Merlin Mafia [Advanced!]- Town Wins!!!

[Thorum]

What is voting if not "setting up lynches"?

 

 

There is a bunch of people not voting; why pick out Kaylee specifically?

 

 

Because he/she was the first person where I could connect someone who already had a vote with someone not having voted.

 

I kind of find it strange that, after that post, one or two people made fosses about Kaylee, whom I didn't remember anything about from before my vote.

[michellem]

Setting up lynches is when you say "If this player flips town, we'll look at this perosn afterwards". Basically what you do is put the responsibility over on the other person, and you ready people for tomorrow's lynch. It's called scummy play. Is this your first game or something?

 

And I don't understand this sentence at all: "Because he/she was the first person where I could connect someone who already had a vote with someone not having voted."

[Hallia]

I'm with you there 100% Mish.  Why that one person instead of any of the other people who would be on that lynch?

[Tyler Glembo]

Premise 2: Joke votes are not justified.

 

Joke votes are their own justification. I disagree with your premise. That's all I have to say about the joke vote discussion.

 

Other points: 1) Wombat pre-emptively defends NotBob. 2) Thorum looked like he was setting up lynches. 3) Waffles.

[Kaylee]

Wasn't saying anyone had voted based on the formating. I was pointing out that the formatting thing could be wrong. That's all. I have no vote because I didn't place a joke vote and am in no rush to vote.

[Thorum]

Because he/she was the first person where I could connect someone who already had a vote with someone not having voted

 

Let me split that up:

- someone who already had a vote: meaning someone who already has been voted on

- someone not having voted: meaning someone who has not voted on someone at that mooment

- connect: meaning someone who is both of the above. 

- the first person where I could: meaning that Kaylee was not the second, nor the third person I found that fitted the critereon mentioned after these words.

 

Which of these four parts where unclear, Misheru and Hallia?

 

 

 

The main reason I "set up lynches" is so that I can still remember me wanting to look at them at that point in time.

[Thorum]

... and for that reason

[Thorum]

Also, why would setting up lynches be considered scummy?

 

Shouldn't we think past the next night? That would only play into the hands of the mafia.

[michellem]

I'm with you there 100% Mish.  Why that one person instead of any of the other people who would be on that lynch?

Apparantly you're not there with me 100%... Because Kaylee is not on any lynch. That was the point. He said he disliked people who didn't vote, and voted Kaylee because she hadn't voted. There were several who hadn't voted yet at that stage.

 

 

 

Thorum: I still don't understand why those things would make Kaylee your logical choice. So someone had voted her, but she hadn't placed a vote yet. You think that is voteworthy because...?

[Thorum]

Because she hasn't voted for anyone. That's plenty of reason imo.

[michellem]

Because when you say "If X flips town, we should look at Y tomorrow because of reasons", then you're taking the responsibility away from yourself; you've linked those two players, making player Y responsible for X's flip. Now if you're mafia and both X and Y is town, wich you'd know, then your hands are clean and you have nudged town in the direction you want. That is scummy. Capiche?

[Kaylee]

I'm with you there 100% Mish. Why that one person instead of any of the other people who would be on that lynch?

As Mish pointed out I'm not on a lynch.

[michellem]

Because she hasn't voted for anyone. That's plenty of reason imo.

Neither had I, but you didn't vote me. Or Krak or whoever else hadn't voted by that point.

[WWWwombat]

 

Premise 2: Joke votes are not justified.

Joke votes are their own justification. I disagree with your premise. That's all I have to say about the joke vote discussion.

 

Other points: 1) Wombat pre-emptively defends NotBob. 2) Thorum looked like he was setting up lynches. 3) Waffles.

 

 

That wasn't my premise.  It was one I inferred from Tiinker's posts.  But if you want to use your premise, I can show the absurdity of that too:

 

 

By your definition, a joke vote is tautologically justified and therefore no joke vote at any point in the game can ever be unjustified.

 

 

Your premise also raises the question as to why joke votes should be self-justifying but unexplained votes should not.

[WWWwombat]

 

I'm with you there 100% Mish.  Why that one person instead of any of the other people who would be on that lynch?

Apparantly you're not there with me 100%... Because Kaylee is not on any lynch. That was the point. He said he disliked people who didn't vote, and voted Kaylee because she hadn't voted. There were several who hadn't voted yet at that stage.

 

 

 

Thorum: I still don't understand why those things would make Kaylee your logical choice. So someone had voted her, but she hadn't placed a vote yet. You think that is voteworthy because...?

 

 

The fact that she hadn't voted is voteworthy in and of itself.  The fact that someone voted her is largely a pragmatic concern.  It's easier to lynch people who already have votes.

[michellem]

But ha gave a lazy and non-logical reason. It's fine to vote someone because they haven't voted; but then why kaylee out of the non-voters? If he did a flip of the coin; that would have been fine. But he tries to act like he has a reason for voting her, when that reason could have fitted any number of people at the time.

