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

[Shanba]

/confirm

Vote: al4xz

for not knowing the difference between letters and numbers.

[Shanba]

Lynch all Liars is false in this case.

Fixed.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Read the phrase 'Lynch all Liars'. Surely you realise it is either true all the time or never at all? Maybe it should be changed to 'Lynch some Liars'?

Maybe, but LSL just doesn't have the same ring.

[Shanba]

Elmo has requested replacement

[Shanba]

Ah well. I was looking forward to playing with you, I don't think we've managed a full game yet (could be wrong).

Right. Guys, I want you all to promise to think in this game. Is that ok? You keep thinking, we'll get along fine.

[Shanba]

In this game, we absolutely have to come down hard on lurkers. With 25 people and two week deadlines, it will be extremely easy for scum to keep their heads down and let the townies lynch each other if we don't.

This is very, very true.

I'm not down with lynching lurkers only because they are lurking.

[Shanba]

In this game, we absolutely have to come down hard on lurkers. With 25 people and two week deadlines, it will be extremely easy for scum to keep their heads down and let the townies lynch each other if we don't.

This is very, very true.

I'm not down with lynching lurkers only because they are lurking.

Neither am I. Pressuring lurkers is what I want.

It's not pressure unless it has the threat of a lynch behind it.

[Shanba]

Also, Shanba, if I understand you correctly, you are giving lurkers a free pass in this game? Why? I don't think I have ever seen you do this before.

Nope, I'm just not going to lynch lurkers unless their lurking is scummy (because don't get me wrong, lurking can be a scumtell. But it's not always a scumtell.)

[Shanba]

But votes only bring pressure if they couldf lead to a lynch.

If a few people put a vote on you, you feel under pressure, regardless of whether they intend to lynch you or not. Trust me, you don't have to have intent to lynch to pressurise people.

Yeah, you do. 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.

[Shanba]

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?

[Shanba]

heh. Oh well, there's another failed analogy. I don't think its quite as bad as my forest one, though...

[Shanba]

There is no logical basis behind the idea that I started the lurker discussion to set up my scumpartners as an anti-lurker squad. Setting up a scumteam in this way is suicidal, as once one of them is killed, the others are seriously exposed.

Why is every protown play turned into some kind of ridiculous scum gambit? The doctor claims with two successful protections, so he must be clearing himself and his scumbuddies, right?

If there's anything behind the case on me besides silly paranoia, I'd love to hear it.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. It's not the fact that it would be suicidal for any scumgroup (it's not logical to assume that because one scum was anti-lurker, they all were: in fact, in my experience, scum will often have agents on both sides of the discussion and also some avoiding it totally,) but because what you did was not scummy: you set up an interesting meta discussion from a rational pro-town standpoint (that lynching/pressuring lurkers could help town's chances - it's not an unreasonable position to take, even if I am not sold myself,) which helps to break down the random voting stage.

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.

Sir T, why did you say you agreed with Moratorium on that?

[Shanba]

Not sold on the Sir T wagon, which is a shame, because I still have questions I want to ask him. But right now, the game would benefit from fresh blood more than harping on the same theme over and over, I feel. I just want to note that many games I've been in have started with meta discussion rather than weak accusations, and that both strategies are perfectly legitimate means of starting day 1.

Vote BlakAdder

, btw.

[Shanba]

Ok, well basically it's that Moratorium was calling megatheory scummy for bringing the lurker discussion up. YOu said you agreed with this, but this quote

Because, well, I feel strange that the only thing people were doing is discussing what to do with lurkers. Discussing lurkers is a very safe way of playing mafia. Especially when you are an established player. You just establish a meta and harp that line in every game. It really doesn't add anything to the game in particular, and the differences between players on lurker issue are based more on their views on playing mafia rather than their alignment in the game, especially when discussed this early in the game. This makes it a very safe discussion for scum to participate in. They can be seen to contribute without being in danger of revealing their alignment. And, if they are good, they can always produce a few games from their past where they subscribed to the same view when they were town.

indicates that you feel everyone that it was discussing the lurkers that was scummy, not just the one bringing up the discussion. But that's kind of strange, since it's a well established strategy for starting games here. Furthermore, you yourself contributed to the discussion. What am I missing here?

