WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[Lewwyn]

I hate to, but I have to agree with Selrahc here. If you have an item, I can't believe that as villager you would not think about how to use it best for the village. Thats why I made my night-post voting for Azza, exactly because he did not come up with any compelling reasoning that was intended to help the village. Just his "I didn't trust Tasunke to use it effectively". Thats all?

I explained all that last night, and actually zak, if you don't believe in that reasoning, why didn't you question me about it today? I get the feeling I simply get ignored when I am on certain targets.

Serdoa, Azza has explained that he also thought Tasunke was scum so any item Tasunke had would be used for the benefit of scum. And worst case scenario was that Tasunke was a villager in which case Azza would be taking the item from somoone whos judgment he didn't trust. He is saying that he didn't trust village tasunke with a powerful item, but that is in conjunction with the other possibility that Tasunke was scum and using the item for scum. I see that as one of the best uses of the lockpick for the village...

[zakalwe]

I do have double vote.

I was not that confident about my day 1 vote, since I wasn't going to be around for pretty much the entire second day of discussion. I didn't want to leave two votes on someone, allowing them to more easily become a scum patsy, espcially if relevant information came up that would result in me moving my vote if I was capable of it (since people usually claim later on day 1, and Tasunke in particular will generally make a claim if it's applicable).

I did not know that it would show up immediately (well, at the next official vote count). I was under the impression it would show up only in the final tally, like most previous double votes we've had.

If Tasunke gave some extremely compelling claim while you were away, the votes would probably have swung elsewhere, anyway. An extra vote that doesn't show up until after the deadline (the way you thought it worked) would be very valuable in terms of possibly tripping up scum. Also, there's the obvious game theoretical aspect that two town votes are better than one, even if you were just to assign them both randomly. In short, if you're innocent, then I think you made the wrong decision to not use the double vote on day 1.

Also, you are contradicting yourself here.

"I didn't want to leave two votes on someone, allowing them to more easily become a scum patsy,"

"I was under the impression it would show up only in the final tally,"

If you didn't think your double vote would show up until the final tally, how would it make Tasunke a scum patsy?

While I read your wall, Lewwyn, what's your take on the above?

[Lewwyn]

@serdoa here it is again since you don't see to actually read what Azza wrote:

Also Azza - what was your reasoning behind using the picklock on Tasunke? I think that's a very high risk / low reward item to use, especially if you steal from a snitch.

Simple. He alluded to having a powerful item, likely the gun. If he was scum, it had to be taken from him, and if he was village, I didn't trust him to be able to use it effectively. I honestly thought he was scum based on how he'd been playing, and when catching him out lying I was certain of it, but apparently he was just playing a terrible village game...

Specifically the "if he was scum" part.

[Lewwyn]

I do have double vote.

I was not that confident about my day 1 vote, since I wasn't going to be around for pretty much the entire second day of discussion. I didn't want to leave two votes on someone, allowing them to more easily become a scum patsy, espcially if relevant information came up that would result in me moving my vote if I was capable of it (since people usually claim later on day 1, and Tasunke in particular will generally make a claim if it's applicable).

I did not know that it would show up immediately (well, at the next official vote count). I was under the impression it would show up only in the final tally, like most previous double votes we've had.

If Tasunke gave some extremely compelling claim while you were away, the votes would probably have swung elsewhere, anyway. An extra vote that doesn't show up until after the deadline (the way you thought it worked) would be very valuable in terms of possibly tripping up scum. Also, there's the obvious game theoretical aspect that two town votes are better than one, even if you were just to assign them both randomly. In short, if you're innocent, then I think you made the wrong decision to not use the double vote on day 1.

Also, you are contradicting yourself here.

"I didn't want to leave two votes on someone, allowing them to more easily become a scum patsy,"

"I was under the impression it would show up only in the final tally,"

If you didn't think your double vote would show up until the final tally, how would it make Tasunke a scum patsy?

While I read your wall, Lewwyn, what's your take on the above?

Sounds exactly how I expect Mattimeo to play his item. Also I think that Mattimeo's lack of knowledge of how the doublevote works is indicative of him not being in a QT scum thread where he and other scum would have ample, time, opportunity and reason (planning) to ask Brick exactly how the item worked.

I also do not think he is contradicting himself. Day 1 he's not sure who to vote for. He doesn't want to fuck it up as a villager so he doesn't use it. The "I was under the impression it would show up only in the final tally" is something in a separate paragraph talking about his understanding of how it worked. I do not think that contradicts his earlier statement at all. I think you are reading too much into it. You are assuming that by "leaving two votes" on someone he means in the tally before the final voting. But he could easily mean leave an invisible vote. Since he is unsure who is a villager patsy. And if he's not around at lynch time I can understand not wanting to leave a vote on someone without information he might get at the end of the day.

I simply think this is poor wording by Matt and opportunistic word games by you Zak.

