Golden Pantheon - Greek - Game Over ~ Scum Win

[Mr. Squirrel]

Vote Count

chapcrap (1) -PCM
jonty (3) - conzo, Violet, ???
Violet (1) - victor,

11 alive, 6 to lynch

[chapcrap]

small fos chap for trying to get attention shifted to jonty on false prentenses with two joke votes and two votes from Vio (Which Jonty agreed to have placed on him). There's really no logic for getting Jonty to claim right now beyond the fact that he has the most votes which as demonstrated is a flawed scenario.

To clarify, I realized that some of the votes were joke votes, but if we are just going to pressure someone anyway, I thoguht that pressuring the person who already had votes would be logical. Just as logical as pressuring Vio for not being as active in the past...

I didn't have a case against jonty and have nothing against him in this game (real life is different!! )

[chapcrap]

small fos chap for trying to get attention shifted to jonty on false prentenses with two joke votes and two votes from Vio (Which Jonty agreed to have placed on him). There's really no logic for getting Jonty to claim right now beyond the fact that he has the most votes which as demonstrated is a flawed scenario.

To clarify, I realized that some of the votes were joke votes, but if we are just going to pressure someone anyway, I thoguht that pressuring the person who already had votes would be logical. Just as logical as pressuring Vio for not being as active in the past...

I didn't have a case against jonty and have nothing against him in this game (real life is different!! )

EBWOP: I am all for pressuring someone else who has not been active since jonty apparently will not be pressured. PCM, where are you?

[strike wolf]

small fos chap for trying to get attention shifted to jonty on false prentenses with two joke votes and two votes from Vio (Which Jonty agreed to have placed on him). There's really no logic for getting Jonty to claim right now beyond the fact that he has the most votes which as demonstrated is a flawed scenario.

To clarify, I realized that some of the votes were joke votes, but if we are just going to pressure someone anyway, I thoguht that pressuring the person who already had votes would be logical. Just as logical as pressuring Vio for not being as active in the past...

I didn't have a case against jonty and have nothing against him in this game (real life is different!! )

The problem is we would be asking someone to respond and defend themselves when we are unable to provide them with any information with why they are being suspected. As a group we can't just say you have the most votes time to defend yourself. It's a progression in vote counts and possible claims but it's a degradation of the quality of cases and how we pursue cases as well as the logic behind who is forced to claim.

[chapcrap]

small fos chap for trying to get attention shifted to jonty on false prentenses with two joke votes and two votes from Vio (Which Jonty agreed to have placed on him). There's really no logic for getting Jonty to claim right now beyond the fact that he has the most votes which as demonstrated is a flawed scenario.

To clarify, I realized that some of the votes were joke votes, but if we are just going to pressure someone anyway, I thoguht that pressuring the person who already had votes would be logical. Just as logical as pressuring Vio for not being as active in the past...

I didn't have a case against jonty and have nothing against him in this game (real life is different!! )

The problem is we would be asking someone to respond and defend themselves when we are unable to provide them with any information with why they are being suspected. As a group we can't just say you have the most votes time to defend yourself. It's a progression in vote counts and possible claims but it's a degradation of the quality of cases and how we pursue cases as well as the logic behind who is forced to claim.

I can not argue with that logic.

[safariguy5]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

[chapcrap]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I can go along with that. unvote vote Tails

[Victor Sullivan]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I can go along with that. unvote vote Tails

Yeah, probably the best/only option at this point.

unvote vote Tails

-Sully

[pancakemix]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I've been waaaay more inactive than that. FOS for skimming.

Perhaps a prod is in order?

[safariguy5]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I've been waaaay more inactive than that. FOS for skimming.

Perhaps a prod is in order?

...So you're advocating that we pressure you?

Between you and tails, you have a better recent record of being active. Tails, again, has been a bit spotty.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I've been waaaay more inactive than that. FOS for skimming.

Perhaps a prod is in order?

...So you're advocating that we pressure you?

Between you and tails, you have a better recent record of being active. Tails, again, has been a bit spotty.

Moi? I think I've been pretty active in the planeswalkers game, and to a lesser extent the memebase one. I've only been slow in this game because it's D1 usual crap.

-Tails

[pancakemix]

3 total posts by Tails, none of which are very informative. Hasn't posted since the 25th.

vote Tails

I've been waaaay more inactive than that. FOS for skimming.

Perhaps a prod is in order?

...So you're advocating that we pressure you?

Between you and tails, you have a better recent record of being active. Tails, again, has been a bit spotty.

Moi? I think I've been pretty active in the planeswalkers game, and to a lesser extent the memebase one. I've only been slow in this game because it's D1 usual crap.