[Shanba]

@Tornado: Yes, I get it, which I quite clearly stated, but you're missing the point. Just answer instead of trying to disguise your answer in quotes.
@Shanba: Care to explain your vote?

No.

Why should I explain it? It's perfectly simple for others to go over your posts and see what I think I'm seeing. Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.

[Shanba]

1) I did not know that discussing lurkers en masse before anyone really started lurking was a well established strategy for starting games on MS. This must be extremely recent development.

Not discussing lurking, but discussing meta (especially in games where that theory is relevant to the game, like in this one with it's more or less fixed deadlines.)

about 2) Ok, but many more players than just megatheory were doing this. Why did you single megatheory out (or were you jsut agreeing with moratorium's general principle?)

3) Ok, makes sense.

[Shanba]

Metagaming is an incredibly useful tool, Moratorium. If a player has a history of lurking as scum and as town, then you know that lurking for them is a nulltell. OTOH, if you see that a player lurks much more as scum than as town, then you can say that lurking makes them more likely to be scum. What Sir T is attempting to prove is that his shotgun approach is his playstyle - it is independent of whether he is scum or town.

[Shanba]

Because a vote with no reasons stated on a player who has no other votes is a good way of getting a quick mislynch?

[Shanba]

Why should you have anything to fear if you haven't done anything scummy?

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

Not voting (12): Xtoxm, al4xz, Azuma, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI, Megatheory, armlx, Surye

[Shanba]

Obviously, we're scum together. That's clearly why I've half defended him and half attacked up to this point, too.

BTW, what was the first logical fallacy? In order for this to be the next one, we need a first one first.

BlakAdder, no, that's not what I want. I promise you, that if anyone brings up anything against you which is bullshit, I will be the first one in the fray defending you. I hope that people are not so easily manipulated that simply telling them to look up your past behaviour is enough to get them to see things that aren't there.

[Shanba]

Also, you're just compounding the problem by answering a question directed at Tornado

Nowhere did I answer the question of "why did you feel the need to jump in and answer a question for Shanba"

Actually, I do still have a reason for why I am voting you.

People who are that easily manipulated should not be playing mafia.

[Shanba]

@Tornado: Yes, I get it, which I quite clearly stated, but you're missing the point. Just answer instead of trying to disguise your answer in quotes.
@Shanba: Care to explain your vote?

No.

Don't do this. Don't start a case on someone and then refuse to provide evidence/thoughts. Do not.

Don't tell me how to play, please.

[Shanba]

No, he's wrong. REfusing to explain my votes is an innefective way of getting a lynch, but I'm not much interested in getting a lynch. or even a wagon, right now. My vote is partly a reminder ot myself to keep an eye on Blakadder, partly an acknowledgement that he is who I find scummiest right now and partly an attempt to get a reaction (not necessarily from BlakAdder, mind. Reasonless or simply weak votes are good methods for getting partners to show themselves: see my weakish attack on DGB, and then Yos2 coming to her defence. The rest of the game is a trainwreck and I would not recommend reading it unless you have some sort of desire for pain, but I was scum in that game so it could be useful for meta, I guess...

[Shanba]

...so you agree that you should have stated reasons? Because you just stated them...

Semantics. I have no stated case on him, if you like that wording better.

Gah. Having the whole thing revolve around "Why is Shanba voting him?" is justt about the worst case scenario, as it is not supposed to attract attention, precisely the opposite. However, I'd like to put forwards a few propositions for you.

Firstly, the received wisdom is sometimes wrong.

Secondly, it is rarely the case (or not) behind a vote that makes it scummy.

Thirdly, it can sometimes be beneficial to hide the case behind your vote.

BTW, Alabaska, what do you think my case on BlakAdder is?

