority of the players need to vote end to hammer the day. How is the current interpretation incorrect?

I feel like you are rewinding a rule setup for this game.

[brainbomb]

##Call GM:
The rules specifically say a majority of the players need to vote end to hammer the day. How is the current interpretation incorrect?

I feel like you are rewinding a rule setup for this game.

You are correct worcej. I just thought we got rid of that style of hammering. Neph is gm I will adhere obviously to his rule. my mistake for not thoroughly reading.

[worcej]

End voting is an awful idea and you guys are being insane to consider it.

It is also insane that we play game after game where scum lurk and get away with it. A lot of people are guilty of it (including me and you in previous games, and I can even recalling both of us saying that we were going to lurk to coast through). And unless we create disincentives for it, scum will keep doing it because it works.

I'm not suggesting that lynching lurkers is a bad idea. I'm saying end voting is.

That's how you lynch a town PR (not that we have many of those left anyway...)

At this point, we don't have much to lose lol...

[worcej]

It is also insane that we play game after game where scum lurk and get away with it. A lot of people are guilty of it (including me and you in previous games, and I can even recalling both of us saying that we were going to lurk to coast through). And unless we create disincentives for it, scum will keep doing it because it works.

I'm not suggesting that lynching lurkers is a bad idea. I'm saying end voting is.

That's how you lynch a town PR (not that we have many of those left anyway...)

Everybody thinks lynching lurkers is a fine idea, but it never happens, ever. So that's a useless sentiment.

What do you think of Worcej's analysis that in recent games, the lurker pool has been at least 50% scum?

That's not the correct interpretation of what I said, but it ultimately has the same result as your above assessment.

What I meant in my post is that if we specifically lynched a lurker on those D1's, that # of scum players were lurking - which I defined as being in the bottom 33% of players by post count. However, I removed anyone that posted above the average posts/player and deemed them as not lurking if they were in that bottom 1/3.

Without running the math and having looked at those situations intently myself, '50% to hit scum by lynching lurkers' is probably close enough to reality.