SDM's Next Game

[Pesci]

That vote for Molly after her post about possibly being the doc was horrible, Ace. That's why I said you were scummy as fuck. You certainly didn't play well. Nobody in the town played anything close to resembling well.

[Noah]

Would people be interested in a 5 person game with no night phases?

For flavour the town would be FBI agents with no powers trying to find and take out the terrorist who is trying to set off a bomb.

The town wins if they find the scummer and the scum player wins if he survives past 3 lynches.

Could be an amusing little diversion.

[Plubby]

Pesci, you played badly. All I did in the thread was give you the don and you lynched me for it. Actually, I think If I go back through the thread, everything I posted in the game was correct.

Yes, even the bit on no-lynches

[Pesci]

I know I played badly, I even admitted as much and my last post wasn't disputing it at all so I don't know why you felt you had to establish it again

[Molly]

That vote for Molly after her post about possibly being the doc was horrible, Ace. That's why I said you were scummy as fuck. You certainly didn't play well. Nobody in the town played anything close to resembling well.

I dont really blame him. I stuffed up big time it lead to my own downfall

[Noah]

Id like to think that my play, this game, was flawless.

[Plubby]

I know I played badly, I even admitted as much and my last post wasn't disputing it at all so I don't know why you felt you had to establish it again

Well I kinda meant it from a JUST you perspective. People made mistakes but only you played badly >_>

[Pesci]

Well that's just flat out wrong. Making mistakes IS playing badly. Split played the worst by not even taking into account that he could have been the verifier - it should've been pretty obvious to somebody who read the rules properly if they were really trying to work it out - it wasn't my job to figure out his ability. I thought the logical thing to do would've been to ease off Molly once she said she thought she was the doc, am I really the only person who gets that sort of thing? So Ace played badly in that respect. Molly played horribly just to be making something like that up.

You're just "butthurt" (to steal an HTTK expression that seems appropriate) that I got you power-lynched at the end. Yeah, that was bad, but like I've said, this game was just supposed to be for a laugh and I was trying to bandwagon people ALL game. Besides, if it wasn't for the possibility that Split could've been the verifier, it was completely the right play.

[-A-]

Id like to think that my play, this game, was flawless.

Me too!

[Plubby]

Well that's just flat out wrong. Making mistakes IS playing badly. Split played the worst by not even taking into account that he could have been the verifier - it should've been pretty obvious to somebody who read the rules properly if they were really trying to work it out - it wasn't my job to figure out his ability. I thought the logical thing to do would've been to ease off Molly once she said she thought she was the doc, am I really the only person who gets that sort of thing? So Ace played badly in that respect. Molly played horribly just to be making something like that up.

You're just "butthurt" (to steal an HTTK expression that seems appropriate) that I got you power-lynched at the end. Yeah, that was bad, but like I've said, this game was just supposed to be for a laugh and I was trying to bandwagon people ALL game. Besides, if it wasn't for the possibility that Split could've been the verifier, it was completely the right play.

A few things:

- Making a mistake is okay. Really. This is an attitude EWB mafia needs to adopt. Be-correct-or-be-lynched is just dumb. Repeatedly making mistakes without trying to correct them and/or offering a piss-poor excuse like "I was TRYING to do that" or "I did it for the lulz" is playing badly. These are two different things. I agree that a lot of people made mistakes here, but I feel that only you were actively playing badly. If you will, making mistakes is one instance of a durr moment. Playing badly is repeated durr moments. Essentially I think this point distills down to how you define "playing badly" and I was using mine.

- I'm not butthurt that I got lynched, I have demonstrated time and time again that when I make a move it's one i'm prepared to be lynched for, because I am fully aware that if it's not correct (or not popular) then I am subject to the BC/BL issue as above. I'm butthurt that I made a completely correct read on TEOL and handed him to you on a platter and the only reason you about-faced on me was to salvage your freaking ego from roughly two whole turns ago.

I simply think that it's stunningly obvious you tried to grandstand to stand out as MVP, and now you're backpedalling with excuses such as "I didn't care, I just wanted to lynch people" now that it's backfired. Sort of like the mafia version of the Patrick Roy statue of liberty, if I may make an analogy that will make Sean smile. At the end of the day, this game or the results thereof won't change the way either of us will approach our mafia (and if I were you I wouldn't *want* to change the way that I approach the game, generally speaking) but I think I kinda have a legit gripe to be butthurt when I give the town a gift, you egoplode and cost us the game with your "all aboard the reverse wandbagon!" play, then I get grouped in with people you allege played like shit.

[TEOL]

I know I played badly, I even admitted as much and my last post wasn't disputing it at all so I don't know why you felt you had to establish it again

I got the same lecture off him on MSN, and it confused me for the same reason.