[Lewwyn]

BTW Zak this is your opportunity to post your own wall of text on and support why you actually voted for me beyond:

Let me just say that Zaks three M's post has got to be one of the scummiest posts in the game. Mattimeo, MJW and Mero. I have, as I said, a village lean on MJW. Mero as we all know was innocent. And after reading Mattimeo's posts since I put pressure on him I've actually thought he's been more villagery. And he doesn't care which one.

Yesterday you and novice just followed Zak into a mislynch.

"And he doesn't care which one". You're just parroting that from Uberfish. Do you actually agree with his assessment? What makes you think I didn't care which one? By the end of the day I spoke up against lynching MJW, even though Serdoa was pushing heavily for him. So that leaves two people I was willing to lynch, and I ended up voting for the one who had traction. How is it scummy? I really don't think you're being honest here. You're also misrepresenting facts when you say I led a myslynch yesterday. I didn't lead anything yesterday, IMO. I just became part of an emerging consensus. If anyone led the Merovech lynch, it was Novice. I'm not saying that to dodge responsibility, but to show that you're twisting the truth to paint me as suspicious.

...

Anyway, I like your attack better than Lewwyn's attack. It looks like you are trying to explain your feelings, while Lewwyn is just trying to paint me as guilty. I was too reluctant to lynch Lewwyn the last time he did this to me.

Lewwyn

[zakalwe]

Lewwyn, after I switched off Tasunke there were some comments on why his item soft claim shouldn't count in his favor. More importantly, Rowain kind of got in my head with his question "Where do you see the scum sitting?". Usually I get my will on day 1, in terms of who to lynch, so why was Rowain in the lead? And once I moved off Tasunke, he suddenly gained traction again. My gut told me there could be a distancing vote in there. In short, I changed my mind. Flailing about, if you will.

You're right that you said some things about Mero being innocent. I do think you were the only one, though. And I didn't trust your judgment on the matter. So maybe my statement should have been "nobody thinks Mero's innocent, except Lewwyn, who I suspect of being his scumbuddy". I think the main reason I took a shortcut there was because I was on an iPad and wanted to be economical with my words. I was trying to make the point that Merovech was a good lynch, who ought to have gained more traction by then. If you see this as dishonesty on my part I cannot really refute it. My motive for that statement was to lynch Merovech. I don't dispute that.

About being careful. I try not to be too bombastic. If it's one mistake that townies make more repeatedly than any other, it's to get too hung up in their own theories. It's extremely hard to avoid. So that's a general play style I strive for. Look at the previous two games, for example. I'm really not all that confrontational, even if that may be what is expected of me.

About easy targets; like I said before, I can't help it if all the scum are easy targets.

[zakalwe]

I simply think this is poor wording by Matt and opportunistic word games by you Zak.

I think not. It reads like a justification, not like an explanation. He was willing to place his one visible vote on Tasunke. How would leaving an additional invisible vote on Tasunke be any worse? The scum wouldn't know it was there.

Also, you want me to hit you with a wall of text? What's up with that? I'll decide how to prosecute my case. I don't think a wall of text will necessarily lend any credence to it. That is just a sneaky way of saying "I've got nothing to hide", "your case is baseless", and "you're lazy" all in one smearing sentence.

[Serdoa]

@serdoa here it is again since you don't see to actually read what Azza wrote:

Also Azza - what was your reasoning behind using the picklock on Tasunke? I think that's a very high risk / low reward item to use, especially if you steal from a snitch.

Simple. He alluded to having a powerful item, likely the gun. If he was scum, it had to be taken from him, and if he was village, I didn't trust him to be able to use it effectively. I honestly thought he was scum based on how he'd been playing, and when catching him out lying I was certain of it, but apparently he was just playing a terrible village game...

Specifically the "if he was scum" part.

Lewwyn, you might want to read my night-posts. I specifically point to the second part of the sentence you feel is so important, and explained why I don't like the way he explains his play in case of Tasunke being village. See, if I intend to use an item, I will think about its implications. And if I use it on someone else, I should think about what happens in case of them being village or scum. And therefore I feel that when asked one should be able to come up with a better reasoning than "I don't trust him to use it". Not because I disagree with the sentence in itself, but because there are much better reasons for a village-Azza to steal from village-Tasunke. And he should have stumbled upon this reasons the same way I did within 5 minutes of thinking about his steal. Of course, only as villager. Because as scum you won't think about that, you know the alignment already.

[Mattimeo]

If you didn't think your double vote would show up until the final tally, how would it make Tasunke a scum patsy?

'cause I'd know it was there, and I occasionally still fail at aspects of the whole Theory of Mind business.

[Lewwyn]

Also, you want me to hit you with a wall of text? What's up with that? I'll decide how to prosecute my case. I don't think a wall of text will necessarily lend any credence to it. That is just a sneaky way of saying "I've got nothing to hide", "your case is baseless", and "you're lazy" all in one smearing sentence.

I didn`t think it was sneaky at all. Come at me bro. I think you`re scum and i don`t have anything to hide, your case is basless and you are lazy.

Also you are deflecting. Framing the argument. Classic.