Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[Battousai]

Urza- I wonder what your response is to my post 504 in which I comment on your posts 469 and 473. I don't agree with your vote on CC, with the reason why in that post.

[ortolan]

Votes Ramus for self-voting. She mainly pursued him day one while also defending CR. This was apparently a "policy" vote, though, as she has not pursued Ramus' successor.

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

Post 73 criticises the wagon on CR without giving reasons.

No, I said, "...so far I don't see the wagon on Clock..." which is not criticism, merely a disagreement.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

Post 99 uses CC's Post 95 criticism of urielzyx's Post 94 "WIFOM" again to defend ClockworkRuse.

Again, how is this an inconsistency or scummy?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

Post 158 I find extremely questionable:

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.

You never gave an explanation for why you made this blatantly untrue statement. How had I not justified my attack on CR in its own light?

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Of the other two points:

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

I will leave the point about you suspecting me for effectively hammering Natirasha even though it complied with your agenda, as you seem to have already acknowledged your point here was rubbish.

So thankyou, by making me revisit my case you've caused me to re-realise that it's still rock solid. When you reply please address all points rather than just two and then claim I don't have a case.

[Mizzy]

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

The moon can be made of green cheese in your mind, but it doesn't mean that reality and the inside of your mind match up.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

No, they most certainly are not the same thing, and in mafia, it's the subtle differences that count. As for my reason, I was not being very active at that point and I wanted to chime in about what was going on. You know, like a player should?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

That's neither inconsistent or scummy. I can agree with someone's sentiments, regardless of what those sentiments are. And besides, you seem to be forgetting my entire explanation of why I thought the WIFOM you presented at that point was reason for suspicion. I had my own thoughts on the subject and shared them.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

Look at you, going off on a complete tangent again. You have very high entertainment value, you know

Firstly, I explained why OMGUS votes should not be made and why I feel they are scummy. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I never said they were a foolproof scumtell, anyway.

Why does it make my behavior implausible? Use real facts, please, not the in-your-mind ones.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

Considering that I am not you, I have no way of knowing whether or not your OMGUS vote was anything more than OMGUS. I have to make my decisions based on what I read and how I feel about what I read. And from what I saw, and see now, your play is very emotion-based and not so heavy on the logic. I still feel that CR attack was more OMGUS than anything else.

You never gave an explanation for why you made this blatantly untrue statement. How had I not justified my attack on CR in its own light?

Actually, I had already discussed it, and obviously, I didn't (and don't) think your CR was justified enough.

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Yes, I did.

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

You do realize that something that goes against your opinion isn't inherently scummy, right? The play mentioned above is one that I have done before as town in other games. It's how I play. You can think that points to me being scum all you want, but really, you don't care as long as you get to be "right".

Honestly, this whole thing is laughable, and as much as I want to feel otherwise, I can only see you as useless-town.

[Battousai]

Mizzy: If you are going to use your past games as a defense on anything, you should give links to and instances of in that game.

[Thestatusquo]

Batt, obviously the response to the first post is much less important than your response to the second post, as the first claims that there was no motivation (remember, lack of stated reasons does not mean lack of reasons) and then the second deals with my later stated motivation. So I will respond to the second one, if that's ok with you.

I have a couple of responses.

1) Besides what you think of my logic, what do you think of my motivations? Do you think I'm creating bullshit logic to obfuscate as scum, or do you think that I am a townie earnestly trying to find reactions who is mistaken in his logic? I'd be curious to your answer to this question much more than whether you disagree with my logic, because it actually might lead you to have an idea about my allignment, whereas stating that you disagree with my logic does not. Remember, both scum and town can have logic you disagree with.

2) In general, in my experience, scum tend to get more anxious about single votes than town do. This is because a lynch to scum is a bigger deal than a lynch to a town. His reaction, to me, signifies anxiousness and not curiosity. The former being the response I would expect to see from scum, the latter from town.