[Pesci]

A few things:

- Making a mistake is okay. Really. This is an attitude EWB mafia needs to adopt. Be-correct-or-be-lynched is just dumb.

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence and it's something I've been trying to hammer into people for years. But making a mistake is still playing badly. It's certainly not playing well, is it? If detracts from the town, it's the wrong move, especially if there's no real logic for what you're doing and especially if you're rushing to lynch somebody who's just made a claim that would be very useful for the town to mull over (Ace's hammer on Molly) or failing to read the set-up properly and completely misunderstanding your role (Split).

Repeatedly making mistakes without trying to correct them and/or offering a piss-poor excuse like "I was TRYING to do that" or "I did it for the lulz" is playing badly. These are two different things.

You've distinguished between playing badly and deliberately playing badly - one may be worse but both are playing badly. Note that at no point did I say I was trying to play badly or had any knowledge that what I was doing was wrong and continued for the lulz.

I agree that a lot of people made mistakes here, but I feel that only you were actively playing badly. If you will, making mistakes is one instance of a durr moment. Playing badly is repeated durr moments. Essentially I think this point distills down to how you define "playing badly" and I was using mine.

Right. You were using your warped and inaccurate definition of playing badly. That's why you're wrong to feel that only I was actively playing badly. To insinuate that the two instances of bad play I've highlighted from Ace and Split above aren't bad play is ludicrous. You don't need to make more than one mistake to play badly at all.

I'm not butthurt that I got lynched, I have demonstrated time and time again that when I make a move it's one i'm prepared to be lynched for, because I am fully aware that if it's not correct (or not popular) then I am subject to the BC/BL issue as above. I'm butthurt that I made a completely correct read on TEOL and handed him to you on a platter and the only reason you about-faced on me was to salvage your freaking ego from roughly two whole turns ago.

Firstly, posting "let's bite the bullet and lynch TEOL" isn't handing him on a platter. I think you're being a bit generous there. A good read yes, but it's not as if you made the lynch proposal sound so appetising that it was unforgivable not to lynch him. I mean, that's not exactly a sterling case to lynch the guy, is it? Secondly, when I said you were butthurt from being lynched I was including the self-serving style of my play as the biggest contribution to said dissatisfaction. It's understandable really. But yeah, you're definitely overstating your attempt to lead a lynch on TEOL. And wait, what happened to my ego two turns before? If it's the no lynch argument, my ego wasn't hurt, because I thought I won that and I'm always going to argue the same thing, ie the correct thing If it's anything else I'm really confused.

I simply think that it's stunningly obvious you tried to grandstand to stand out as MVP

I just wanted to feel like a badass for investigating two scum in two nights and that's about the sum of it. Whether I got the MVP award or not didn't matter to me in the slightest. Two good reads would've been nice though, and I don't feel particularly bad about bulldozing the chances of a town who didn't give a single fuck for the possible gain of personal satisfaction

and now you're backpedalling with excuses such as "I didn't care, I just wanted to lynch people" now that it's backfired.

Well this part is true. But I had SDM's comments, and now yours, to respond to. And that really was my approach to the game. I think it's fairly obvious if you look through the thread.

Sort of like the mafia version of the Patrick Roy statue of liberty, if I may make an analogy that will make Sean smile.

YOU MAY NOT.

but I think I kinda have a legit gripe to be butthurt when I give the town a gift, you egoplode and cost us the game with your "all aboard the reverse wandbagon!" play,

This is completely fair. But I never said I had a problem with you being butthurt, I just said it in jest really. I'd be angry too. Though... "I give the town a gift". I don't see you can have a problem with my ego when you're making a single vote on TEOL with no reasoning seem like turning water into wine.

then I get grouped in with people you allege played like shit.

People who didn't play well, actually... not people who actively played like shit. There's a difference. The guys who died in nights 1 and 2 didn't play like shit, but they didn't exactly have a chance to play well either. But you're right. Your fantastic attempt to lead a lynch on TEOL totally makes up for your play beforehand... which wasn't great, by the way.

You made one post on Day One, arguing against no lynches. You made one post on Day Two, which was slightly more insightful, but didn't bring up any lynch possibilities or even a passing suspicion. You made one post on Day Three, scoffing at my vote for you after I got you as a townie. In fact, here's the five posts you made before pizza came out and claimed verifier and I started waving my dick around.

So I was kind of expecting a PM if i'd gotten in to the subgame. I shouldn't have made any assumptions when it comes to Sean. But i'm here now!

I have had a longstanding, passionately-argued opinion about the crux of the issue.