@armlx: I'm beginning to feel that you may be right, in that hiding my vote is doing more damage by obfuscating the discussion than it is helping by achieving the benefits I originally intended. As such, I will reveal my case after I get a few responses.

[Shanba]

Please clarify, this doesn't help anyone.

Are we going to have this discussion

every

time someone does this? Heck, are we going to have to have a discussion evfery time someone's meta opinion differs from what you believe optimum is? because that's what you were doing in your analysis post, too (none of those stances can be considered scummy if there is a legitimate way for a townie to think them.). Stop it. It's unproductive, and you're unlikely to change anyone's mind, even if you are right.

I don't see anything particularly scummy about Surye's play thus far. I don't think "pretending to play' was a good description of that post from Sir T (perhaps, "bowing to popular opinion too easily", or "only voting when forced to", but not "pretending to play"). However, I don't see any reason why that would be considered scummy, especially as Sir T's post there

was

legitimately scummy.

About BlakAdder: my reason for voting him is that it always seemed to me that he was pushing in the popular direction, that is, moving as the wind blows. A little bit of pressure mounts on cream, a vote pops up and then he's on the wagon. Story with Sir T is a bit more complex (he unvotes cream147 twice?) and he's a little bit behind, but he's clearly shifting his attention to Sir T when sir T's wagon starts building up steam. He doesn't unvote when armlx, does, though, and there were not enough data points to be certain that this was a pattern that would continue. I would have expected him to OMGUS vote me, though, when he sensed there was support for his pressure on me, which he didn't. There are enough variables for me to

unvote

, I think.

Can we get a Demon Pineapple prod? Oh, and just to annoy Moratorium, Blakadder and the rest,

Vote: Slicey

. Yes, I do have my reasons.

[Shanba]

We sure are, why stiffle discussion?

I have no qualms about stifling unproductive discussion, like whether x point of view on meta is correct or not. The correct debate to be having is whether x is scummy or not.

Sweet. Care to elaborate?

No, that was the point of the "just to annoy Moratorium, Blakadder and the rest" bit.

[Shanba]

Meh, so be it. I'm not trying to be helpful, I'm trying to prove a point.

[Shanba]

/me sighs.

Eh, this was probably the wrong way to go about proving my point, but I strongly believe the meta is wrong on this. It's not like voting without explanations is even anything new, it's just everyone has a gut reaction to it that says it must be unhelpful because it means that they, personally, do not have all the information.

However, it's burying everything else I want to and need to say in order to function in this game, so I'll stop. I'm voting Slicey because of his tentative posting.

Hmm.... not really much to comment on. EmpKing looks pretty suspicious right now, I don't like how he was trying to get everyone to vote.

Hmm... BlakAdder looks suspicious to me, mainly cause I feel like he's attacking Sir T for the way he posts, which I don't like.

he's said he's suspicious of EmpKing and Blakadder, but has yet to place a single vote. He explains this by saying: "I don't think one somewhat scummy post automatically makes them scum. And I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase", which is fair enough, but that's only part of what I find scummy. So far, he has said "Hmm..." twice, ">_>" (and variants) 4 times. He feels nervous. When he's asking Wall-E why he's voting for him, he adds "Just curious." at the end, as if he's afraid asking will get him into trouble. This might be excusable if he were a newbie, but he's posting meta opinions like:

I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase

and

I'd say pressure people that seem scummy. If you think lurking is a scumtactic, well that's what you think. Evetually, they will have to post though, and we'll see if those posts seem scummy

which indicate that he has a certain amount of mafia experience. Compare with my posting in Basic twelve player mafia, where I was scum. By the end of that game, I was horrifically nervous, and it was showing through in my posts, and the "defeatist" attitude was the reason most of the town had deduced I was scum.

[Shanba]

Voting without reasons is bad because its an easy way for scum to spark/follow wagons. Providing reasons removes some of these BS votes from the system.

