Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I like attention from small groups of people. It makes me feel special. If the attention eventually results in my death, I tend to frown upon it.Rhinox wrote:
Do you have a problem being popular?bionicchop2 wrote:I seem to be popular in the early stages of the game.
Now a question for you since the setup presents an opportunity for a SK to exist. I know your first game on the site you were SK. I also noticed in your post game comments from mafia 87 that you suspected Tar of being SK when you replaced in. Since he did turn out to be SK, maybe you learned something from your SK experience on how to hunt for them.
What lead you to correctly believe Tar was SK in mafia 87?The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Ahhh, ok. I don't know why I thought our first game together was your first game on the site.Rhinox wrote: Wow. Now thats a question. First things first... my first game on the site was a newbie, my second game on the site was a mini theme in which I was town. My 3rd game on the site I was an SK...
Rhinox wrote: Regarding Mafia 87, and thinking Tar was an SK initially when I replaced in, it was basically a conspiracy theory that just happened to be correct this time. It required too many assumptions to be true, plus a little bit of luck on Tar's part that he was able to fake claim how he did. It seemed more likely he was actually what he said he was.
Reading your post after Mafia 87 closer, this seems consistent with what you said there. I guess since you were replacing in late (D4) it had already been established there was a SK and the number of possible suspects was limited.
Rhinox wrote: I try to keep my conspiracies repressed because 99% of the time they'll be wrong.
Random votes are often wrong too (and generally don't end in the lynch of the person who is initially wagoned), but you are a fan of those. I assume this is for the discussion they generate (correct me if wrong). Theories - even if wrong - will also generate discussion and the discussion IMO will have more merit than early game RV discussion. Why do you choose to keep your theories repressed?
I can support this - during the early game.Rhinox wrote: As far as anything else regarding how I specifically try to recognize sk's, I'd rather not say so I don't tell any sk in this game exactly how not to act. Until I have any reason to believe otherwise, I will be hunting dirty cops.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
If I understand your 'conspiracy theories' as long-shot possibilities with a lack of supporting evidence then I agree keeping them to yourself is reasonable.
Surely you don't think my discussion of that game was to analyze it in a vacuum. I found some aspects game relevant and player relevant. The small discussion may or may not help me determine your alignment later.Rhinox wrote: And now I think I've talked enough about mafia 87... I'm excited I played well and helped the town win after replacing in, but its time to focus on this game don't you think?
I don't enter every topic of conversation with a clear expectation on what might be gained from the information revealed. Much in the same manner as a RV, I saw it as a discussion starter. The direction and information unveiled in the process of the discussion is wholly dependent on the participants. I saw/see some potential benefits to understanding how players think about SKs. I also think SKs are understated as far as their threat to towns (a general feel of hunting for mafia since there are more of them). If I was told early in a game that player X was SK and player Y was mafia, I would lynch player X first. The simple reason being that lynching X immediately cuts the number of deaths at night in half.Rhinox wrote: Just because an SK is possible, doesn't mean there is one... What do we stand to gain from talking about an SK now when we don't know one exists? What are you trying to acomplish by analyzing my sk catching ability? What are you trying to learn by talking about how I felt in mafia 87?
Aside from that, I feel that town players and mafia players would view a SK in a different manner. As for asking you in particular, it is about trying to piece together anything I know about you from our 1.5 games together, your previous known roles and your approach to those roles.
Now that I am playing with a greatly reduced game load in an attempt to focus and fine-tune my scum hunting, I plan on working as many new angles as I can think of, even if it means I might discuss a potentially useless point. I have no plans of cluttering 10 pages of discussion with this (I don't really have any further questions / comments on it) and would hop on any alternate discussion which became more appealing.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
It is hard to agree with me on something I never said or implied. Could you explain this for me?Korts wrote: I agree with BC on the fact that this discussion is mostly counter-productive
1. Could you explain how my hunting is selective and how the first 2 pages have lead you to this conclusion? Yes I did ask a player for their approach on a specific type of scum, but I am not sure how that indicates no other types of scum are being looked for.Korts wrote: BTW I'm thinking that BC is guilty of a very early stage of selective scumhunting.
2. Do you think mafia and town players would have different views and concerns about a serial killer? (I don't think discussing the specifics of perceived differences is helpful at this time, just looking for an opinion on whether differences exist in your opinion).The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
@ pops post #40
You are making a jump though if you simply state my discussion as hunting for a SK. We have no conclusive evidence there is a serial killer, so scum would have no additional incentive at this point to direct the town to hunt for a phantom. In addition, I don't think anybody in the game would be able to clearly indicate differences in how they would hunt for a sk as town versus how they would hunt for scum as town.
I also think there is more incentive for scum to eliminate a SK during the mid-game than during the first day. Extra deaths at night tend to help all scum until the potential risk of their own death overwhelms the immediate benefit of extra town deaths.
The discussion began for 2 reasons:
1. It gave me a chance for direct discussion with a player I have recent experience with. The more I know an individual, the better equipped I am to determine their alignment.
2. The conversation that could split off from the initial topic. This obviously includes questioning the topic itself and the motivation for its start.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
A lot of good new material today and I will try to read it all closely later. I do want to comment on this since it grabbed my attention.
I think you are falling into a logical trap here.Rhinox wrote: A self-voter, then, is wanting to lynch themselves. Intentionally mislynching a known townie = scummy, which is why no town player should ever self vote, and is why every player who self votes will also earn my vote.
1. In order for the action of a self-vote to be anti-town, the player needs to be town.
2. If you vote the player and state the action is anti-town, you are then voting someone you believe to be town and yourself acting in an anti-town manner.