-Tails

^^This. And this game's got a particularly bad case of it too.

I'm pointing out that your attempt to get something going has its flaws, not the least of which is pressuring someone who's more active than someone else for inactivity.

[MeDeFe]

And I'm not really happy pressuring people for being inactive because I know I haven't been the most frequent poster either.


I realize I may make myself unpopular for saying this, but how badly do we actually need a lynch in this game? If the last Golden Pantheon game is any indication there are no VTs in this one, that means we don't have any sacrifical pawns we can use to analyse vote patterns on. Every lynch would take out a power role, and on day 1 the chance of getting a scum is quite small, so I think we should at least consider going to day 2 without a lynch.

If you can bring up arguments against this, please do so. It goes against how I've played games so far as well, I've been a fairly big advocate of lynching someone on day 1 since I started playing, but in these circumstances I think it might pay off to do things differently.

[pancakemix]

And I'm not really happy pressuring people for being inactive because I know I haven't been the most frequent poster either.


I realize I may make myself unpopular for saying this, but how badly do we actually need a lynch in this game? If the last Golden Pantheon game is any indication there are no VTs in this one, that means we don't have any sacrifical pawns we can use to analyse vote patterns on. Every lynch would take out a power role, and on day 1 the chance of getting a scum is quite small, so I think we should at least consider going to day 2 without a lynch.

If you can bring up arguments against this, please do so. It goes against how I've played games so far as well, I've been a fairly big advocate of lynching someone on day 1 since I started playing, but in these circumstances I think it might pay off to do things differently.

I only say that in cases where there has been a great deal of discussion during the day. If there's a plausible lead, I usually let that run its course. If not, I'm not a fan of forcing things. Right now there hasn't been much debate, so while I agree with your sentiments somewhat, I say give it a bit more time.

[strike wolf]

And I'm not really happy pressuring people for being inactive because I know I haven't been the most frequent poster either.


I realize I may make myself unpopular for saying this, but how badly do we actually need a lynch in this game? If the last Golden Pantheon game is any indication there are no VTs in this one, that means we don't have any sacrifical pawns we can use to analyse vote patterns on. Every lynch would take out a power role, and on day 1 the chance of getting a scum is quite small, so I think we should at least consider going to day 2 without a lynch.

If you can bring up arguments against this, please do so. It goes against how I've played games so far as well, I've been a fairly big advocate of lynching someone on day 1 since I started playing, but in these circumstances I think it might pay off to do things differently.

I only say that in cases where there has been a great deal of discussion during the day. If there's a plausible lead, I usually let that run its course. If not, I'm not a fan of forcing things. Right now there hasn't been much debate, so while I agree with your sentiments somewhat, I say give it a bit more time.

I also have to agree with pancake. It is a small game so lynching is definitely more dangerous but we also have the problem that there hasn't been much discussion as of yet so regardless whether lynching or not lynching would be best in this scenario I think the day needs to progress more before we can legitimately make that decision.

[safariguy5]

Inherently that's the problem with Day 1. Since we don't have a lot of information, people are reluctant to post anything.

As for considering a no lynch, I think the size of the game has a lot to do with how many roleclaims we want to get before going for a no lynch. We have 11 people, and 1 claim already. If we push for another claim, then more than 10% of the people will have claimed. That's a pretty significant amount of information that we would give to the mafia going into night.

But since Tails has responded, I will unvote

[jonty125]

Inherently that's the problem with Day 1. Since we don't have a lot of information, people are reluctant to post anything.

As for considering a no lynch, I think the size of the game has a lot to do with how many roleclaims we want to get before going for a no lynch. We have 11 people, and 1 claim already. If we push for another claim, then more than 10% of the people will have claimed. That's a pretty significant amount of information that we would give to the mafia going into night.

But since Tails has responded, I will unvote

I disagree with the 10% figure because mafia know who they are and its likely to be 3 in a game this size so as far as the mafia are concerned 8 unknown roles - possibly two townies claim - 25% of unknown roles discovered.

[safariguy5]

Inherently that's the problem with Day 1. Since we don't have a lot of information, people are reluctant to post anything.

As for considering a no lynch, I think the size of the game has a lot to do with how many roleclaims we want to get before going for a no lynch. We have 11 people, and 1 claim already. If we push for another claim, then more than 10% of the people will have claimed. That's a pretty significant amount of information that we would give to the mafia going into night.

But since Tails has responded, I will unvote

I disagree with the 10% figure because mafia know who they are and its likely to be 3 in a game this size so as far as the mafia are concerned 8 unknown roles - possibly two townies claim - 25% of unknown roles discovered.