But as shown here, it really doesn't work at sparking wagons, now, does it? When I explained my vote I immediately get someone agreeing with me who before would not even have thought about following my vote. It's only good for following wagons, and even then it's just as easy to say "I agree with Shanba. Vote: x"

[Shanba]

Nah, people just aren't sheepish enough to follow reasonless votes.

I don't think it's actively unhelpful, as it can be helpful for town in certain situations - for example, I believe scum are more likely to bus the stronger the case on their partners, and, conversely, more likely to defend them if the case is weak. As such, such a vote can work to sniff out partners. Reasonless votes can also get reactions from the person who was voted for, and finally, in a meta where reasonless votes are tolerated (at least for a while), it's often easier for roles like cops to hide their info in thread.

I'm sure I had other reasons too, but I forget.

[Shanba]

Well, this is an interesting wagon. I could see so many of these votes as scumvotes (notably BlakAdder, but that could just be confirmation bias.)

I'm relatively happy with a Slicey lynch.

You obviously don't know me, but if you did, then you would know I use ">_>" a lot. And I mean A LOT. Like, once every post. I have limited mafia experience at another forum, but I am a little nervous, considering this is my first mafia game here. And the "hmm...'s", well, I really don't know why I put them there. I just did. I didn't even realize I did it twice. I am playing a little tentative, but that's cause this is my first game here, and where I play, it's much less serious (dead people are allowed to talk as much as they want, as long as they don't reveal any info, for example.)

Well, not knowing you is a given, seeing as you've got about 25 posts to your name so far. hard to meta off that

Thing is, I reckon scum are more likely to be nervous than town in their first game. Scum know that if they mess up, that's what, in a game like this, about a quarter of the team gone? Maybe a fifth. If a townie messes up, he just wastes the town a lynch, and possibly exposes eager scum while he's at it. It's true, too, that you seem to be cracking under a pressure, but cracking like a scum rather than like a townie.

If you are town, the most important thing for you to do right now is to get down all your thoughts about the game, since you're unlikely to have another opportunity.

[Shanba]

Wall-E's last post was strange.

[Shanba]

Why would you bother stating something then ask us to ignore you?

[Shanba]

Then why bother posting it?

[Shanba]

I'm not arguing against you using Devil's Advocate. I'm saying, there's no point in posting

and then telling people to ignore that post

[Shanba]

Like I said, I thought your post was strange, nothing more.

[Shanba]

Indeed. Various different places on the wagon are of different importance. First vote, for example, implies often (though not always) that that person brought the case against someone. It's also a fairly harmless vote - see the random voting stage. No one would worry if you random voted someone to 1 vote, but if you random voted someone to lynch-1, that would raise a few eyebrows.

Hammer vote has very different dynamics. For example, most other places on the wagon you can have the luxury to assume you'll have the chance to unvote should, say, someone else become scummier or the lynchee claim a power role. With the hammer vote, you don't have that opportunity - it's a final decision.

Between these two votes, the importance and the accountability changes - the higher up the wagon, the less you are responsible for the case, the more you are responsible for the lynch. Or something like that, I don't think I worded that elegantly.

Well, this is an interesting wagon. I could see so many of these votes as scumvotes (notably BlakAdder, but that could just be confirmation bias.)

Oh really? What other votes look scummy to you, and why didn't you point them out before?

When are you proposing I should have pointed them out? My post was 6 posts after Blakadder.

Originally in that post I had also listed Alabaska J, but after looking over his post again I no longer found it scummy. Riceballtail, Surye and empking pinged to a much lesser degree.

[Shanba]

This hammer discussion will yield no scum fruit. Let's agree to disagree now that everyone knows where everyone stands on the issue and talk more about Slicey.

I am going to play devil's advocate and defend Slicey.

This is one of the first thigns you have said I have agreed with :P

It's like worlds colliding.

[Shanba]

Which posts?

[Shanba]

@Xotxm: I partially agree with the Shanba vote, though it'll depend how Slicey turns up as.

Two-for-one?

I was going to unvote here, then we got deadlined. I'm happy enough with a slicey lynch.