3. If the player is mafia and voting for them self, they are acting pro-town and anti-mafia.
You can see the circular nature and where this is going. By your logic, you should be getting votes if you vote a self-voter for the reason of their action being anti-town.
You are also making a jump to say any vote is an intent to lynch. As you saw in our newbie game, I will use my vote in quite a few ways and not always have an end goal of lynching. Did your random vote have the intent of lynching? I know mine did not.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Comments on RC # 51:
The concept of a semi-open setup is that we know what roles are possible. In some setups (F11) we know the probability of each role. In this setup, we do not know the selection process the moderator used, so we have no idea of the probability. Did he put all 'scum' roles including SK into a hat and pick 3? Did he have a SK hat which included 1 sk and a few town roles? We know nothing that would indicate the probability for us.RedCoyote wrote:
I only bring this up because I think, despite this being true, it's very probable that there will be one.Rhinox 36 wrote:Just because an SK is possible, doesn't mean there is one...
I think so mainly because as I go through the roles it just seems like it would fit into the scenario pretty well.
This is a bit of stating the obvious. An extra kill confirms a SK. A single kill leaves us where we are today.RedCoyote wrote: It's very likely that we should be able to tell by tomorrow if there is an SK or not regardless though. There are no town killing roles on the list, so if two people leave us tomorrow night, then an SK would be the only answer to that problem.
I generally don't wager on anything I don't know the odds of (unless you are talking about low-risk, friendly wagers). I don't see what you hope to get out of this question. I can see one way mafia members could come to a possible faulty conclusion regarding the presence of a SK, but other than that I don't see how you can conclude it is probable we have one.RedCoyote wrote:
Although I both see the logic in this and agree with it, I have to ask if you are prepared to wager that there isn't an SK.bionic 47 wrote:We have no conclusive evidence there is a serial killer, so scum would have no additional incentive at this point to direct the town to hunt for a phantom.
I always try to function under worst-case scenarios. In this game that would be 3 mafia and 1 SK based on the role PMs (mafia is 2-3 members from the wording).RedCoyote wrote: I mean, I want to keep bringing this point up because I think the town should assume there is an SK until proven otherwise, not the other way around.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
It is slightly odd you don't see SK as 'scum' and you see hunting one type of player against the town's win condition as more valuable than the other. It also indicates you would be able to identify the difference during the game.Rhinox wrote:No. Town should hunt scum only, until it is proven there is an SK. In one of my games (I think it was Meerkat Manor Mafia, actually), a scum player (CKD) pushed for the lynch of a town player (StrangerCoug) on the grounds that he was playing like an sk (the day before LyLo), even though there was no unexplained kill in the game. We lynched SC only because at that point, either SC or CKD were the final scum in the game. CKD self hammered the next day after SC was lynched town, and the town still won.
Both SK and mafia are working against the town win condition. If a SK was called 'solo mafia', would that change anything?
=============
I am perfectly content to discuss any theory which is relevant to the game we are playing. Since nobody self-voted, the topic isn't going to uncover anything except how players feel about self-votes. Discussing RVs and SKs is fair game IMO. I admit I got caught up responding on the self-vote topic which is why I made the statement you just quoted.Rhinox wrote:
Well, you and Korts are the ones who wanted to talk about theory...bionicchop2 wrote:
Actually nobody self-voted and I probably should not have made my last post debating the theory of self-voting.SpyreX wrote:Ohh goodness another game starts with a self-vote spurring madness.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
1. I question the validity os saying there is nothing to gain from discussing the possibility of a SK. It has now opened the door for several comments which may end up giving clues to alignment (or they may not, but at least the chance is there). Comments range from saying we shouldn't hunt for SKs, we shouldn't talk about them, we should hunt them the same as mafia. It has also generated the first signs of accusations about players wanting to discuss SK.OhGodMyLife wrote:RE: SK discussion. On day one, there is nothing to gain for town from discussing the possibility of an SK. I have yet to see any way for town to successfully divine who an SK is on day one of a game, without even knowing if there is one, and the faction who has much more of a vested interest in offing an SK as early as possible is the scaredy-pants mafia who don't want to get crosskilled.
Particularly the fact that the theoretical SK is theonlypossible source of dead mafia during the night,andthis SK gets one shot kill immunity, this particular line of discussion is what makes Tar's "selective scumhunting" tell not just a buzzword.
2. I will state again that I have trouble seeing how hunting for an SK would actually differ from hunting for a mafia player on D1. Since we have no alignment info, we cannot connect players to each other and we can only go based on 'scummy' play. Since both mafia and SK would be against the town, their motives on d1 IMO would be similar. There would be differences I imagine, but there would be more similarities.
3. I will also state again that discussing a SK is not the same as hunting the SK and I feel the discussion could open up information about mafia and SK.
RE: Tar's "selective scumhunting" :
How valid do you think something like this is in a game of experienced (even the new players are far from ignorant) players? Yes, if you could clearly identify somebody displaying the traits described, it should be considered. By simply having this 'tell' mentioned 3+ times in the first 3 pages we have basically made sure no scum would make the mistake of focusing on a SK. I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I guess the biggest issue I am having is that everybody is making hunting for these different types of scum as mutually exclusive. How would you know if a player you thought was scum was primary or secondary mafia?Rhinox wrote: However, to answer the first part of your question, I don't see hunting for an sk as beneficial to the town until it is known there is an sk. We KNOW there is mafia. It would make no difference if the SK was called solo mafia - I wouldn't hunt for a second mafia family in a game were 2 mafia families were possible, if there were no kills that pointed to their presence.