3) If you have those reactions i.e. "If someone votes for me without explanation it is scummy" showcases a general failing in terms of your understanding about mafia, and not a flaw in my logic. There is absolutely nothing scummy about someone voting without explanation. Remember, scummy has a very specific meaning. It means something which mafia is more likely to do than town is likely to do. If you can tell me why mafia is more likely to vote someone without explanation than town, then I will concede the point. Until then, the onus of proof is on you.

4) This is just an aside, but killing the player doesn't do anything. Thats the nature of a bread crumb.

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: If you are going to use your past games as a defense on anything, you should give links to and instances of in that game.

Honestly, just before my long hiatus (I was off the site for a couple months) I stopped keeping track of my games. I will need to go look.

[Battousai]

TSQ: Are you even in this game?

[CarnCarn]

^^^Urzassedatives=thestatusquo

[Thestatusquo]

I revealed that when I posted about my father. Are you even

reading

this game?

[Battousai]

Note the

0

I gave post 473. I find it just as likely that town or scum would have not given a reason just to get a response. If you are town, I disagree with the logic; if you are scum I believe you are just trying to make CC look more scummy. Right now, my read on you is neutral.

[Thestatusquo]

Ok. Listen to me and listen well...

Mafia is a game of looking at interactions and forming opinions about those reactions based on what you believe players motives to be.

Saying "LoL if you were town you would have done this because of this, and if you're scum you would of done it because of this lol." Is completely ::NotHelpful:: If you're honestly scum hunting, then why the hell are you wasting time talking about something which gives you a "neutral read"

How about talking about something that does help us determine who is scum, neh?

[CarnCarn]

Saying "LoL if you were town you would have done this because of this, and if you're scum you would of done it because of this lol." Is completely ::NotHelpful::

In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something.

Sort of that like, but without the "lol"s. I don't think it's completely not helpful, though; in fact, I thought it brought up useful points and gave us an idea of where we're both coming from.
Generally, your line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown, so I'm going to

Unvote: Urzassedatives

.

As for where I should put my vote next, I think destructor is most suspicious to me for pushing a case which is not at all a scum-tell or indicative of scumminess. Also, insisting "there must be scum on the CR wagon and it has less surviving members so lets lynch 'em" is pretty much derived from tunnel-vision on me, IMO, and reeks of setting up lynches on players (me, Urza) who are probably both town. So,

Vote: destructor

[Battousai]

Basically, I included it as it stuck out when I was reading and I wanted everyone to see my opinion on it. Later, I wanted your opinion on two of your posts because you kept your vote on CC for reasons I don't think are correct and if you are town, I wanted you to see the disagreement with the reasoning and hopefully come up with another to vote CC or drop the vote. While it didn't result in scumhunting, it does help other players in knowing where I stood on some of the recent posts.

When I get time tomorrow, I will go back and look at voting yesterday. From memory only, I think there migt be something noteoworthy with the 3 wagons and how they built up and how Urza's lost steam.

[petroleumjelly]

Day Two Vote Count: #3

2 CarnCarn (destructor, Urzassedatives)
1 destructor (CarnCarn)
1 Mizzy (ortolan)
1 ThAdmiral (Machiavellian-Mafia)

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline! Deadline is January 8, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 5 – Axelrod, Battousai, ClockworkRuse, Mizzy, ThAdmiral

[ortolan]

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

The moon can be made of green cheese in your mind, but it doesn't mean that reality and the inside of your mind match up.

Well, actually, the only outside input we've had on the case so far has been from ThAdmiral, who said in Post 749:

But if that's your playstyle I think that makes you a "bad townie".
Also you're sort of strawmanning his case against you.

He is agreeing with me that voting for someone who makes anti-town moves, while not believing they are actually scum, is scummy (or bad town play). So so far the weight of opinion stands against you.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

No, they most certainly are not the same thing, and in mafia, it's the subtle differences that count. As for my reason, I was not being very active at that point and I wanted to chime in about what was going on. You know, like a player should?