Wall-E, you're absolutely right. Slicey is as good a lynch as any, better than most for a day 1 lynch.

[Shanba]

Yet you attack me rather than those following me?

[Shanba]

I'm not following Shanba. I think I was actually first to vote Slicey, for reasons other than his case on Empking. Shanba, claiming that others are following you is a bit of a strange claim.

You're right. I'd actually forgotten your vote on Slicey. However, all those saying: "I agree, Vote: slicey" did so after my case, and not after your vote, so it makes more sense to say they were following me.

However, I'm actually wrong, looking at the composition of the wagon. The only votes I can say with much certainty were following me is armlx and Jebus. The rest are following Surye, and later Moratorium.

Which is who Xtoxm voted and FoSsed, though that was not the reason he gave. Given, though, that he says he was reading quickly, it would make sense that he processed this subconsciously. Tox: did armlx and Jebus' votes for Slicey influence your position on them in any way?

However, that's all beside the point I was originally trying to make, which is this: xtoxm is voting me based on gut, based on my recent posts, and is anti the Slicey lynch. As I was the first one to really lay a case down on Slicey, I assume that that is what pinged tox's gut. But surely, those who follow me based on my reasoning, such as armlx, are just as guilty if no worse than me if Slicey turns up town?

FoS: Jebus

, ftr. I consider him scummier than Slicey, so if anyone wants to help me lynch him, feel free. Actually,

Unvote Vote: Jebus

. Slicey is still a decent lynch.

[Shanba]

Ok, the fact that this wagon is derailing at such a speed makes me reconsider my views about the wagon.

This thought requires the assumption that farside and I are scum derailing the wagon. Do you think I am scummy, Sir T? I haven't had that impression from you thus far.

[Shanba]

So looks like nothing's going to change.

Unvote Vote Jebus

Biggest other wagon.

You should all totally follow this wagon, guys.

Does it not worry you that I am pushing this wagon?

[Shanba]

I think we should lynch someone who voted Slicey today.

Not sure where to place my vote yet. Still need to read up, I guess. I'll think about it.

I dislike this post.

If I could pick three, it would be between Jebus, Xtoxm, and Shanba. They're definitely acting very distant toward each other, which may be an attempt to bus one, and clear the other two. Fourth would be Farside, but I feel less strong about her than the rest.

This is badlogic. You can't simply take people who have attacked each other and say "they're probably bussing."

That said, I'm not thrilled with an RBT wagon just yet. Seems to me like he's one of many who were guilty of the accusations levelled at him by xtoxm. Edit - just read his posts in isolation. That's worse than most.

FoS: RBT

Vote: Jebus

(I'm a little surprised by Sir T dying, tbh. I can see a Moratorium kill, he looked pretty townie, but Sir T was ruffling feathers yesterday.)

[Shanba]

I mean to write a longer post sometime later this week, laying out my case for lynching Jebus, but for now I'm a little pushed for time, so I just want to ask a question and give a few opinions..

Firstly, Muerrto, what makes you think that Surye's reasons for voting Slicey were any weaker than any of the other reasons given?

Surye, you say that RBT's case was blatantly false. To me, it seems non-existent. How can listing all of someone's posts and then bolding two you think are scummy even begin to be considered serious analysis?

Alabaska - you'll find that only one or two people found me scummy yesterday, so I've hardly fallen under the radar. The people who've stopped attacking me are xtoxm and Jebus, and Jebus seems to have simply disappeared.

Finally, to farside - Surye has a point that jumping off the wagon last second looks scummy. I can easily see scum motivations for doing it.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, I have read the thread but this was skimming back over it to get an impression.

[Shanba]

Tox, I'm fine with you using gut to justify a post, however I don't like it as an out. It still requires work. For a start, I believe it's generally possible to quantify which posts strike you the wrong way. Please do so.

FoS: al4xz

, btw. ^ up there was pretty damn scummy. Especially if tox turns up scum.

Now, on Jebus.

I'm here, people. I forgot I was playing this for a bit

Anyway, I've read over the last few pages or so. Slicey seems somewhat believable on his 'my first game here, I'm nervous' thing.