I can see your point here. I didn't expect you to make a point by point outline on SK play though. I do know from your play in the ongoing game that you aren't just going to outline your full thoughts and you are cautious of what information you reveal.Rhinox wrote:
Well, it is my belief that talking about an sk will do nothing but remind the sk (if in the game) that we're aware that an sk is possible and we're looking for sk tells/slips... This would cause an sk to play more cautiously, and possibly alter the way an sk would play in a way that would make an sk harder to find. Just as you say the selective scumhunting attack is no longer valid for the rest of the game, anything that would be discussed about sk tells, or how to find an sk, would make that tell invalid as well. That is why I was originally suspicious when you asked me how I would recognize an sk. It seems like it would be eliminating opportunities for an sk to slip up.bio wrote:I don't like eliminating opportunities for scum to make slip up.
On the flip of all that, if we do determine there is a SK, I think these first 3 pages of players expressing opinions on if we should / should not hunt for a SK (even though that was not the original topic) will prove to have a good chunk of information. If we had waited until we knew one existed, it may have been too late for town.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I am going tounvote; vote Rishiafter post 81.
- downplays the beginning game conversation to be about nothing
- seems to defend MME who isn't even being attacked or commented about. Perhaps to remind others that MME is currently not posting, while he buddies him
- after saying there is a whole lot of nothing, decides to add to what he called nothing by continuing SK talk (I have no issue with SK talk obviously, but find it hypocritical that someone claiming it is nothing add fuel to the flames)
- Then agrees with OGML for saying the theory discussion is pointless, meanwhile the 'theory' discussion about SKs and hunting is exactly what he is asking RC about.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Without reading back, tell me the last time MME was mentioned and what was mentioned about him. Then communicate the relevance of your comment to the previous discussion that occurred about him. IMO you defended a player who was not under (expressed) suspicion.Rishi wrote: 2. People have commented on MME. If you say that no one is “currently” discussing MME, then you mean that no one mentioned him in half a page. Some of us don’t really have time to post five times a day. It was relevant conversation since the thread began – and since I haven’t had a real post in the game so far, I felt that I needed to say something.
Oddly I find this game chock full of early game content. We are on page 4 and already have at least 3 different players getting voted for reasons that aren't random.Rishi wrote: 3. I explained what I meant by “a whole lot of nothing.” I didn’t say that everything that came up was completely irrelevant. Obviously, it wasn’t, or I would have had a really short post. As I said, it’s just that the content-to-text ratio in this game seems low so far.
When something is paraphrased / interpreted, it is implicitly understood the person did not make that exact statement.Rishi wrote: 4. Theory discussion is not pointless (stop putting words in my mouth – and here’s a “theory” term for you: “strawmanning”) – it’s just easy for scum to hide in it. I am just wary when theory discussion goes on too long. As for asking questions to RC, how about you let him answer the questions before you jump to his defense and attempt to derail the conversation? Did you even think that maybe I might be going somewhere with this? I’ll make my point after RC responds.
When the goal of the day is to come to a decision on a lynch and you say the topic of discussion does not work towards that goal, I feel comfortable paraphrasing it as 'pointless'. If that wasn't your intent, feel free to clarify.Rishi wrote:We can discuss theory until the cows (or h-cows) come home, but we won't be any closer to a lynch when we're done.
How am I not letting RC answer? Where did I say we shouldn't discuss the topic you were discussing? My comment was you were being hypocritical. Maybe you failed to read any of my other posts, but I have not avoided the SK discussion and in fact I *gasp* started it in an attempt to engage Rhinox. Since you are fond of the term 'strawmanning', isn't that what you are doing when you misrepresent any part of my post as defending RC?The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Rhinox - The quote you have of pops talking about RC labels RC as slightly scummy. My interpretation is that he has no problem with RC saying we should assume the worst, but he feels he dwelled on the issue too long ("not as not as curt it should") which is what gave him the scum vibe.
Is that how you read the statement, or are you getting something else out of it?The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Korts wrote:Not a lot of time; will post tomorrow.FOS Korts
I find this post unnecessary and possibly active lurking. You weren't in danger of being prodded and your activity was not in question. This gives me the impression you weren't participating as much as you felt you should be and needed to pro-actively address it. Not exactly a scum tell, but it has a self-preservation feel to it.
Combine this with the fact you are still on the site right now posting in general discussion and mafia discussion. That is time which could have been used to quickly skim and post something of relevance here.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I thought it was pretty obvious it was a fishpopsofctown wrote: I noticed everyone got the most pissed about riddles after that last one. It's okay if you guys don't want to simply admit you don't know the answer .
===============
Yes, it was directed towards RC, but since this all has basically been generated from my initial question to you, I would like to state my thoughts on in.Rhinox wrote: I'm not trying to force a distinction between different scumhunting for different types of scum (at least not on D1 when factions are 100% unknown), I just want to know how this sk conversation is going to help you decide who is most likely scum today.
For me, mafia is becoming less about direct question / answer (unless you have scum pinned on a specific topic) and more about what happens in the peripheral of the discussion. So, I ask you about SK stuff and we talk a little. Now at this point, I don't really know what others are going to say, but they are going to say something. As you can see, it has evolved into we shouldn't be discussing it / it is a valid discussion. Hidden in there might be the type of scum who likes to attack people for bringing up something that may appear to not be scum hunting or they feel they can spin it into something else. There may also be the type of scum that just go with the flow and agree to whatever more people are agreeing with. The reality is it might gain nothing at this specific time (hell, it might gain nothing ever).
