Micro 1071: MafiaInFreezer v2023 (Game Over)

[notscience]

Like the post is basically “forgettable slots are more often scum”

And I feel like you’re nitpicking it and it’s weird?

[notscience]

Like yes, it’s super wordy when it doesn’t need to be and the overjustification is what’s bothering me, but I just don’t get why that’s your interpretation of it

[notscience]

We might just be talking past each other so I’m gonna shrug and look with fresh eyes tomorrow.

[Dunnstral]

Like, if you disagree with the logic of 103, that's one thing. That can be discussed to a degree, even though I suspect that would eventually boil down to playstyle differences. But acting like 103 didn't happen at all is another matter entirely. Don't just buy into wordless reaction images because they're clever or something. :|

I think you are contradicting yourself though. I agree with the following:

Either:
It is not a lurker vote, and has more to it then just post count.
OR
It is a lurker vote, but because we are far from deadline it is okay - and catboi should be suspicious only if he keeps a lurker vote closer to deadline.

But Kilga argues both angles in different posts.

To me it looks like you (Kilga) are saying two different things. My issue is that in post 106 you say if your vote is still there catboi should be worried, which to me doesn't make sense if you are not voting based on lurkiness

[notscience]

Am I crazy because I still don’t see it

[Dunnstral]

It may surprise you that I also subscribe to not being a huge fan of Day 1 lurker votes! If my vote is still there for the same reasons when we're a lot closer to the end of the day, I'll be at least as worried about it as you appear to be. But, to me, that's a concern for then; right now, I'm willing to give !science a little bit of slack to see if the behavior changes, I actively feel varying degrees of good about everyone else, and it's still early on Day 1, so my vote is where it is.

Oh, a distinction should probably be made between "player that doesn't post very much" and "player who lacks meaningful presence". I had the former in mind with my Day 1 Lurker Votes comment. My vote for Wavelength is for the latter reason.

I feel that these two posts are two different explanations for the same vote

The part that snags me is where he says "If my vote is still there for the same reasons when we're a lot closer to the end of the day, I'll be at least as worried about it as you appear to be. ". That makes no sense to me if they do not consider their vote to be on a lurker.

[GuyInFreezer]

Lady Lambdadelta has been prodded.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

oh, right

[Syryana]

I feel that these two posts are two different explanations for the same vote

The part that snags me is where he says "If my vote is still there for the same reasons when we're a lot closer to the end of the day, I'll be at least as worried about it as you appear to be. ". That makes no sense to me if they do not consider their vote to be on a lurker.

I think we're on the same page here but just to make sure: the first post Kilga says "hey, I don't like voting lurkers but it's early and I like everyone else so the hell with it I'm voting Wavelength for being a lurker" versus the second post where Kilga says "oh when I said lurker a second ago I meant people with low post count but I'm voting Wavelength for low thread presence, not being a lurker". And the part that bothers you is the retcon of the reason Kilga is voting Wavelength, right? It doesn't work as a clarification because in the second post Kilga implies they were never voting WL for being a lurker which contradicts the aside to catboi about being worried for voting a lurker near the end of day.

[notscience]

Oh.

[Syryana]

Notty, since I have you here:

Do you think the inconsistencies here are more indicative of scumplay from Kilga or townplay? I can't help but wonder if if scum!Kilga wouldn't be a bit more careful in planning their statements out.

[Dunnstral]

I feel that these two posts are two different explanations for the same vote

The part that snags me is where he says "If my vote is still there for the same reasons when we're a lot closer to the end of the day, I'll be at least as worried about it as you appear to be. ". That makes no sense to me if they do not consider their vote to be on a lurker.

I think we're on the same page here but just to make sure: the first post Kilga says "hey, I don't like voting lurkers but it's early and I like everyone else so the hell with it I'm voting Wavelength for being a lurker" versus the second post where Kilga says "oh when I said lurker a second ago I meant people with low post count but I'm voting Wavelength for low thread presence, not being a lurker".

This part is correct

And the part that bothers you is the retcon of the reason Kilga is voting Wavelength, right? It doesn't work as a clarification because in the second post Kilga implies they were never voting WL for being a lurker which contradicts the aside to catboi about being worried for voting a lurker near the end of day.

More specifically what bothers me is that in the first post they say they should be worried if their vote on Wavelength is still there at the end of the day. Because I don't think that lines up with the retcon (because if they're not voting for being a lurker, why would they be worried?)

[notscience]

Notty, since I have you here:

Do you think the inconsistencies here are more indicative of scumplay from Kilga or townplay? I can't help but wonder if if scum!Kilga wouldn't be a bit more careful in planning their statements out.

The inconsistency bothers me less than how it’s phrased

Like, I just don’t understand the need to overexplain himself like he had been?

[notscience]

It’s almost like when you’re searching for a recipe online and they have this whole spiel about how they learned to make it that’s wholly unnecessary to the recipe to try and embellish and make it better than it is

[notscience]

UNVOTE: btw

[Dunnstral]

I don't think that over-explaining is a good scum tell, personally.

