@y2k, why are you townreading uclabb? He's posted like twice.

@bo, how about I scumhunt how I want and not give free passes to people cause they're new. You think new scum is just going to blatantly change playstyle due to coaching when they've been able to talk constantly since the game started? Christ.

@Yoyo, damian, the thing about the Vig is that lynching scum gives us more info than shooting them. Sure, the Vig should be shooting scumreads, but he should prioritize those who are quiet and hard to read, and we should be focusing on getting the most informative lynches rather than deciding to policy lynch this early.

Bo is so obvious when he's town that I think he might be scum. Contemplating voting for him.

˙lnɟǝsn ɟlǝsɹnoʎ ǝʞɐɯ puɐ ʇᴉɥsllnq ssǝlʇuᴉod pᴉdnʇs ƃuᴉop doʇs 'ɔɐᴉuɐW

my town-read of uclabb was basically just a town-read of his two posts. yes the fact that he only has two posts makes that read fairly weak.

lol we're not banking on them leading the vote. I'm saying that we win something regardless. Even if we lynch town, We get rid of someone not contributing. it's a much harder decision to lynch them if we get down to LYLO later on.

personally, i think policy lynching someone inactive on D2 or later seems way more appealing than lynching a D1 lurker. I think back to last game where i was town and intentionally lurked beginning of D1 so i could get a solid read in with my first post, and that read ended up being spot-on accusing TrPrado. townies definitely can feel justified to lurk a bit D1 while they try to start reading people, and it becomes way less acceptable come D2.

@Wjesop: "You don't have a "solid read" on anyone.

I'm dismayed that you're seemingly intentionally trying to rush town into "solid" reads when we've had less than 24 hours and 6 pages of game play."

Of course I don't have "solid" read on anyone. But you're picking out single words here and putting more meaning on them than intended. All I meant by that is that for everyone else I have mix of impressions that haven't formed into anything coherent yet.
For both of the reads I have an impression that has formed into something more solid.
Thats it.

Additionally, what i meant when I said you were reactive: I wasn't calling your way of defending yourself reactive. I was calling your voting pattern reactive. You almost immediately voted for the person who voted for you and so did Toemato. This is a reactive voting pattern.

@Ghug, that is a good point. Lynching is productive when we have information. Its hard to spot a mafia amongst the field of lurkers. I do still think pressuring the inactive to post more by putting votes on them is a good plan.

Also, wjessop, if you want to get me off your case make some productive posts, play actively, rather than just watching the thread and showing up whenever your name is mentioned.

@Damian: I've interacted with the thread twice. Your tendency towards exaggeration is strange.

Equally, I voted for you and DO because your arguments are weak, exaggerating, and conflational.

I did not vote for ghug or DL9 when they voted for me, so, again, your exaggerations are redundant.

@damian, pressuring lurkers is fine. I just want it clear that if it does come down to choosing between the town and the Vig killing lurkers, it should be the Vig. I also think that the Vig should kill the leading votegetter about an hour before the day ends, but I doubt I'll win that fight unless the Vig is cool.

@ghug ... yeah, when someone completely clueless gets coached, it will become apparent no matter when it occurred. Subtleties might be more difficult to spot with the encryptor, as I already pointed out, but any major changes, especially that first post where he tries really, really hard to do as he was coached to do, will still be obvious.

@y2k ... that's why we should still read and differentiate between scummy lurking, non-contributive (is that a word?) lurking, and whatever other strategies people might employ. I am proposing we target those in the first two categories and target those in the first much more strongly and pressure them much more.

bosox, who strikes you as scummy-lurking?

I'd classify DO as scummy-lurking right now

@Wjessop " I've interacted with the thread twice. Your tendency towards exaggeration is strange."

Are you saying it is coincidence that you happened to be watching the thread both times I've mentioned you. That you just happen to be active to defend yourself but not to do anything else?

This is day 1, of course my arguments are week and exaggerating, we have next to nothing to go on.


Actively lurking and only posting when you need to defend yourself is often scum behaviour.
Responding to people making a case for you by immediately voting for them, is also often scum behaviour.

So far you've done both. And done nothing to help the town. Thus I have a weak scum read on you.

"I did not vote for ghug or DL9 when they voted for me, so, again, your exaggerations are redundant."
If I recall neither of them made a case for you, both of those were joke votes in response to you getting the first post. I maintain so far your voting pattern has been reactive.

I'd love to hear when evidence ghug has that made him so sure you were town a few pages back. Maybe it will change my mind. So far your behaviour hasn't.

@Ghug, generally I agree with you but in day 1 we have so little information, why shouldn't the town kill a lurker?

Also what benefits do you see to the Vig killing the leader

I have concerns about this post by Y2K “definitely looks like he's syncing up with mafia buddies in QT chat. [][]VOTE TrPrado”

It seems superfluous to me to add “in QT chat”. Why did he put this in? Mafia don’t talk in a QT thread during the day, they use the Encryptor. “While alive, you allow your fellow Others to talk during the day by being a go-between.”