Now it ties in a little to some things you have hinted at (nothing specific I can remember), but if someone knows you are hunting for them, they will hide better. So, mafia thinks everybody is over here focusing on SK they may just let down their guard. I think mafia's natural inclination would be to show the discussion as being anti-town since mafia in the end wants everybody to look suspicious. This leans my initial scum hunting towards those who planted seeds of accusations without actually driving to get others to follow. I see this in Pop's post #40 and Rishi has done a little bit of it (though I am more concerned with what I saw as hypocritical statements by Rishi). It may pan out to be nothing, but it has given me a starting point which is all I need to get entrenched into a game.
==============
I can see your point and it is valid IMO since it does take more thought and focus to post in a game than elsewhere. It is a pet peeve of mine when people make a post to announce they are going to make a post at some future time. I know MME has done it, but someone already pre-emptively defended himKorts wrote: I pride myself in being as active as possible, but I also pride myself in being thorough and answering all points. Any reading up and posting would've taken more energy than I had; note that it was 9:17 PM at the time of that post and I was preparing to go to sleep. GD and MD don't really require much focus. Satisfied?The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Strike 1 of failing to live up to self-imposed posting deadlines.SpyreX on Feb 3 wrote: I'm out with work meetings all day, I'll try and post something of substance later on / tomorrow.
======================
You should read Spyrex's signature (follow link). WIFOM is not the world's worst starting point for suspicion - especially if you believe what you quoted OGML as saying in your newbie game (I do) about early game votes requiring far less than later votes.Rhinox wrote: Doing so using nothing but wifom = questionable to me.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
me loves me some spyrex posting!
I will always be here to catch you when trying just isn't enough for me!SpyreX wrote:Ahem, I said "try" for a reason. Life has been a bit crazy for me, so unfortunately this game took a back seat.
I agree to an extent. I feel MME is the red herring in all of this. I don't think 'activity' is a huge issue yet though. I have commented on those who brought attention to them self by speaking of when they will post. (hmmmm...then scum probably wouldn't post about not posting enough...)SpyreX wrote:I find it interesting that MME has been brought up so many times about the absence of posting (it wasn't until this point I was mentioned and I'd safely say that Jahudo AND iamusername (and almost OGML AND Rishi as well) are also falling into that bag of "not contributing". So, why this one name versus the others that haven't been posting enough. Hell, bio even called out Korts for a one-liner...but none of the above?
I am not sure what to make of it yet, but something is amiss in this. There is some connection of sorts there.
=======
I support the pressure on pops, though not for the jokes/riddles. My suspicion on him would stem from what I mentioned in my post #115.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
IMO that is the truth behind all actions and cases in the game. It is now Pop's job to determine for himself if your action was scummy - right now he obviously thinks it is. If we learned something from our last game, (mod referenced Thesp's "defenses are overrated" policy) it is that we need to analyze each action, not really the explanation of the action.Rhinox wrote: If the appeal to emotion is what making you vote me now, then I might as well just stop talking because there is nothing I could say to change your opinion of me.
Yes, it can be.Rhinox wrote:do you really think that it would have been beneficial for me to be THAT honest as scum?
Again I will reference our last game (Newbie 696 for the others). The contradictions made by Raider on D1 are pretty much what sealed the deal on his lynch. Can town make mistakes and contradict? Yes, of course. Now I might give the benefit of the doubt after you admit the mistakes and plead idiocy. The problem is we just played a game where the scum defended their contradictions and stuck with their accusations (this is what you present your alternative as). This got him lynched. With that example fresh in your head, your only option as scum would be to admit mistake and try to look vulnerable to gain sympathy. That may be your only option as a town player who just got mixed up too, but I think this is an avenue worth pursuing.Rhinox wrote:Also, for what its worth, contradictions like the ones I did are scummy on paper, but I have never caught scum being so obviously contradictory between comments 1 or 2 pages apart.
unvote rishi- Last post appeases me for now
vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
There may be an article about it, but I don't know. I am just taking what incognito said at face value and analyzing the statement on its own. A good scum player will be able to post-rationalize any mistake they make, so the initial action is more important than the subsequent defense. Lack of justification or poor reasons for an action would IMO add to the suspicion of the original action. A good defense would hold the suspicion at its initial level.Rhinox wrote:
Is that a wiki article or MD discussion thread? I haven't heard of that policy, but I can understand what I think it means in theory. Would like to hear a full conversation or article about it.bio wrote:IMO that is the truth behind all actions and cases in the game. It is now Pop's job to determine for himself if your action was scummy - right now he obviously thinks it is. If we learned something from our last game, (mod referenced Thesp's "defenses are overrated" policy) it is that we need to analyze each action, not really the explanation of the action.
The best defense for any suspicious action is a mountain of overwhelming town play to go alongside the action.
Take this example. Now your explanation may very well be true, but the only way the defense could eliminate the initial suspicion would be if I believed you 100% about your explanation.Rhinox wrote:
I wouldn't exactly say the example is fresh in my head, even though it was my most recent completed game. Realize, I wasn't exactly in the game during all of day 1. Yes I went back and read the whole thread, but what stuck with me the most about raider (i.e. what I thought got him lynched) was that he was not scumhunting, and admitted to it. I would honestly have to go back and read all of D1 of that game again to figure out what contradiction you're talking about.bio wrote:The problem is we just played a game where the scum defended their contradictions and stuck with their accusations (this is what you present your alternative as). This got him lynched. With that example fresh in your head, your only option as scum would be to admit mistake and try to look vulnerable to gain sympathy.
I would have seen that as suspicious. I am not reading the link just because I understand your example and the point you are making. If the offense was on Day 1, it might be a lynchable offense for me depending on the scumminess of others. Later in the game, I would definitely need more than just one suspicious infraction from a player in order to lynch them.Rhinox wrote: All I can do is link you to a game where a townie was even more contradictory than I was just now... Mini 716
[SNIP]
this still makes me *facepalm*. Yes, DO was town.
