Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)

[Moratorium]

/confirm

[Moratorium]

I find it amusing that the suggestion comes up from Megatheory to go after the lurkers, and that suggestion turns into a bunch of block quotes and "Yes I agree" replies. In my head I was reading those replies as "well damn I better start increasing my post count right now"...

so

Vote: Megatheory

for starting that little string of awesome

[Moratorium]

It's the Matlock theory to Mafia.. ask enough questions, and you are guaranteed to get a full-fledged confession on the stand, lots of tears and anger, and everything wrapped up in time for sweet tea on the porch.

Oh Matlock.

[Moratorium]

This isn't true if xtoxm is on V/LA for long.

What does this have to do with the general game theory I was discussing in my post?

Um, well...

It's like the gold standard used to work. You may not be thinking "oh no, I have three votes on me, that's x away from a lynch" in the same way that under the gold standard you wouldn't say to the shopkeeper each time you bought an apple that the money you were paying him was backed up by gold, but nevertheless, both things are true.

...I'd say it relates as well as vote pressure does to the gold standard.

As in, it doesn't relate much at all.

[Moratorium]

Sir Tornado wrote:

farside22 wrote:

It's just a random vote.

And, what does it achieve?

Why do you feel the need to criticize a

random

vote? Your question here, like my rhetorical one, does nothing but muddy the water for town. We really need to move away from playing "Jokevote/Randomvote Gotcha!", especially in a game this large.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

Well, Moratorium, you smartass, why don't you come up with a better case against scum then? Practice what you preach much?

Well, fine. To be honest, all I'm seeing from Sir Tornado at this juncture is a shotgun-style approach to questioning, questioning random votes, asking multiple people benign questions that don't seem to be meant to actually learn anything, but just scream "I'm helping!".

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a

FoS: Megatheory

in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

But what I'd like to know from you at this point, Sir Tornado, is what kind of information you were intending to gather from your line of questioning, particularly that of questioning a random vote.

Oh, and hey. Since we're all so keen about pressure today, here's a big ol' cup of pressure for ya.

Unvote

Vote: Sir Tornado

[Moratorium]

Megatheory wrote:

Whoa, I didn't think you were being serious at first. Am I being singled out because I was the first to post on the subject, and if so, how does that make me scummy? Would anybody else who posted first about lurkers be suspicious also?

I was actually fine with all of it until post 65, where you responded to the response of a response of a response etc... with "That is so true". And I'm sitting there going "what was the point of all that?"

So are you being singled out because you were first? No.

Would anyone else who posted first be suspicious? That wasn't my premise, but let me just state bluntly "Based on just being first to post, No, that's silly."

[Moratorium]

As for Megatheory, I'm actually in agreement with Shanba:

Moratorium's case on Megatheory is conjecture: he has produced one possibility, but has not cited any evidence which gives any validity to his theory. Without any corroborating evidence, his theory is no better than the next theory, and the next theory would be that Mega was proposing it in good faith as a townie. Moratorium says it is a feeling, which is fair enough, I guess, but I'm still not overly happy with it.

...and I wasn't really either, it was too WIFOM. I ended up unvoting and moving on to other more suspicious activity. I still think that it is highly possible that some people took advantage of the circumstances to jump in on the "me too" responses, but "conjecture" is a good word here, I'm willing to let this one go. *glare Megatheory*

As for this:

But what I'd like to know from you at this point, Sir Tornado, is what kind of information you were intending to gather from your line of questioning, particularly that of questioning a random vote.

What kind of information do you want to hide from the town?

You're ignoring my question by responding with a question (more shotgun pellets, I see). Also, and I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are accusing me of wanting to hide information,

by hiding the information you apparently gathered

. Irony.

I'll answer yours. Hmm, I want the town to know everything so that we can win. Hey, answering direct questions feels great! Everybody's doing it! Come on in, SirT, join the party!

[Moratorium]

unvote
vote Empking

There! I'm helping!

[Moratorium]

Surye wrote:

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado


This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.

Translation: Hey, thanks for unvoting me, Armlx, here's a token compliment.

And you are strawmanning the lurkers thing. It's no longer the argument-du-jour.

1. Why should we not consider your shotgun approach to questioning and refusal to answer questions as a scummy, obfuscating tactic?