I think jumping on somebody for proposing a no lynch is a much, much more common and more effective way of "blending in" and trying to appear as a townie. Nobody's going to argue with the "sound logic" that you don't find any scum when you vote for a no lynch. You also doesn't find any of the majority of townies in the game. I've never understood what makes it a scummy move. And as for the pressure vote thing, he's already explained his reasoning and it makes sense even if it does ignore the point of the game (to discuss and find scum) a little - what else is he gonna say? I genuinely don't understand what makes people keep jumping on others for voting for a no lynch when it never pays off and everything said about it being a scummy move is consistantly proven wrong.

You are the best player on EWB historically and I flat-out cannot believe you said any of this.

However, there is an equally valid counter argument in place that, in an open game of this (small) size, that a 'random' lynch is actually more harmful than a no lynch. .

There is a critical difference here. The difference is the difference between "Playing to Win" and "Playing Not to lose". Lynching people is actively trying to win the game. No-lynching is tacit endorsement of the status quo. To rely on abilities. To go on autopilot. Which is exactly what the mafia wants us to be doing.

The thing with giving the mafia a "free kill" which is mathematically likely to aid the mafia is flagrantly ridiculous. You gave them a free pass if you don't. Not a free kill if you do. I would put forward that in a small game it is WORSE to no-lynch purely because we need to use every turn we can to the best of our ability. When I won Perfect Ten mafia as the don, I would have given up a digit for a no-lynch. The other downside to no-lynching in a small game is that while you can draw more information relating to interactions between players by having the mafia make a kill, giving you a better chance of lynching scum - you have to dance to the mafia's tune. You give the side that already has an informational advantage sole control over the information that can be inferred by interactions between deceased and alive - exacerbating said (already formidable) informational edge.

Voting no-lynch is basically never correct, but it is more forgivable in certain circumstances. Large games it is...kinda okay...to give up a turn. In a small game it is basically horrendous but I could *maybe* see it in the midgame because it exposes more about the relationships between players. It is abhorrent play on turn one of a nine player game though. Absolutely unforgivable.

If I read Molly correctly, Vig was presumed because if Pesci was scum, he wouldn't admit to targeting A and thus implying that he MIGHT be the vig. I don't think that any of the "Pesci is an investigator who happened to target the person who died" possibilities occured to Molly.

This kinda leaves us nowhere.

You'd sacrifice me to find out about your ability? That's real courage. You are so proud of yourself, Pesci Sooo proud.

I'm quite confident i've sussed out my ability, and you would waste a lynch. Trying something might be better than a no lynch at this stage.

[DISCLAIMER: BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU READ THIS ONE, IT'S SO FUCKING AWESOME IT'S LIABLE TO BLOW YOUR MIND]

I think its about time we bit the bullet and voted TEOL out.

Vote: TEOL.

So I will.

You wouldn't...

Because of course, you have a better idea. So let's hear it?

Let's be fair here. You did nothing to help the town spark any sort of activity in the first two days, you never shared any suspicions, you never even cast a vote, and in doing so directly contributed to the no lynches you argued so staunchly against, and then you made a half-assed vote for TEOL which is apparently the greatest thing since sliced bread. Get over yourself, you didn't play well - just like everybody else.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Pesci

[SeanDMan]

While you're nailing him to that set of sticks there, don't forget that Plubby missed the second night for his night action.

[TEOL]

I'd also like to chime in and note that an attempt to lead a lynch on me would have been improved slightly by being based on anything.

[Noah]

None of you had the sack to try and lynch me. I'm frickin' untouchable!

[Plubby]

You did nothing to help the town spark any sort of activity in the first two days, you never shared any suspicions, you never even cast a vote, and in doing so directly contributed to the no lynches you argued so staunchly against,

re: Sparking no activity: I was working a hunch on TEOL. I had nothing, so I contributed nothing. When I had something, I contributed it.

re: your stupid irrelevant flow-on to no-lynches and not voting: I didn't cast a vote because no one who was being talked about looked suspicious to me. I didn't lynch someone who I didn't even think might be scum until I was confident enough on TEOL to vote. I may have contributed to something I don't agree with but I was still trying to win the game. I placed the object of the game and the aims of the side I was on above my own personal beliefs. This doesn't mean I can't think that no-lynches are wrong - it is simply that there were greater evils at play at the time.

As for the why regarding my read on TEOL: It was based on the way the first turn played out. Also what I had figured my ability to be by not using it and following what happened on night two, then the results of night three. TEOL had done some chest thumping, which he usually does, but not been overly useful, which is not like him. The sum of all these things, made me believe he was mafia. Was it ironclad? No, and that's why I didn't offer all this when I posted it. It would have been picked apart for what it was: a gut instinct stitched together with circumstancial evidence and i'd have been lynched for Be Correct or Be Lynched. I was also never asked for the reasoning behind my vote until now.