[WWWwombat]

Because when you say "If X flips town, we should look at Y tomorrow because of reasons", then you're taking the responsibility away from yourself; you've linked those two players, making player Y responsible for X's flip. Now if you're mafia and both X and Y is town, wich you'd know, then your hands are clean and you have nudged town in the direction you want. That is scummy. Capiche?

 

Yes, but you don't know player Y's alignment yet so you can't conclude that it is scummy.  If player Y flips mafia, do you still call the link scummy?

[WWWwombat]

But ha gave a lazy and non-logical reason. It's fine to vote someone because they haven't voted; but then why kaylee out of the non-voters? If he did a flip of the coin; that would have been fine. But he tries to act like he has a reason for voting her, when that reason could have fitted any number of people at the time.

 

The reason he picked her instead of you or Krak is because she had the most votes and it's easier to lynch someone with more votes.  For instance, I find you and Kaylee both to be extremely scummy, but i am going to vote Kaylee because she is more likely to be lynched.  I actually find Razen scummier than either of you, but keeping my vote there is fruitless as it appears no one is willing to join me.  Voting isn't just about who you think is mafia.  It's also about what effect your vote is likely to have and what you learn from the lynch.

 

unvote

Vote: Kaylee

[Tyler Glembo]

That wasn't my premise.  It was one I inferred from Tiinker's posts.  But if you want to use your premise, I can show the absurdity of that too:

 

 

By your definition, a joke vote is tautologically justified and therefore no joke vote at any point in the game can ever be unjustified.

 

 

Your premise also raises the question as to why joke votes should be self-justifying but unexplained votes should not.

You're severely oversimplifying things by leaving context out of discussion when context is crucial. I doubt you really believe that I think a joke vote at RVS is the same as a joke vote on D4. However, I'm not going to write a 3 page essay that takes into consideration context in every possible situation in order to appease this fruitless discussion.

[WWWwombat]

 

That wasn't my premise. It was one I inferred from Tiinker's posts. But if you want to use your premise, I can show the absurdity of that too:

 

 

By your definition, a joke vote is tautologically justified and therefore no joke vote at any point in the game can ever be unjustified.

 

 

Your premise also raises the question as to why joke votes should be self-justifying but unexplained votes should not.

You're severely oversimplifying things by leaving context out of discussion when context is crucial. I doubt you really believe that I think a joke vote at RVS is the same as a joke vote on D4. However, I'm not going to write a 3 page essay that takes into consideration context in every possible situation in order to appease this fruitless discussion.

Your premise didn't mention context. That's your fault. As for RVS, that's a very loosely defined and artificial concept. Objectively speaking, what made Alanna's vote a non-RVS vote? Furthermore, why would it have been more acceptable for her to be dishonest and say she was bandwagoning Tiink for a joke rather than to just not explain her vote.

[Tigraine]

I don't understand why it would be considered scummy to not involve yourself in the Day 1, joke voting. I understand that scum hides behind these joke votes to seriously push to have someone lynched. I also understand that after about the 3rd or 4th page it shouldn't even be considered joke voting anymore. But again, no engaging in pointless votes = scummy?

[Tyler Glembo]

 

 

That wasn't my premise. It was one I inferred from Tiinker's posts. But if you want to use your premise, I can show the absurdity of that too:

By your definition, a joke vote is tautologically justified and therefore no joke vote at any point in the game can ever be unjustified.

Your premise also raises the question as to why joke votes should be self-justifying but unexplained votes should not.

You're severely oversimplifying things by leaving context out of discussion when context is crucial. I doubt you really believe that I think a joke vote at RVS is the same as a joke vote on D4. However, I'm not going to write a 3 page essay that takes into consideration context in every possible situation in order to appease this fruitless discussion.

Your premise didn't mention context. That's your fault. As for RVS, that's a very loosely defined and artificial concept. Objectively speaking, what made Alanna's vote a non-RVS vote? Furthermore, why would it have been more acceptable for her to be dishonest and say she was bandwagoning Tiink for a joke rather than to just not explain her vote.

Why are you putting words in my mouth as though I was discussing those things?

[Tyler Glembo]

And yes, perhaps I should have said RVS joke votes, redundant as that is, but I assumed it would be understood.

[WWWwombat]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm taking them from others.

 

Kaylee implied that RVS was ending or over by the time Alanna had voted and it seems that many people agree with her.

 

It seems a lot of people here are used to declaring things scummy without thinking about the motivations and logic behind them.

 

Less than a year ago, Alanna's and Thorum's votes would have been totally normal within DM meta as ways of getting the game moving. But now they are scummy for no other reason than that people are not used to it.

[WWWwombat]

And yes, perhaps I should have said RVS joke votes, redundant as that is, but I assumed it would be understood.

RVS is a useless concept and allows scum to hide while delaying actual gameplay. As far as I'm concerned, if I never heard the phrases "RVS" or "joke vote" again, it wouldn't be soon enough.