no, if someone is not at home lynching that person for not posting a lot is rather pointless.
Unvote
You vote for me because you think "there could be some reasoning there".
Guys, I got lynched day 1 (as a townie) in anonymous mafia just now because I FOS'd someone (who in the end was mafia) while still having my RVS vote on someone else. I'm not gonna get myself lynched again for such a silly reason. You have your vote on me because someone else accused me of promoting a Gumball lynch while not voting for her myself, based on a tiny joke on page 3, while Eduarda even did exactly the same in the very post she accused me in. The first time that you speak about your reasoning yourself you speak in cryptic sentences about something however slight that may be there. Then what is that "some reasoning", how does that compare to the behaviour of other players, heck how does that compare with Eduarda's own statement in that same post herself?
You have a good point about Eduarda there - I may not think that outside the box a lot of times. And, looking back, you're right, there are other people who could be voted for using the same argument. However, I don't have twenty votes, I have one. I chose to give it to you.
And I speak about it being slight because, you know what? It absolutely is. It's miniscule, a point the size of my pinkie toe. But it's something, and something is better than nothing in my opinion.
Someone brought up the first real structured argument against another player and that was convenient for you. Convenient to say the argument is well-structured, better than RVS and hence a good reason to vote. If the player flips town you can just say "it was still better than no lynch because now we have information" and get away with it.
I didn't vote because it was convenient. I voted because there was more there than my current, honestly RVS, wagon. And I feel like that last point is worthy of either town or scum, because it's true.
You jump very quickly on a vote, without analysing the situation yourself.
May I remind you who you're talking to?
In all seriousness though, I'll just keep playing like a broken record and say that I see more worth in your lynch than Gummy's, and that seems like a good anaalysis in itself. Did I conveniently ignore Eduarda's hypocrisy? Yeah. But it wasn't because I tried to. It was simply me seeing a better option and taking it.
When counter-arguments flow in you first ignore it, and later try to justify your choice by saying "I feel like there could be some reasoning here", without addressing the actual debate about the validity of the argument. It's somewhat ironic that you think the chance of me being scum is slightly higher than average, while I'm thinking exactly the same about you.
Vote: Dekunut
If there is something there, then how is the argument invalid? To add, I didn't "later" justify my choice. I justified it in the post I voted in:
Like Gummy said, killing an inactive gives us no info. At least Gummy will. Sorry gurl.
I see Eduardas point regarding Koki, and he may he worth looking into
Unvote
Vote: Kokirion
At least there's actually a reason for his death. More than can really be said for Gummy
At least there's actually a reason for his death. More than can really be said for Gummy.
It's just the same argument, but different words. I played my one card when I voted. I have nothing else up my sleeve, that's it, and I admit to it.
And also, that's not really irony. i'm disappointed in your figurative language skills.
But because neither Dekunut or Eduarda provided a proper analysis of the situation, let me analyse it myself.
Alright, so this is the post that drew suspicion:
The argument was that first Koko decides not to vote for Gumball, but does add on the end a sentence in which he supports her death. This way, Kokirion might try to play it safe. He may try to support the Gumball wagon without burning his fingers by actually being on it (a psychological trick to kill off Gumball with clean hands).
In his next post he says the following:
So perhaps Koko's strategy is the following: he is betting on 2 horses. Either killing Gumball or killing Jamie. By betting on 2 horses the chance may lessen that another alternative could arrive last-minute, and so reduces the danger that a mafia member might die. Whereas both Gumball and Jamie are excellent players to get rid of on day 1. By not actually voting for Gumball he avoids being blamed for her death later on if she gets lynched, and Jamie is inactive, and through the façade of a policy lynch he can get away with that too relatively easily. Very much a Koko way to manipulate stuff. I can't agree more, so all the way up to this point I get your point.
You get our point thus far so I'll ignore all this stuff here. Hope you don't mind.
But now let's be a bit more critical.
First of all, how does Koko usually try to manipulate stuff when he is mafia? Well, I'll take my answer out of a QT (paraphrased) from Lineages, in which he was mafia together with Toxic and Storm. They had a small discussion about it there, and Koko more or less said the following: As a mafia member what you should never do is attempting to control the game. You cannot fully control every asset of the game and it is not necessary. Instead, you need to steer the events in the game. Plant an idea in someone's head and make him/her pursue it, and you may very well openly try to influence something, but drop it as soon as it could damage you. The only things you need to achieve as mafia is to simply stay alive and to avoid drawing suspicion. Whoever dies is irrelevant as long as you can achieve the first 2 objectives.
Koko's style is indeed to sneakily manipulate events from the background. However, he really only cares about survival and not looking suspicious. So there is my first critical note, why would he stick his head out to get Jamie or Gumball killed this early? Is it necessary to his survival? Probably not, Koko would probably let it go, pray to any god in the world to get one of them killed, but would not intervene.
I'll be honest, I have a hard time using meta arguments. I don't pick up on metas very well. So this argument makes sense - I'll have to go back and read that chat and give an idea of it. Thanks for this bit.
Anyway, let's look at his posts in more detail.
Basically he does 3 things:
1) defend Gumball
2) sarcastically say he wouldn't mourn her death if she does die
3) support lynching an inactive and voting for Jamie
While it may have meant to be the case, I didn't view that as a sarcastic comment. I viewed it as fact, and from your end, it makes sense.
Koko, as scum, tends to try to be as cost-efficient as possible. With the minimum amount of action the maximum amount of change.