When I say 10%, I refer to information known to everyone, not just mafia. Mafia always know more information that town, so that's more or less a given.

[Victor Sullivan]

unvote

This isn't going to be an easy day to get through, eh? I'm not necessarily against a no lynch, but I feel like even if we lynch a townie, we would at least have something to go off of Day 2, with regard to the way the person was lynched, who associated with the player, etc. Otherwise, we could theoretically end up in a similar situation Day 2, no? Just my thoughts on the matter.

-Sully

[TA1LGUNN3R]

hm. I read through again, and unfortunately didn't see anything too damning. If I were pressed to vote, I'd vote for Vic, but it just looked like his usual behavior which he seems to get a free pass for. After the joke votes, he votes on two inactive cases, one of which leads to a claim, and then as soon as a somewhat serious discussion begins he adds a bit which kind of went without saying.

-Tails

[Victor Sullivan]

hm. I read through again, and unfortunately didn't see anything too damning. If I were pressed to vote, I'd vote for Vic, but it just looked like his usual behavior which he seems to get a free pass for. After the joke votes, he votes on two inactive cases, one of which leads to a claim, and then as soon as a somewhat serious discussion begins he adds a bit which kind of went without saying.

-Tails

I suppose that's true. Just crazy ol' Vic, carry on with your daily lives...

-Sully

[chapcrap]

hm. I read through again, and unfortunately didn't see anything too damning. If I were pressed to vote, I'd vote for Vic, but it just looked like his usual behavior which he seems to get a free pass for. After the joke votes, he votes on two inactive cases, one of which leads to a claim, and then as soon as a somewhat serious discussion begins he adds a bit which kind of went without saying.

-Tails

Psh, whatever. If that's what you're voting for, you might as well vote for yourself.

I agree with Vic that we need a lynch. Anyone who says we don't is scummy, IMO. I'm not taking my vote off of Tails. If he was paying attention to the game, he could see that we were done joke voting and going after inactives before him. Then he shows up and gives nothing.

[VioIet]

You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that townies are going to be forced to claim at some point, usually through lynch pressure. While forcing them to claim, especially a town power role can be bad for town, it's not insurmountable. But your post basically says that you're not going to use the power anymore except in a few select areas.

If we use your logic, you ideally would have used the doublevote to pressure multiple cases. So basically, you're hedging your bets in the event that we have multiple cases going on at the same time.

First of all, the smaller the game, the less likely it is that we have 2 cases going on at the same time. Second of all, you're basically implying that you're going to sit back and let other people come up with cases and then you'll bandwagon on those.

Yes, I would have used the double vote to pressure multiple cases. I never implied that I was going to sit back and not make cases on my own. You are making that up to misconstrue my point. It's true that it is not always likely to be two cases at once. But its a very convenient thing to be able to use for when I wanted. Neither of us know exactly what situations will appear later on in the game, but I want to have as many options as possible available to me.

And I don't see how putting two votes on a person is overkill. If we can get them to L-2 faster, that doesn't matter to me who exactly votes for it. So I really think that's a very flimsy excuse.

It can be overkill, when I am not sure of this person's alignment. Often time, only a few votes are needed to pressures someone. However, I don't want to lynch them unless I'm absolutely sure that they are mafia, and/or I am sure that we will gain a lot of valuable information from their lynch.

In most situations, only one vote is needed. However, I have already explained twice- that I would be willing to place two votes on the same person in order to speed up the lynch. BUT, I have already stated that I would only do this if I was sure that they were scum, or if a deadline was approaching, and we needed a lynch.

I know we've disagreed on how to play a role before (Resort Mafia) and quite frankly I really don't understand how your original strategy and your current declared strategy make much sense. As long as you're not speedhammering someone with the double vote, I think it's fine to use the ability. But you imply a very passive approach to using the extra voting power originally, which is why I question your interest in actually finding scum.

[/quote]


And OMG! I can't believe you seriously mentioned Resort Mafia, as that was your WORST game to date.
How many freakin townies did YOU kill that game??? You caused the death of five townies in Resort Mafia!! That's absolutely terrible!

While my play in Resort Mafia may have not been the best either, thankfully I wasn't responsible for offing any townies. You helped mafia to a sound victory in that game. Singlehandly too

I am a much more cautious player- maybe too cautious from your perspective. I will not use an action, if there is a possibility of something going wrong with it. You showed in Resort that you have no problems being an over-eager vig.