2. The pressure we are starting to put on you is, I would say, rather mild. But we're starting to see wierd replies from you now like "Ha! I voted, take that!" on voting EmpKing, or "That's the way I play, OK?". I would interpret these non-responses as a defense mechanism while you try to figure out how to explain your scummy, scummy ways. I'd like to get a reasoned response from you that simply puts all of our arguments to rest.

Shouldn't be a problem, right?

[Moratorium]

And, here's for those who think my approach to game is strange and scummy:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5704
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6236
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7702 (I replaced out out this, but this is how I played in the first few pages)

Check my alignment in all three of those games.

So...

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6382
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6561
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5565

Where are we going with this? Are you basically stating that we must ignore your playstyle because of your history? I just pulled three other games where you are Mafia/SK, doesn't look like you played much different (miles and miles of quoting), would it not make sense to evaluate a player's scummy'ness based on this thread, and treat your history (cherrypicked or otherwise) as a wash?

[Moratorium]

Are you two married?

[Moratorium]

Attempt at post analysis of the opening without conclusions. Also attempting to be neutral. Might help with pattern recognition later. Goes through post 255 or so. Ordered from least posts to most posts.

Azuma: (1) /confirm, One post since creation of profile on 16-sep-08

martin413: (2) /confirm, jokevote, Two posts since creation of profile on 17-Sep-08

DynamoXI: (2) /confirm and one post defending Cream147 against Empking

Demon Pineapple: (2) /confirm and jokevote

Riceballtail: (3) /confirm, jokevote, and a comment about falling behind on posts

Jebus: (3) /confirm, fakevote (defense of Xtomx's crazyness), comment about falling behind on posts

al4xz: (5) /confirm, supports lynching lurkers, calls out Dynamo for lurking, calls out Megatheory for lurker blockquote post,

Wall-E: (6) /confirm, jokevotes, suggests lurkers are fair game for first few days, calls out Scummy, calls out Shanba's gameplay, refutes BlackAddr's attack on SirT

RestFermata: (6) /confirm, jokevote, against lynching lurkers, then supports individual basis lurker lynching, comment about falling behind on posts, concerned of SirT neutral stance, calls out al4xz, mentions AlabaskaJ and has no opinion on him

Mana_Ku: (6) /confirm, jokevote, criticizes SirT's quote posting style, attacks LALurkers

Xtoxm: (6) /confirm, jokevotes, is on drugs

Slepz: (6) /confirm, jokevote, defends voting threats to lynch, not merely to pressure

Megatheory: (6) /confirm, jokevote, proposes LALurkers, defends Shanba to use votes as pressure, defends Wall-E, calls out farside22, defends self on LALurkers

Slicey: (7) /confirm, jokevotes, defends vote-to-pressure, supports fouxdufafa, calls out Empking

fouxdufafa: (8) /confirm, jokevotes, defends vote-to-pressure, re-supports Slicey, calls out SirT on meta, calls out Xtomx on drug intake, neutral on SirT

farside22: (8) /confirm, jokevotes, defends jokevote against SirT, more jokevotes, defends defending jokevote against AlabaskaJ, calls out armlx for no detail vote, puts together a synopsis of several posts suspicious to him, calls out Surye for BW on SirT

Alabaska J: (9) /confirm, jokevotes, calls out farside22, defends armlx/SirT, calls out farside22 on jokevote defense, calls out Blackaddr by stating "read his posts"

Empking: (9) /confirm, jokevote, call out cream147 for lurker pressuring policy, more lurker policy questions, query on lack of voting, neutral on SirT, defends AlabaskaJ, inquires on Blackaddr case

Moratorium: (11) /confirm, call out Megatheory, shut up about Matlock, calls out SirT, agrees with Shanba, defends Megatheory vote, more call outs on SirT

Surye: (13) /confirm, jokevotes, defends Cream147, defends voting lurkers, calls out Blackaddr, calls out SirT, accepts SirT's answers and unvotes, defends SirT, calls out Blackaddr and defends Shanba's posting style

Cream147: (15) /confirm, calls out AlabaskaJ, attacks LAL meta, supports Megatheory on lynching lurkers, defends vote-to-pressure, supports fouxdufafa, defends Wall-E

BlakAdder: (22) late arrival, call out Cream147, defends lynching lurkers, suspects Cream or SirT, call out SirT for lack of content, calls out Shanba for vote posting style, extensive replies between BlackAddr and SirT/Shanba.