That is a little extreme, but I think you know that.Rhinox wrote:
Aparently nothing I can say to stop it, since my defenses are overratedbio wrote:vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I thing VP was a good example of how someone who is a good debator (which makes for good scum) can make a 'scummy' mistake (D1 hammer). I would prefer not to discuss too much more about mistakes, defenses and reactions to accusations since it is hard to do without revealing how I plan to analyze your play moving forward. I think you understand the concept of what I said.Rhinox wrote: Well you've created a bit of a paradox in logic there... so, you're saying if I'm scum, that I'm a good scum player who will be able to explain away my mistake. Although even good scum players can make some mistakes, do you think a good scum player would make the obvious mistake that I made?
This doesn't relate to what we were discussing. I was not talking about a tell and we certainly weren't talking about a tell that a scum player made up during a game. You are coming out of left field with this one. I try not to put to much weight into a single 'tell' because every tell has an exception.Rhinox wrote: Also... what incog posted is all well and good... but ever since CKD convinced the town in, again, meerkat manor mafia that someone useing a phrase similar to "To be honest..." is a tell that proves they are being dishonest about something, I've been skeptical of every new tell or strategy that I've heard that someone says is valid.
Again, I am not sure I see your point here or what the further discussion of defenses will accomplish. I never said players shouldn't defend. All I am saying is that if a player does something that is scummy, that player should get a bump on your scummy meter. This should not be minimized by a great defense. If that is compounded by future scummy actions, then the player may very well be scum. A single mistake may end up being the lynch factor on a day 1 with nothing else to go on, but that is probably not going to be the case in this game which is fairly active and I already see a few players who are battling for my vote.Rhinox wrote: What you're saying may be logical, but I don't believe that defenses can't alleviate suspicion beyond the original level. Especially, looking from a 3rd party perspective. A 3rd party doesn't know if the accuser's suspicions are genuine or fabricated, and doesn't know the same of the accused defenses. A back and forth between attack and defense may entirely eliminate any suspicion from one particular action (or, maybe it will arouse more suspicion).
For me, initial suspicious action does not disappear. This may tie in to how you look for the 'scummiest' player. I think all town players will inevitably do somethign that could be percieved as scummy. If everybody has 1 action counting against them, then they all return to the same level.Rhinox wrote:if you guys quicklynch me, that won't change. If you don't, then maybe I can turn around and be more pro-town.
Is being pro-town after the fact enough to defend against a previous suspicious action?
Odd question since nobody is advocating a quick lynch of you. You aren't even really in the danger zone of lynching yet, but you seem slightly resigned to getting lynched and/or are focusing now on what you an do to minimize the suspicion on you. Hypothetically if I knew you were scum 100%, I would still want the day to continue a little longer.Rhinox wrote:So I guess the question I should be asking everyone right now is if the initial suspicion from my contradiction is strong enough for a lynch, are I can't say anything to alleviate that initial suspicion, are you all prepared to end the day now with a quick lynch on me, or do you feel conversation should continue?
You are making a point to me I already agree with. You can read where I said that town players do sometimes contradict themselves. I don't think there is a single action that is exclusive to scum. It is just one action that increases the chances of someone being scum. Scum need to make cases they know are false and when pushing something known as a lie, they can end up contradiciting themselves.Rhinox wrote:the point I was making is that an obvious contradiction does not necessarily mean the player is scum.
What you said is completely not true. You said nothing you say could stop it. That is false. There may not be a magic phrase or word, but it is still false.Rhinox wrote:
You're right... maybe I was being a little melodramatic... but does it make what I said any less true?bio wrote:That is a little extreme, but I think you know that.
The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Question(s) for Huntress, MME, Rishi, Rhinox and OGML:
If you were forced to vote for one player right now, who would it be and why? Does not require an actual vote, so basically I am asking for your top 1 suspect. I would prefer to not see a list of scummy rankings. I know OGML is voting, but his suspicions haven't been clear since the vote was placed as he addressed Rhinox as scum a few times.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I have known for the past few days that my vote wasn't going to stay on Rhinox. Typically I don't remove my vote until I have decided where it is going to be moved to (not voting is not too common for me).RedCoyote wrote:
What impressions are you getting from Rhinox being at L-3?bionic 158 wrote:Hypothetically if I knew you were scum 100%, I would still want the day to continue a little longer.
With that said, your latest post and confirmation of a vote on Rhinox has inspired me tounvotedespite not having determined a new home for my vote.
I am seeing a ton of repetition in your posts. You have posted many words, but your case against Rhinox is unclear. You challenge people to identify how your talk of a SK is scummy, but I would challenge you to identify how the dissension against such talk is scummy.
I also challenge you to make a few posts that are on a new topic or display you hunting for scum.
Now, for closure, I will write this statement:
I, bionicchop2, solemnly swear to acknowledge a distinct possibility we have multiple killing roles. At no point during this game will I forget this possibility. During my decision making process for hunting scum, I will constantly ask myself how a 2nd killing party would affect the decision I am about to make.
I do not need a response to this post, except for:
If you could respond to that part as succinct as possible, I would appreciate it.bionicchop2 wrote:I would challenge you to identify how the dissension against such talk is scummy.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I am not sure who this is to, but you should easily be able to track down any questions to you once someone has identified who asked the question if you are really concerned about it. Asking somebody else to find it for you only serves to delay answers.popsofctown wrote: When did spyrex ask me a question, and what question was it? Maybe i thought it was rhetorical.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
RedCoyote analysis:
- In summation, my largest sticking points are:
- Failure to evolve discussion of choice into scum hunting
- Repetition of points which are IMO safe to discuss since nobody is truly debating the initial logic.