Assuming you had genuine motivations for trying to stop the wagon on CR, you should have had a reason for your statement that "so far I don't see the wagon on Clock...". I ask again, what was it? What didn't you like about the wagon?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

That's neither inconsistent or scummy. I can agree with someone's sentiments, regardless of what those sentiments are. And besides, you seem to be forgetting my entire explanation of why I thought the WIFOM you presented at that point was reason for suspicion. I had my own thoughts on the subject and shared them.

I don't think you've even been reading properly because this didn't even concern anything

I

had said. urielzyx was pointing out (as did several others) that it looked like CR was deliberately avoiding the Ramus wagon because joining it at that stage would look scummy, so instead diverted his attention to me. Here you just parroted CC writing this explanation off as "WIFOM" in order to use it as a criticism of urielzyx.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

Look at you, going off on a complete tangent again. You have very high entertainment value, you know

Firstly, I explained why OMGUS votes should not be made and why I feel they are scummy. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I never said they were a foolproof scumtell, anyway.

You accused me of making an OMGUS vote. You acknowledge that an OMGUS vote is one which "doesn't utilize logic or a case". My vote clearly was backed up by logic and a case. See posts 113, 136, 138, 153 etc. Thus your "OMGUS" accusation was total rubbish, and not a scum-tell anyway, as I was at pains to point out on day one.

Why does it make my behavior implausible? Use real facts, please, not the in-your-mind ones.

Because it shows you distinguish between "anti-town" and "scummy", but claim not to in voting.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

Considering that I am not you, I have no way of knowing whether or not your OMGUS vote was anything more than OMGUS. I have to make my decisions based on what I read and how I feel about what I read. And from what I saw, and see now, your play is very emotion-based and not so heavy on the logic. I still feel that CR attack was more OMGUS than anything else.

See above.

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Yes, I did.

Would you indulge me and do so again please?

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

You do realize that something that goes against your opinion isn't inherently scummy, right? The play mentioned above is one that I have done before as town in other games. It's how I play. You can think that points to me being scum all you want, but really, you don't care as long as you get to be "right".

Honestly, this whole thing is laughable, and as much as I want to feel otherwise, I can only see you as useless-town.

Well if you act in a way I find scummy you can expect me to vote for you. And unfortunately I can't reciprocate your town verdict on me, I fail to see town motivation for the way you've played.

[Axelrod]

Gah. So, completely ignoring what everyone else is talking about, this is what I'm trying to do: I'm compiling a list of what everyone's basic position was on Nat. prior to the lynch.

Then I'm going to compile what everyone's position on roflocoptor was on Day 1.

Then I'm going to compile what everyone's opinion on

me

was on Day 1 (this last won't mean much to anyone else, but I do it for me).

Then I'm going to vote for someone who comes off looking bad as a result of some combination of these three things.

Starting now.

[Axelrod]

This is going to be too long to cover everyone in one post, so I'm going to do it in several.

Battousai

(38 posts in the game):

No comments about Uriel (Nat's predecessor). First opinion of any kind on Nat. comes in Post #394 where he says he doesn't want to lynch Nat. Says that in his experience this is generally Nat's playing style (not 100% what kind of playing style he is referring to here. Lurking and not contributing?)

I'll also note right off the top that this is one of the things I am specifically looking for in this review - people who avoid the Nat. wagon for the reason "oh, that's just the way Nat. is."

At this point, there are 2 people voting for Nat., myself and Mizzy. For myself, it's specifically because Nat. is being completely and totally useless. From my perspective, there's no excuse for this. Nat. cannot be defended here. What's more, I see no reason why a townie would even

try

to defend him. He has done nothing worthy of defense. So when people pop up and say things like this it's going to be an immediate Red Flag for me.

That doesn't mean that you can't think someone else is scummier looking. That doesn't mean you can't think that it's a better idea to go after someone who's more active, rather than engage in what's essentially a lurker-hunt. But what you can't do is excuse Nat. for "just being Nat." and have it not come off as mightily suspicious.