Shanba: (22) /confirm, does not support lynching lurkers, does not support vote-to-pressure, gold standard wut, defends Megatheory, calls out Blackaddr, calls out SirT for defending Moratorium, defends SirT against Moratorium for meta, calls out Blackaddr again, refuses to explain vote then explains vote

armlx: (30) /confirm, defends LAL, calls out SirT for attacking random vote, accepts SirT's answer and unvotes, calls out AlabaskaJ, neutral on SirT, unvotes AlabaskaJ on lack of support, asks Blackaddr for opinion, sustains drug-fueled onslaught from wife Xtoxm, calls out Megatheory, attacks LaL, asks Wall-E for opinion, calls out Shanba for vote posting style

Sir Tornado: (41) /confirm, calls out farside22 for V/LA vote, calls out ManaKu for defining random stage, calls out Shanba for giving lurkers free pass, questions farside22, questions Cream147, supports attack on Megatheory, defends attacking random vote from multiple sources, calls out Empking, calls out Blackaddr, calls out thread for discussing lurkers, defends self from various attacks, defends self by way of meta, defends self for posting style (quotes), calls out Blackaddr, estensive replies between BlackAddr and SirT/Shanba, calls out ManaKu for topic

[Moratorium]

Calls out who?

It came from this:

Personally, I think Cream's a bit scummy.

[Moratorium]

Ugh, I havn't had the time to look at each player and actually come up with a "what do i think about this".. doing this was enough of a chore.

I did it more just to get an idea of the various associations so far, vote timing, etc. There's been a lot of junk posting in this thread IMO, and I'm trying to get a better handle on the possible cliques. And those of you who are all up in the lurker's grills get that info as well.

More information is good. I havn't played in a game this large before so i imagine one aspect that will get in the way of town is getting through the clutter, having 16 different conversations going on at once, etc.

I consider it more of a reference for later than some sort of "Hey guys, I have the answer to everything!" thing.

[Moratorium]

When people post in a mafia game, I take it for granted that they have read the thread unless they specifically mention otherwise. There is no need for a post like that unless you are trying to make some point about a certain player's posts.

If I wanted to make a point about a certain player's posts, I'd make that point. Obfuscation is pro-scum, Clarification is pro-town.

I was trying to get more out of him because I dislike people who do that.

Please explain, are you stating that you believe posting a PBP is a net negative?

[Moratorium]

Fair enough. What are your conclusions then?

As I stated in the part of my post you omitted, I haven't had the time for conclusive analysis.

[Moratorium]

And I yours.

[Moratorium]

Had a look at that PBP i put together again this morning, just to see what I could determine from it. My thought process is basically, if I can somehow neutrally seperate the general talking points out of the thread, and then assign various participants as PRO or ANTI said talking point, I could attempt to keep a tally on various players and try to get a better feel for their overall stance.

The immediate first issue I saw was, though it might be easy to assign someone as PRO or ANTI based on what they have said, it is a magnitude more difficult to then say that PRO is good for town, or PRO is good for mafia, as that assignment hinges on personal opinion. Let's start with some data:

Topic 1: Voting out lurkers.
Pro stance expressed: al4xz, Megatheory, Restfermata
Anti stance expressed: Wall-E, Mana-Ku, Cream147, Shanba

Topic 2: Voting-to-Pressure
Pro stance expressed: Slicey, fouxdufafa
Anti stance expressed: Slepz, Shanba, Empking

Topic 3: Releasing a play-by-play without conclusions
Pro stance expressed: Moratorium, Wall-E, DynamoXI, al4xz, Slicey, Cream147
Anti stance expressed: farside22, Sir Tornado, armlx, Riceballtail

My opinion for these three topics, for example, would be that for all three cases, PRO is pro-town. So if I just look at this arbitrarily without going into specific details, a name like Shanba emerges as having two pro-scum strikes on these topics. It's not enough for a vote, I'll have to go look at the conversations themselves and see what was said, but I'll probably keep something like this in my notations as a tally for these and future topics.

Something else: 20% of our players have not contributed anything beyond a /confirm and some jokevotes or asking permission to lurk. Azuma, martin312, Demon Pineapple, Jebus, and Xtoxm.

Another tally of interest to me is the number of times someone goes out of his way to defend someone else (Ctrl-F for "defend"). So far this tally is fairly spread out, and so there are not enough cases of this to suspect anyone in particular, but I think over time that's something good to keep tabs on.