His first move, to defend Gumball, is in that light already peculiar. If he is scum and indeed tries to get her killed without voting for her, why would he defend her? That's actually not very logical, because by giving an opinion about the Gumball wagon will obviously attract a response from others. He will have to defend his opinion right away, and what for? If he tries not to be seen as suspicious and tries to survive day 1, creating such a debate is a very sloppy move. It also has another negative effect on his "scum-cause". Namely, he might accidentally save Gumball. If you make a move to defend a person, it may lower the chance that that person dies, so if Koko wants her dead, why would he add part 1 to his posts? If Koko would want to kill her he could've more easily left part 1 out. He would only sarcastically say that he wouldn't mourn her death (without voting for her) and then supporting lynching an inactive player. That's probably more like Koko's scum-style.
Again with the meta, mon ami.
Once again, may be worth it at a later time (I'll go look back at some games and try to set up a meta argument with that), but for now I need to try to get an idea of your meta myself before I agree with or counter any of these arguments.
Let's now take a look at part 3, where he votes for Jamie. Although that too may seem as a Kokish scum move, it probably isn't. Because why Jamie? He had the choice out of Jamie, Vergo and Regal. Out of these 3, Jamie is probably the most difficult target. Jamie tends to fights back fiercely. If Koko would be the first to vote for Jamie he might get into a big sparring contest with Jamie, and how will that keep him both safe from getting lynched and away from suspicion? Vergo at the other hand, while also being a fantastic player, has sometimes shown during the last few games to not become more active before the end of the day. With Vergo the chances are bigger that he'll stay inactive and so that Koko won't have to face him in a debate. And Regal is an even more easy target. Regal is not the type of player to fiercely fight back, but responds in a more mildly manner. Most people also probably favoured Regal out of the 3 (as seen by many of the reactions after Koko's choice for Jamie), so no one would've thought he was more scummy if he chose for Regal. For Koko, who would've wanted the least amount of damage, Regal was probably his favorite target if he were scum.
Your argument is less of "is it Koki-ish" and more "Is it smart". Because I see your point here. However, it was also the day before the day ends. You could simply not post and come back later saying you were busy today if he came back in. While Regal is the easiest to lynch, and is also a good player, he's not the most useful lynch. You have to weigh both of those points in your decision.
So, having analysed his posts in more detail, we found 2 major sloppy mistakes scum-Koko may have made. Defending Gumball and voting for Jamie instead of Regal. It's kind of unkokish for scum-Koko to make so many sloppy mistakes so early on, hmmm
And, given the fact that Koko is actually writing this post and completely aware of this all, why wouldn't he have been aware of it yesterday and just not made these mistakes? If he knows it, why would he do it, if he's scum...
Because being on the spot for something makes you consider something even more critically.
Well, for me at least, but I feel like it makes sense for other people to feel that too.
Hmmm, maybe if I analyse it further it actually looks like it's unlikely to have been a scum move. The chances may actually be slightly bigger for now that he's not scum.
You my be right. I'll remove my vote for now, but not because I feel like you're town, but because I'm going to try to look into your meta and see how this adds up. I can take it at face value (and take what you said as Gospel) or look at your other games and make a decision myself.
But let's finally discuss the scenario where he did do it according to the Koko-books. Koko left out his part where he defended Gumball and targetted Regal instead of Jamie.
Now, as much as this is the ideal version, does it still make him likely to be scum?
It reminds me of a south park episode I saw on tv yesterday. The boys were playing detectives and tried to solve crimes. At one point they were asked to solve the dissappearance of a pie. Of course, the dog ate the pie, but the boys came up with the megalomanic conclusion that the old lady's husband tried to murder her, was filled with rage, and then at some point ate the pie in the process. The thing is, if that man really was that filled with anger and wanted murder her etc. etc., it was kind of a fair analysis of the situation. But what made you think he had such murderous intent? What made it more likely that he wanted to kill her than the normal explanation that the dog just ate it?
In the case that Koko is scum and really wanted to bet on 2 horses and tried to manipulate people into killing Gumball or Regal, the only thing we have still established so far is that we cannot exclude that he didn't do it with evil intentions (and in reality we did, because we found 2 major flaws in this reasoning already). But what excludes the fact that he didn't just do that as a townie? Lots of people made jokes about Gumball's situation, it was page 4 afterall and Koko very often makes such comments. If he'd be town he probably still would've made that comment. Maybe he just didn't add the Gumball-defense part because he was tired and didn't want to take it serious, and maybe he took Regal as a target purely by chance. Many people would've chosen Regal as a townie, so why wouldn't he? So even in the most ideal situation we just concluded that we cannot exclude he was scum, but neither could we exclude he was town. So in that case it would be a random chance at most. and with these unkokish flaws we found, I'd say he's a pretty bad day 1 lynch.
That is how you underbuild why someone is or is not scummy. Not by cryptically saying "there may be something", or taking a joke so far out of its context that you come to a bizar conclusion[/QUOTE]
You made good points, but I'd like to remind you that that was all I had at the time. A lot of your argument is, once again, based on your meta, which I am not very well versed in. As I mentioned before, I'll unvote, take another look at it, then either leave you alone for now or return tomorrow with my vote on you once again in effect.
UNVOTE
Though I will say, nice conclusion.
@Heroine of Time
can I get replaced, I've got a lot of real life stuff that's sprung up and I'm not gonna be able to focus on this
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
bai
I don't want a no lynch so I'm trying my best to find the best lynch candidate, even with so little to go off of. My behavior now really reminds me of then, which makes me wary because the person I went after flipped town. I still don't want a no lynch but I will probably not be able to post again after this. So I'll switch my vote to DekuNut even though I'm not convinced he's scum, but like my reasoning with Koki, it's better than nothing.