[notscience]

I don’t think you’re a good scum tell, personally

[Kilgamayan]

Okay, I see where the disconnect is coming from now. Looks like it was a combination of thinking something was clearly implied when it actually wasn't and/or at least one good-ol'-fashioned ADHD Jump. I guess the best I can do is try to explain the overall thought process.

The stuff peta talks about in in the second paragraph of 105 is something that rings true for me as well empirically. I've been red in games where I've employed exactly that strategy near the end of the day, highlighting someone that isn't terribly relevant and hasn't done a whole lot and pushing them as the better bet ahead of whatever more-informative competing wagons are present at the time. I've been green in games where I saw other players employ exactly that strategy and called them Mafia for it and eventually turned out to be correct by the time all was said and done. It's something I always watch for because of the frequency with which it happens. (I don't know for sure if I need to state here that, in most cases, the main/arguably only worth in Day 1 wagons is looking at them on Day 2 with flip info in hand and analyzing who moved where and when, but just to be safe, there it is, and that's why distracting away from those wagons with a mad dash to a low volume/low presence slot at the very end is Red Behavior.)

But that's a lot of personal backstory and play philosophy that just got assumed and not vocalized, so.

Ultimately, that's where a lot of the top of 106 is coming from. The rest is coming from the idea that having a Late Day 1 vote for Early Day 1 reasons would be particularly worrying (to the point of being suspicious) because it implies the voter has seen nothing since Early Day 1 that's voteworthy by the end of Day 1. (This is part of the reason for my question in 117.)

So:

- Late Day 1 votes cast for people with low Day 1 post volume specifically because they have low Day 1 post volume (and independent of meaningful presence) = bad due to (a) denying wagon analysis info and (b) implying the voter can't make a meaningful case from the culmination of Day 1's content, toss it off the island
- Late Day 1 votes cast for people with low meaningful Day 1 presence specifically because they have low meaningful Day 1 presence = bad due to (a) and (b), toss it off the island
- Early Day 1 votes cast for people with low meaningful Day 1 presence specifically because they have low meaningful Day 1 presences = not ideal, but missing major problems (a) and (b) present in casting those same votes Late Day 1, plus Early Day 1 votes/cases suck by default anyway, plus any vote is better than no vote, ergo acceptable behavior (IMO) when lacking better options

I imagine even this is insufficient explanation but I needed to be in bed already so unfortunately I'm stopping here from now and picking up again tomorrow when able.

It’s almost like when you’re searching for a recipe online and they have this whole spiel about how they learned to make it that’s wholly unnecessary to the recipe to try and embellish and make it better than it is

Because you specifically will appreciate this: This is a direct result of playing a text adventure starring Iku Nagae back in 2010/2011. I made an active effort to make my serious writing/speech extra formal and verbose for RP purposes and then found after that game that it had just sort of stuck without my intending it to. I've had an exceedingly difficult time shaking it in the decade-plus since. So, apologies, but it's Touhou's fault.

[catboi]

wow this fell off a cliff huh

[Lady Lambdadelta]

look man you asked for geriatric lol

i tried to kill people, you went all scaredy cat (heh) and now i'm demotivated (read: sidetracked)

[Dunnstral]

wow this fell off a cliff huh

Since it was largely brushed past the first time and the thread is slow, what do you think of what I am saying in 115 when I cased Syryana

[catboi]

I grok kilga's explanation for the vote but in a vacuum it still bothers me b/c I don't really place a different emphasis on end of day voting vs votes in the middle of the day but I...kind of...buy the idea it was for the sake of pressuring wavelength to do more over a "this is who I want to yeet" vote

[catboi]

look man you asked for geriatric lol

i tried to kill people, you went all scaredy cat (heh) and now i'm demotivated (read: sidetracked)

Yeah I mean it's my fault partly because I went afk sunday but cakez hasn't done anything so eh ok maybe we should be voting him

[Dunnstral]

I am reading Kilga's big post and am a little befuddled. I don't think I fully understand what they are trying to say.

I see they are explaining their thought process and that is fine. But when they say "that is where 106 is coming from" I don't really get it because I still feel like they were both saying it is a lurker vote but also not, and I don't think that part was directly addressed and it instead talks about something slightly different.

I guess I'll think about it, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

[catboi]

wow this fell off a cliff huh

Since it was largely brushed past the first time and the thread is slow, what do you think of what I am saying in 115 when I cased Syryana

I read that post and I wanted to see how syr responded to it, which he...didn't really. I thought 77 was a little suspect at the time because it kind of felt like he was latching on to any suspicion that gained some level of sway with the thread but it was...kind of an early game gut thing I didn't want to make a move on, if that makes sense. I'm not whelmed by what he's posting on page 6 but...I dunno. Game feels a bit like it's stuck in neutral.