So, negative points to Bat. for that.

This is essentially all Bat. has to say about Nat. Bat. does not appear to be around for the deadline and ends the day voting for no one. More negative points there. Hrm.

Urzasedatives

(formerly Caboose):

--

Caboose

(22 posts in game): First mention of Nat. comes in

Post #34 where he's actually talking about Ramus, but references that he's familiar with Nat's "history" - which appears to mean a history of Nat. being vague and unhelpful. This appears to be a psychic post because Nat. isn't even in the game at this point.

Caboose questioned Uriel a few times, and at least seemed cautious about him while he was in the game. Nothing stands out as suspicious there.

Didn't say anything about Nat. because he got replaced out before Nat. did. Which leads us to -

--

Urza

: who enters the game with a big Post #375. In this post he appears cautious about Uriel. He does some analysis, which at least on the surface appears to be a genuine attempt, and concludes that Uriel might be a clueless townie, but is currently the second best lynch target for the day. I don't have an inherrent problem with that kind of reasoning.

His main focus is on CR from the get go. He says he's be willing to lynch Nat. in a deadline situation, but would much prefer CR. I don't have a problem with that kind of attitude either.

So, nothing there is sticking out to me, at least as far as how Urza responded to Nat.

But, before I go too much farther with this whole line of inquiry, maybe I ought to ask a general question: does Nat. actually have a well known reputation for being some kind of super flake/terrible player on Mafiascum? If he does, then this line is going to have less value than I was hoping it would. Because it's going to make the argument "oh, that's just Nat. being Nat..." at least a little more plausible.

[Battousai]

Battousai

(38 posts in the game):

No comments about Uriel (Nat's predecessor). First opinion of any kind on Nat. comes in Post #394 where he says he doesn't want to lynch Nat. Says that in his experience this is generally Nat's playing style (not 100% what kind of playing style he is referring to here. Lurking and not contributing?)

Generally, I found that Nat has a scummy playstyle.

I'll also note right off the top that this is one of the things I am specifically looking for in this review - people who avoid the Nat. wagon for the reason "oh, that's just the way Nat. is."

When I said that I did not want to vote for Nat at this time, it was in reference to the two votes that started building up right before deadline. The deadline, I might add, which was supposed to be the 11th at the time of the votes (5 days after Nat entered the game). I felt it would be best if Nat would be given more time and more of a chance to change his playstyle and contribute a bit more.

At this point, there are 2 people voting for Nat., myself and Mizzy. For myself, it's specifically because Nat. is being completely and totally useless. From my perspective, there's no excuse for this. Nat. cannot be defended here. What's more, I see no reason why a townie would even

try

to defend him. He has done nothing worthy of defense. So when people pop up and say things like this it's going to be an immediate Red Flag for me.

That doesn't mean that you can't think someone else is scummier looking. That doesn't mean you can't think that it's a better idea to go after someone who's more active, rather than engage in what's essentially a lurker-hunt. But what you can't do is excuse Nat. for "just being Nat." and have it not come off as mightily suspicious.

So, negative points to Bat. for that.

[ClockworkRuse]

Sorry for the prolonged absence, this game requires a bit more re-reading the rest of my other games. I'm hoping to get caught up by Saturday. I'll have a post by then.

[CarnCarn]

But, before I go too much farther with this whole line of inquiry, maybe I ought to ask a general question: does Nat. actually have a well known reputation for being some kind of super flake/terrible player on Mafiascum? If he does, then this line is going to have less value than I was hoping it would. Because it's going to make the argument "oh, that's just Nat. being Nat..." at least a little more plausible.

Nat has a reputation for anti-town/scummy play as town. From what I gather, a scum-tell for him is actually being helpful in any way to town

I know I had this view of Nat and that was essentially my main reason for not voting him. If I were to vote him, I would have been advocating a policy lynch, which is better than nothing, but I felt the CR and Urza cases were more promising. A more interesting search would be to find players who voted Nat for what are generally null-tells for him, even though they are aware of his meta (I don't know who this would apply to - needs a bit of independent research).