- Spinning the statements of those who questioned your methods
- Planting seeds of suspicion on pops without making your own case (piggyback onto Spyrex accusations) and wavering on truly committing to an opinion of him.
- minor contradictions of statements throughout
- unprovoked defenses of players
vote RedCoyoteThe above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
IMO, I wouldn't say it. It is catch-22 though. If I were pops, I would withhold it, but be ready to defend the hell out of my vote if RC flipped town at some point. Hopefully you can find something more readily available to show why you think RC is scum. Meta alone can be dangerous, even though I do put a decent deal of weight in meta when I scum-hunt.popsofctown wrote:I have another meta-rooted tell for RC, which may or may not be valid. Do you want me to tell it to RC in front of you all so he can correct it again?
I guess in the end, I wouldn't cry either way. I personally try not to expose meta-reads for as long as possible (or even tell a player I have a meta-read if I can avoid it).The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
A lot of lengthy posting today, so I will respond to the shortest and most recent post, then scurry away until later when I can provide appropriate responses to the longer ones
There is also the possibility (which exists in my case) that the back and forth between RC and yourself has shown your responses to him as more town than his responses to you. This is not to assume that it was a scum vs. town debate occurring.Rhinox wrote:You know what I find really odd... the same people calling me scum are some of the same people voting RC right now for pretty much the same points I've been arguing about RC all game... not too sure what to make of it right now, but it makes me think the wagon on RC right now is highly scum motivated...
So, I guess I would like to know what is generating the concerns. Is it the speed of vote changes? The lack or supportive arguments? Or simply as you stated that they were people voting for you?
I don't recall any of the points against you being directly related to your debates with RC. I thought they were related to your contradiction and emotional appeal. I have my own reasons for my vote, unvote and then vote on RC, but none of them were related to the interaction between you two except for the times I feel he has seemed to twist what you have said.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Rhinox wrote:bio, I guess it would be because a lot of the arguments being made against RC by the players that were voting for me were basically the same points I was arguing in my back and forth with RC... I find it odd that if I'm so obvscum (according to some of the players) that my points of concern with RC are being used to justify the wagon on him right now...
RC scum and Rhinox scum do not need to be mutually exclusive. If I thought you were scum and you made a valid argument against somebody, I could not discount that argument even if you turned out to be confirmed as scum. It would be a genetic fallacy (maybe ad hominem? - I am not great with fallacy terms) to discount your arguments based on your alignment - especially without any concrete knowledge of your alignment.Rhinox wrote:Its very clear that some players are calling both RC and I obvscum.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
My vote was not locked in to the extent where I felt sure I would prefer to lynch Rhinox today. I still had to feel him out and weigh in the apparent scumminess of some of his actions against the rest of his game participation. At the time, I felt a more unified scumhunt focused on Rhinox would have been valuable - more so than a 1 on 1 between Rishi and myself.OhGodMyLife wrote:
The way you phrase that makes it seem like you don't expect to actually be lynching Rhinox today. Are multiple strong wagons in a day necessary? Were you willing to see Rhinox lynched when you placed this vote?bio, 134 wrote:vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.
I don't discount anything really. My unvote at that time was to emphasize to RC how underwhelming I felt his case was. It was paired with a reduced suspicion level of Rhinox.OhGodMyLife wrote: bio 182 is a winner. Your prior unvote of rhinox based on RC's voting has me worried though. Don't discount that rc and rhinox could be a) bussing [least likely], b) on two seperate scumteams [more likely] or c) one is mafia and the other is sk [also more likely]The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
@RC 199 - I am just going to address parts written specifically to me unless something jumps out at me. Will look at the rest closer and evaluate later (may not have additional comments). If I excluded anything directed at me, I simply didn't have anything further to discuss on the item. If any exclusions are something you feel need a direct response, let me know.
From what I have read, it does not seem the initial question(s) was answered. This will lead to rephrasing / repeating if the player wants an answer. If the questions were less clear to me, I might have discounted your responses as not fully knowing what the question was really asking.RedCoyote wrote:
And yet you don't see a ton of repetition of the same questions being asked and answered?bionic 173 wrote:I am seeing a ton of repetition in your posts.
I wasn't knocking the long posts or anything about the way you post. I was working to stop the cycle since the topic was exhausted from my perspective. The one item I did want a response to though.RedCoyote wrote:bionic 173 wrote:I do not need a response to this post, except for
My posts are very succinct, it's just they're all mashed together into one as opposed to being spewed across the thread.
I am not stating my view on self-voting. Nobody has self-voted, so there is no need for me to pre-emptively state my view on it. This question would be a topic for the MD forum, but has no place in a game unless somebody has done it. The answer to the question in the absence of the action has no potential for finding scum. As scum or town, any player could answer that 100% honestly without revealing any information. Now if somebody had self-voted, the question would have merit. The player would need to take a position on the action and more importantly the player self-voting. This is the equivalent of asking my opinion on D1 miller claims if nobody has claimed miller. No reasonable conclusion about anybody's alignment can be derived from the conversation.RedCoyote wrote:
Then you take the position that self-voting is inconsequential to a game, correct?bionic 182 wrote:This question is pure fluff and could not be used in any manner of scum hunting.
You are changing "If bionicchop2 is SK, this would be a bad move" (paraphrased since I don't have the thread open and I am writing this in a text document), to "bionicchop2, as a SK, has made a bad move by doing this". Hypothetical /= accusation. The end of his post lists SK as my least likely role based on my actions. Pop's WIFOM rundown can be simplified to:RedCoyote wrote:
What does this mean?bionic 182 wrote:Pops was not accusing me of being SK, but more stating that is would be a horrible move for me if I was SK.