@Armlx: I've got no clue what you're talking about :s

And Wall-E's right. Where in hell did you get the conclusion that Slicey is sure Emp is scum?

Which makes me FoS Armlx and Slicey. Well, actually,

Vote: Slicey

This seems to me to be a very disjointed post. He defends Slicey, attacks Armlx, Fosses them both and votes Slicey. I just don't see how we get from, in the space of one post, what amounts to "I believe Slicey's defence" to "vote slicey"

As a sidenote, he then makes a second post in which he agrees with armlx, having read armlx's explanation post. This to me shows that the first post was quickly written, which perhaps explains the disjointedness of it. However you read it, though, it seems like a weak, weak justification to be jumping on a wagon.

Later, he unvotes (after the slicey wagon begins to draw criticism) and starts linking me to the Slicey wagon. As a guy who laid down a case for lynching Slicey, I take partial responsibility for the mislynch, but Jebus' attempt to link me to Slicey seems disingenuous at best and looks even worse when you consider that the only reasons given for lynching Slicey at the time of his vote (which he understood) were the case I put down and Wall-E's ancient post about unvoting.

In summation, Jebus has followed popular opinion on Jebus, made strange and spurious posts in order to appear active

If I'm right, al4xz's vote puts Slicey at L-1.

A jester in a large game is rare, and most of the time doesn't end the game, it merely results in a wasted day for the town, and a personal victory for the jester.

I'm not sure how to take the above post.

and was already laying down the foundations for my lynch yesterday when it seemed Slicey was a definite goner and at least parts of popular opinion might be against me (tox and ala had both indicated recently that they thought I was suspicious).

[Shanba]

No. if you do die and turn up scum, I will be looking at alex pretty closely. Also, I'm sorry to disagree with you over alex.

Had another change of heart, yet?

Also, do you think your change of heart was influenced by the fact that I came off the Slicey wagon? If so, then it's not legitimate, as as I stated before, jumping off the wagon is a possible scum move.

[Shanba]

tox is right about lurkers - often, if I feel all the active people are town, I'll vote for a lurker (the scummiest one I can find). I don't think that k7 is the scummiest lurker, though, as he has a history of lurking. I'm bemused by the attack on armlx, but then, I've completely failed to understand anything Wall-E has done all game - I don't think he's scum from that, however, as he seems to genuinely believe everything he's saying. Besides, the fact that I've disagreed with pretty much

everything

he says indicates to me a fundamentally different viewpoint beyond just town/scum differences.

I believe we need a new raft of replacements. I'm especially disappointed in the lack of posts by megatheory, as he seemed pretty sensible yesterday and I'd value his contribution to the discussion.

I don't get how anyone can think that alexz is obvtown. He's been pretty light on content all game, and the posts I referenced were scummy. As for why his post seems to me to be a link to xtoxm - simple. He gives a strongish reason for suspecting tox, in the midst of a smallish movement against tox, but he doesn't vote. He can reference it later without it putting tox in peril at the time if tox dies and turns up scum. However, you've since firmed up your support for the idea of toxscum, so my accusation no longer holds.

Jebus has made several more terrible posts since my case on him. I support a Jebus lynch, but I don't support a Surye lynch, so if I need to vote cream to make sure Surye is not lynched, I will.

[Shanba]

Gooodbye

Bluuue sky

[Shanba]

What username and RBT said. And even if there was a townvig... you actually get better odds from no lynching, since it becomes a 50/50 rather than a 1/3.

I think endgames like this are incredibly interesting. All three players have an incentive to look as town as possible. Both scum must scumhunt. In essence, despite the unbalancing effect of scum having a majority, the game has not changed - it's still a game of identifying the liar. For the townie, it's not so neat, since there's basically nothing you can do.

[Shanba]

Why do people keep killing me just when I'm beginning to enjoy the game?

[Shanba]

Oh, can we have a list of night actions, btw? I'm interested in knowing who killed me.