[destructor]

As for where I should put my vote next, I think destructor is most suspicious to me for [1]pushing a case which is not at all a scum-tell or indicative of scumminess. Also, insisting "there must be scum on the CR wagon and it has less surviving members so lets lynch 'em" is pretty much derived from [2]tunnel-vision on me, IMO, and [3]reeks of setting up lynches on players (me, Urza) who are probably both town. So,

Vote: destructor

1. Your explanation...

You never considered the Traitor in this setup and how they might communicate with mafia in thread (doing something that helps them figure out who is looking the most town, for example). And you never responded to this post, either, and instead choose to continue your rampage of "CC is scum for FoSing someone doing something he thought was anti-town!"

... is a huge speculative reach. If you are suggesting that

this

is the reason you really FOS'd Axelrod and rofl then why did you say "The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of." This isn't adding up. Why would the Traitor have a better idea of who the town thinks is scummy than the rest of the Mafia? Your comments following your FOS' looked to me like comments about your feelings on town-lists generally and not specifically in relation to this game itself. I really think you're just backtracking here.

2. How can I, as

scum

, get tunnel-visioned?

3. Where have I suggested that I wanted to lynch Urza? I am not prepared to take a position on this yet. I think it's obvious that that was what you were trying to get me to say in your initial question on the topic. I.e., you created an argument against me then tried to get me to act in a way to support it. If you really thought I was trying to set lynches up, why would you have needed to ask me those questions?

CC is pretty obvScum, guys.


I am becoming increasingly confused as to why Mizzy is ignoring my question to her about CC.


And, this is now the only game I'm playing on ms. I won't joining any new ones. In light of this, I will be giving it a thorough reread and basically outing the rest of teh scums. I'm going to be away on the 4th, so you can expect me to post the results of my reread by the 6th at the latest.

[Thestatusquo]

So it has to be gorrad, right?

[Thestatusquo]

lol. wrong game, sorry.

[CarnCarn]

... is a huge speculative reach. If you are suggesting that this is the reason you really FOS'd Axelrod and rofl then why did you say "The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of." This isn't adding up. Why would the Traitor have a better idea of who the town thinks is scummy than the rest of the Mafia? Your comments following your FOS' looked to me like comments about your feelings on town-lists generally and not specifically in relation to this game itself. I really think you're just backtracking here.

That is my feeling about town lists in general, but, if you think about it, it's a way for the Traitor to communicate with mafia ("hey guys, these are pretty townie looking people, you might want to think about NKing them")

in this game

.

2. How can I, as scum, get tunnel-visioned?

Maybe tunnel vision isn't the right word; more like reach/crap-casing with whatever you can find to try to lynch someone.

3. Where have I suggested that I wanted to lynch Urza? I am not prepared to take a position on this yet. I think it's obvious that that was what you were trying to get me to say in your initial question on the topic. I.e., you created an argument against me then tried to get me to act in a way to support it. If you really thought I was trying to set lynches up, why would you have needed to ask me those questions?

I gave you a chance to clarify what you meant but you choose to just attack me for asking the questions. I pointed out what I felt was a contradiction in what you said (there must be scum on the CR wagon; Urza is town to me, CC is scum; then I asked, what if I'm not? does your initial belief still hold? you choose to just ignore answering that at all, which suggested to me that I was probably on to something about you)

CC is pretty obvScum, guys.

For what, again? You didn't answer the question from my previous post, asking what I've done makes me scum.
If you're talking about the FoSing stuff, that's pure BS and I think everyone sees that. It's clearly a way for cross-communication, which I, as scum, would have no need to speak up about and discourage as I've done.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Due to the recent holidays, I'm a little bit lost in the recent posts. I'll get refreshed by this weekend.