If someone uses the phrase, "If A is B" that means they are considering the possibility that A is, in fact, B, and not C, like A would have you believe.
Pops said, considering the possibility that you were an SK, that would be a bad move.
How could you read it any other way?
-X is something a SK is not likely to do since it is a bad play for them.
-bionicchop2 committed X
-bionicchop2 is not likely to be SK
An if:then statement is not designed to assume the if statement is true or assert that it is. You have seen Rhinox say "If I was scum", but he is not accusing himself of being scum.
I think opinions seem more genuine when they are stated on their own and not stated as an agreement of others. The basic concept that scum want to fit in to the masses leads to a tendency for scum to tag along with the ideas of others.RedCoyote wrote:
Are you making the statement that a player should have their opinion on an issue on the record in a game before they ask another player their own opinion on an issue?bionic 182 wrote:Asking somebody for their opinion on something without stating your own, then coming back and just agreeing with their view sticks out to me.
The question required an answer. The "please don't" was asking not to discuss the town roles. I was asking you to identify any place you had already discussed these other roles.RedCoyote wrote:
Don't ask me questions you don't want the answer to.bionic 182 wrote:What I will question is the fact you say it is good practice to discuss all roles. My reason is that you have not discussed other roles. Where is your discussion about the mafia roles? Where do you discuss how we should prepare for and acknowledge that mafia may have a watcher who could identify town power roles at night? Where do you discuss town roles (Please don't)?
There is a huge gap between open and semi-open games. A game like a newbie game, you at least have some knowledge of the odds for each role. On Epic, you always know the roles and can strategize how to use them. The open games here can be played the same (hypo-claims and other strategies can be used then too). The closest you get is in a janitor game on Epic, where one of your town roles may be gone and you don't know which. In our case though, you won't know all roles until the game is over, though you may be able to conclusively figure some out. You also can't use logic like "there is a mafia doctor, there must be a sk" if a mafia doctor dies. This is a site where mods put godfathers and millers in games with no cops. Nurses are used in games with no doctors.RedCoyote wrote: Perhaps it stems from playing elsewhere, but I do indeed think talking about role possibilites is good stuff.
Like, for instance (God, this is going to sound like such heresy to you people), a townie Watcher is such a gold mine of an opportunity. It may be worth risking having one player come out, on the basis that there could be a townie Doctor and/or a townie Watcher.
This may help certain roles get information about who is clean in this town (and verifying it over night).
This would be a radical departure from the way MS is normally played, no doubt.
Then again, the more I think about the rationale certain players had for questioning why I would consider the SK a probable enemy, the more slack I have to give them considering the way MS is.
I guess I will break down the last part of this post into my summation with your response to each item:
- Failure to evolve discussion of choice into scum hunting
I would like an itemized list of Rhinox's actions you deem scummy. I think it would help me analyze your stance on him and it may reveal you have more points against him than I have recognized.RedCoyote wrote:- I have indeed found multiple instances to justify my vote of Rhinox, none of which are related to the SK discussion.
- Repetition of points which are IMO safe to discuss since nobody is truly debating the initial logic.
I addressed this in the post. I think the answers did not address the questions and instead came back to points you already made. IMO the repeated questions were needed.RedCoyote wrote:- Repetition of questions that have been asked and answered.
- Spinning the statements of those who questioned your methods
By methods I mean the manner in which you have approached the game and chosen to scumhunt (or perceived lack thereof).RedCoyote wrote:- What does my "methods" mean? Need a definition of this term.
- Planting seeds of suspicion on pops without making your own case (piggyback onto Spyrex accusations) and wavering on truly committing to an opinion of him.
It wasn't clear to me and it seemed as if you were persuaded by Spyrex since you said his case was more convincing than Korts' case.RedCoyote wrote:- I made it clear that I suspected pops because he didn't respond to Spy's direct line of questioning.
- minor contradictions of statements throughout
Perhaps, but was it not a major point of contention which lead to votes on Rhinox? I thought you had some comments about him regarding this, but I would have to read back.RedCoyote wrote:- General accusation that can be lumped into any case.
- unprovoked defenses of players
It is my job to guess the motive behind this. Alone, it could be town (I do defend players when I think their attackers are out of line - though I feel this can sometimes be poor play on my part). This is another one of those things that town players can do (all scum 'tells' are IMO) but there are clear reasons for scum to do it. When these instances add up, they begin to push my view towards the player being scum.RedCoyote wrote:- Giving my opinion on situations as they have arose.
The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I didn't update my notes after reading it, so I don't remember my exact thoughts. The post is way too self-aware, if that makes sense. I didn't really go into detail on it because I don't want to coach him how to play and I don't know if the post is necessarily scummy. If someone claims to play exactly the same as town and scum, then they are unwittingly saying you can never trust them. All the talk about "why would I do X as scum?" WIFOMY stuff becomes negated. On one hand he says there is no reason for him to act a certain way and be so openly honest about acting like a VI if he is scum. Then he goes on to later say he plays the same for both alignments. That then leads to the possibility he could intentionally be making the play he would make as town to keep his meta identical.Jahudo wrote:
What’s yuck about it?bionicchop2 post 183 wrote:Rhinox - post 181 is full of yuck.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
The lynch tide has gone your way. I only have one other game right now until my newbie game starts and that game does not require any significant attention (odd for a 112 page game, huh?). I have been very focused on this game and would like to think I am aware of what is going on in the peripheral of my own discussions.RedCoyote 227 wrote:You do realize, bionic, that OGML has made it clear that he has no problem voting me should the lynch tide go my way?