I think Mafia Y2K would know this. Is he trying to distance himself from that knowledge.? Perhaps he wants someone to soft clear him for seemingly not knowing something that mafia would know.

Thoughts?

maniac i asked in the signup thread, it was told that the mafia can talk in the QT during the day while the encryptor is alive.

@Manic
That's a fair point. Re-reading the role descriptions at the top I don't see if it says anywhere exactly how the mafia day communication works.

My impression from reading the roles was that the mafia can use the QT chat during the day until the encryptor dies. Since the role description in the thread for mafia says: (You may discuss with your fellow mafia members and submit night actions in this QuickTopic thread). And it doesn't specify that the QT thread is only for night talking.

It is possible that they mafia have to PM the encryptor and then the encryptor has to the PM the other player. The only people who would know for sure how it works are mafia.

Or I could read the sign up thread. Ignore my last post. Apparently we do know how the day chat works

Oh really? That was the townslip I thought I had spotted. That changes a lot.

@Damian, it allows us to "lynch" twice today, which does a really nice job of counteracting the sizable mafia advantage in this game with an early information boost.

@bo you're the worst.

First bit of that was regarding y2k and day chat.

@ghug Wouldn't lynching twice be more productive when we have more information.
Particular since the leading candidate may be waiting to make a PR claim, and the Vigilante killing them would mean that we eliminated a town PR (Unlikely but worth mentioning)
Or do you think the information gained from a second, rushed lynch would be productive enough to counteract the risks

ghug is going to stop just assuming i'm a stoned townie :)

The vigilante only has two shots, and I think it would be beneficial if they saved one for the mid-to-late game so we could deal with potential CCs. I also like Ghug's plan.

That, and the fact that the vig has two shots, mean that the vig probably shouldn't be targeting lurkers.

Not sure if we should double-lynch day one, though

I think that we want less lurkers in the mid to late game, so killing them is useful. Since it means we have more information on all candidates in the mid game.

But people have made some good points.
The Vigilante only has two shots, and it would be good to use those to given the town an extra lynch one day.
Making lynches with lots of information is better than low information lynches.

Perhaps the solution is that the JOAT takes out some of the lurkers?

Obviously the JOAT has other actions which will at times be more useful to the town. But perhaps instead of a track day one. Which can produce information that is hard to interpret, and hard to share with the town, the JOAT takes out a lurker, tonight.

@yoyo - I addressed a post to you directed on pg 5 of MX

So, reading through to catch up, observations here:

- Dislike Yoyo's entry vote on Captainmeme on P2. Seems forced.

- Damian and wjessop having a silly argument over nothing. Reminds me of Krellin and wjessop in MX.

- DL's step by step analysis of Balki's post on P3 reminds me of how he got townread early on last game without posting anything particularly original

- Fakeclaiming is probably going to prevalent with this game, and I disagree with uclabb that it should be avoided. Though, of course, it shouldn't be done lightly - it has to be believable.

- ND brings up an interesting point at the bottom of P4 regarding wjessop and M9. I'd forgotten about this before, but it's a valid point, and I like ND for making it.

- Disagree strongly with Bo on P5 that VT's "should claim PR's to save themselves". Not only does this strongly risk making the real PR obvious from reactions; but unless you've set up for it well in advance; the mafia won't believe you anyway. That is the complete opposite of how to fakeclaim as town.

- SaladinSmith's P5 entrance case on wjessop is just jumping on what other people have said. Not good.

- Dislike y2k flopping on Damian under pressure over it without Damian actually adding anything new. I didn't read damian as scummy, but y2k did, which is acceptable, and so giving it up just because nobody agreed isn't good play, or townie.

- No idea what Toemato is talking about w/r/t ghug on P6 - this is the first game in a while where I haven't mildly scumread ghug from his very earliest posts. I suppose it looks different as a spectator though. Though I don't think that hammering on the newbie immediately is really the best way to get information from them (hi ghug, y2k).

- Really don't get why people are still talking about policies; when actual scumhunting has led to D1 scum lynches in ~50% of recent games. That's lazy, Bo, and given how fewer and fewer people are in favour each game, I don't know why you're wasting time talking about that instead of pushing for real information.

- It'd be nice if you could go look at someone other than damian/DO, wjessop.

Not a huge amount out there so far. SaladinSmith having posted almost nothing other than a crap post demanding more contributions from wjessop has a great irony to it, though, and he needs to explain in his own words why he thought wjessop was scum - rather than recycling other peoples; and then adding the catch-all of "contribute more!!!!" to the end to make it seem legitimate. There were plenty of other people who had contributed far less than wjessop when he made it.

Anyway, as SS isn't seemingly around; y2k can explain the change of read on damian whilst I get hot, wet, and smother myself in lava.

Glad to have you with us HR. Thats one person off the list of people who haven't posted yet.
Out of curiosity who is this directed to?: "- It'd be nice if you could go look at someone other than damian/DO, wjessop."

It was directed at wjessop. Referencing him coming back and singling you out again at the bottom of P7.