I do have a concern about the reaction that putting out a PBP generated. Let's assume that I was scum (which I am not). The benefit to me to spend an hour or two reading through the entire thread, trying to figure out what everyone is saying, counting it all up, correcting my numerous mistakes, all this just to "make it appear" that I am contributing (I haven't exactly been mute during this game).. really seems disproportionate to the potential benefit of having a quick, neutral reference to the opening of the game. I know some of you disagree (as I've listed you above), but that's my case on myself. My REAL concern is that the reaction this generated will cause a "chilling effect" on anyone else's desire to share information with town ("Well, I'd post about this thing I learned, but that last guy who posted the PBP got slaughtered... forget it, I'll just lurk more").

This said, SirT, you've parried my foil. I don't believe my case on your posting style and metagame to be strong enough to garner support, nor do I really have enough faith in it myself. I don't think there is really anyone out there at the moment with enough evidence against them worth a vote at this time.

Unvote

PS: If anyone else has any information that they have been able to extract from the PBP, please contribute.

[Moratorium]

Would you mind showing (by way of quotes) that I was a gainst voting for pressure.

You weren't, my mistake, I'll probably get a lot of this type of complaint for trying to get this done too quickly.

Thinking this over, having a player who is willing to put all this crap together probably did nothing but make me a big NK target for wanting to emphasize people's trends.

[Moratorium]

unvote
vote Surye

I hope atleast a few people see what I see.

Please clarify, this doesn't help anyone.

[Moratorium]

Are we going to have this discussion every time someone does this?

We sure are, why stiffle discussion?

Also, the timing of this post after the four previous ones is amusing.

Oh, and just to annoy Moratorium, Blakadder and the rest, Vote: Slicey. Yes, I do have my reasons.

Sweet. Care to elaborate?

[Moratorium]

The difference between what you did and Sir T did was that Sir T said he saw something in Survy's post

right...

and would explain if others didn't see it.

Where? Not that he might not agree to this, but he didn't say that.

unvote
vote Surye

I hope atleast a few people see what I see.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Surye (4): Demon Pineapple, farside22, Megatheory, Sir Tornado
Megatheory (2): armlx, Alabaska J
Sir Tornado (1): BlakAdder
Empking (1): RestFermata
Wall-E (1): Mana_Ku
Cream147 (1): Empking
Slicey (1): Wall-E, Shanba
farside22 (1): martin413
armlx (1): Xtoxm
Xtoxm (1): fouxdufafa

Not voting (10): al4xz, Azuma, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI, Surye, Slicey, Riceballtail, Moratorium

[Moratorium]

I was going to hold off on voting until either a claim or a better defense from Slicey, but "Well, looks like I'm screwed" is just too "Crap, I don't know how to defend my untenable position".

Vote: Slicey

L-1, I believe.

[Moratorium]

Yes, please.

[Moratorium]

I hope it's some really fucked up crazy roleclaim, I want to be entertained.

Pick something at random out of the "Worst Roles" thread in the Mafia Discussion section.

Be creative!

[Moratorium]

Mod edit
Votecount:
Slicey (8): Wall-E, Shanba, Jebus, armlx, Surye, farside22, Riceballtail, Moratorium
Surye (3): Demon Pineapple, Megatheory, Sir Tornado
Empking (2): RestFermata, Slicey
Megatheory (1): Alabaska J
Wall-E (1): Mana_Ku
Sir Tornado (1): BlakAdder
Cream147 (1): Empking
farside22 (1): martin413
armlx (1): Xtoxm
Xtoxm (1): killa seven

Not voting (5): al4xz, Azuma, Cream147, Slepz, ace1217

With 25 alive it's 13 to lynch.

Yeah this is nowhere near L-1.

[Moratorium]

Mod: Could we please get a votecount?

[Moratorium]

I'm more interested in who has and hasn't voted at this point.

[Moratorium]

That was pretty damning as Devil's Advocate.

I don't think I'd want you as my lawyer.

[Moratorium]

Holes or not, I was expecting to read an actual defense.

Wishy-washy as hell, basically contradicts himself like a politician

a newbie scumtell I'm told

ouch?

[Moratorium]

Confused about what? The gameplay itself?

We'd all like to hear your opinion on the Slicey voting.

[Moratorium]

Day 1 is dying a slow death.

[Moratorium]

Deadline is about 90 minutes from now.

[Moratorium]

Holy crap I used to be in this game so long ago.

I lose.