Now there have been times when I've played aggressively in the past, but this was when I had a "safe" role. Meaning I was a confirmed cop, or doctor. I'm also quite aggressive when I'm unlychable (ex. Briarsburg). But other than those situations- I play my power roles very cautiously.
I think most of my bad play has been when I've had periods of inactivity, and was just unable to completely catch up or understand the dynamics in the game.

Some of my best games (Restaurant Mafia, Storytime Mafia, Back to the Future), I was highly active from beginning to end.

[safariguy5]

You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that townies are going to be forced to claim at some point, usually through lynch pressure. While forcing them to claim, especially a town power role can be bad for town, it's not insurmountable. But your post basically says that you're not going to use the power anymore except in a few select areas.

If we use your logic, you ideally would have used the doublevote to pressure multiple cases. So basically, you're hedging your bets in the event that we have multiple cases going on at the same time.

First of all, the smaller the game, the less likely it is that we have 2 cases going on at the same time. Second of all, you're basically implying that you're going to sit back and let other people come up with cases and then you'll bandwagon on those.

Yes, I would have used the double vote to pressure multiple cases. I never implied that I was going to sit back and not make cases on my own. You are making that up to misconstrue my point. It's true that it is not always likely to be two cases at once. But its a very convenient thing to be able to use for when I wanted. Neither of us know exactly what situations will appear later on in the game, but I want to have as many options as possible available to me.

And I don't see how putting two votes on a person is overkill. If we can get them to L-2 faster, that doesn't matter to me who exactly votes for it. So I really think that's a very flimsy excuse.

It can be overkill, when I am not sure of this person's alignment. Often time, only a few votes are needed to pressures someone. However, I don't want to lynch them unless I'm absolutely sure that they are mafia, and/or I am sure that we will gain a lot of valuable information from their lynch.

In most situations, only one vote is needed. However, I have already explained twice- that I would be willing to place two votes on the same person in order to speed up the lynch. BUT, I have already stated that I would only do this if I was sure that they were scum, or if a deadline was approaching, and we needed a lynch.

I know we've disagreed on how to play a role before (Resort Mafia) and quite frankly I really don't understand how your original strategy and your current declared strategy make much sense. As long as you're not speedhammering someone with the double vote, I think it's fine to use the ability. But you imply a very passive approach to using the extra voting power originally, which is why I question your interest in actually finding scum.

And OMG! I can't believe you seriously mentioned Resort Mafia, as that was your WORST game to date.
How many freakin townies did YOU kill that game??? You caused the death of five townies in Resort Mafia!! That's absolutely terrible!

While my play in Resort Mafia may have not been the best either, thankfully I wasn't responsible for offing any townies. You helped mafia to a sound victory in that game. Singlehandly too

I am a much more cautious player- maybe too cautious from your perspective. I will not use an action, if there is a possibility of something going wrong with it. You showed in Resort that you have no problems being an over-eager vig.

Now there have been times when I've played aggressively in the past, but this was when I had a "safe" role. Meaning I was a confirmed cop, or doctor. I'm also quite aggressive when I'm unlychable (ex. Briarsburg). But other than those situations- I play my power roles very cautiously.
I think most of my bad play has been when I've had periods of inactivity, and was just unable to completely catch up or understand the dynamics in the game.

Some of my best games (Restaurant Mafia, Storytime Mafia, Back to the Future), I was highly active from beginning to end.[/quote]
Oh please, overeager vig? How about Firefly Mafia where I vigged the town traitor where that was you. Don't give me that Vio, my play in Resort had mostly to do with the game situation, and I did not nightkill 5 people. The number of mafia in that game was so small, that town basically went after every single person but the mafia players in order for them to win.

What I was referring to in Resort was when I very clearly laid out the probabilities of your night actions and their pros and cons on the target. I concluded that no matter if the person was town or mafia, you had a better than 50% chance of doing something that was either beneficial or neutral to town. Maybe if you had been more proactive in using your role instead of worrying excessively about the 25% chance of killing the person, you might have gotten a hit on Talapus and we might have had a shot. Numbers don't lie, but you chose to go with your gut instead of your head.

As for your best games, all of those happened a long time ago. Your recent activity on this forum has overwhelmingly been tied to the games you're modding. That's all well and good, but I'm not convinced that you'll be able to bring your A-game.

Philosophical differences aside, I'm interested to hear everyone else's views are on when we might consider a no lynch. Unless another compelling case comes up, I don't see a reason to force a weak case for the sake of getting a claim. Sticking to absolutes is a dangerous thing to do, especially if it results in a large number of claims early on (Albarezzi Mafia) which mainly benefit mafia.

[jonty125]

I'm interested to hear everyone else's views

In the current position I would say a no lynch but I'd wait until deadline comes along before we give up for today.