I am not sure what you are saying here, but I don't have any plans on unvoting at this time. This does not mean I won't unvote you today, but you are currently my top suspect. The best move for you may not equal the best move for me. Since I think you are scum, I am assuming they are the exact opposite.RedCoyote 227 wrote: If you truly are concerned that the way this day is headed is not the best move for me (and, subsequently, the town) then I suggest you unvote.
When I wrote that, I was unclear if you thought pops was more lynch-worthy than Rhinox and it seemed like you were resigning yourself to a me vs. him type thing. You have made it clear now that pops is a secondary suspect, so attacking Rhinox as your top suspect makes sense to me.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I agree with OGML and it has nothing to do with maturity or fear of impending quicklynch. Of course that agreement was while we were at L-1. Now that we are back at L-2, there is no reason for a claim. Claims close to deadlines lead to limited time for analysis, reconsideration and discussion on an alternate lynch should one be needed.popsofctown wrote:whoa whoa whoa OGML, if RC has a claim it should be earlier rather than later? We're all mature consenting mafia players here, no one's going to quickhammer unless they're scum in this group. We've plenty of time. If you have a serious case about Rhinox possibly being a scum power role, then we want an L-1 claim from Rhinox, not from RC.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
@RC, I read your bulleted case on Rhinox. I would say 50%+ of it I can see as potentially legitimate. Some of it feels like filler (the first few points). It gains a couple of townie points. I don't know how many of those were specifically mentioned by you earlier, or just added when put under pressure. For now I will drop that point in my case against you.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
That is Spyrex's top suspect, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.Rhinox wrote:So spy... what do you think of this comment then?
I don't seem to remember any melodramatic suprise out of you after pops made this comment...pops wrote:after overanalyzing BC (i decided too since there's not going on right now), i'm going to count the SK discussion against him more than i would initially, because i think i'd do it if i was scum.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I might agree with that.iamausername wrote:
Rishi > pops > Huntress, I'd say.bionicchop2 wrote:Rishi scum more probable than Huntress scum more probable than Pops scum.
I took off work today because my head feels like a ton of bricks. I will make time to catch up and post something better.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Feeling much better today. A few quick comments to CF Riot:
Post 269:
1. You said the your notes were in player by player order. Why did you group players together to post about them?
2. You exclude any thoughts on IAU. An odd exclusion, especially paired with #3
3. Your group of 'lurkers' doesn't seem well thought out. Here are the post counts for the 6 players with the least number of posts prior to your post on Feb 12 (including confirmation). 6 included to show the 3 you called out.
IAU - 5
MME - 6
Rishi - 7
Spyrex - 9
Huntress - 12
Jahudo - 12
Now I know posts with content count more than posts without content. The complete exclusion of IAU as an offender here (if you are going to puppet the salt stories of Spyrex) is wrong. Then Spyrex gets group into your 'town' group for making 2 more posts than Rishi and 3 less than Huntress (this is not a scum accusation of Spyrex).
=============
I want to address my overall feeling on the existing wagons and this quote is a good starting point for me.Spyrex wrote:So, for all this business RC and Rhinox have been getting, what purpose would it serve them as scum?
I understand your point here Spyrex, but ask yourself the same question about Pops. Once I got a feel of how Pops was playing this game, I figured it was best for me to at least skim one of his other games. The playstyle in this game and his first game on this site (as town) are near identical. This does not definitively make him town for me, but it is the reason I am not sold on your case. At last count, he had 47 posts (this was before the weekend) and I think I was the only player with more posts. Now, even if you cut out 66% of them and call them fluff, he would still have 15 content posts which is more than half the players in the game have posted total.
Now, I currently don't have Rhinox in the top of my suspects, so I will address his wagon. Almost every case on him has AtE and WIFOM as the major component. OK. For me, I try not to count scummy actions multiple times (if something is done 6 times vs. 3 times, it is not scummier). If somebody posts enough times and AtE/WIFOM are part of their nature, they are going to have multiple offenses. I have many of the same 'tells' listed for Rhinox as others have expressed, but they are not conclusive enough for me. Part of my problem is that I have busted scum before for using appeals to emotion. Felt great. I then played the person again and lynched her again for similar reasons (Crywolf FYI). She was town that time. Turns out she just uses AtE excessively regardless of alignment. This has knocked it down a notch on my scum-tell list
For RC, I see a diverse number of scummy actions. To address the "what purpose would his play serve as scum", you have to look at the progression of his posts. A large portion of his posts were made in defense of his initial actions. Once called out that his posting was scummy, scum really would be forced to either commit to it 100% or backtrack out of it. Spyrex accuses Pops of 'hiding in plain sight'. Is the same not possible for RC? I admit the biggest doubt in my mind is why RC would play as he started after I was accused of being scum for discussing SK.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Those are 2 different concepts you are lumping together. The first sentence is why I see him as scummier and the scummy actions I have previously outlined in detail - was not trying to repeat them here. The 2nd is a response to a statement. You don't know how I have organized my rankings of scum, but I will tell you that I only counted RC's repetition of the SK talk as one offense.Jahudo wrote:
If you think his continued and repetitive defense of his initial actions is scummy, how is that different from a scummy action committed multiple times?bionicchop2 wrote:For RC, I see a diverse number of scummy actions. To address the "what purpose would his play serve as scum", you have to look at the progression of his posts. A large portion of his posts were made in defense of his initial actions.
In my experience, 5 occurrences of 1 scummy action by a player < 1 occurrence each of 5 different scummy actions.OhGodMyLife wrote:
Thats silly.bio wrote:I try not to count scummy actions multiple times (if something is done 6 times vs. 3 times, it is not scummier)
Rhinox has never been lynched in a game nor been under significant pressure, therefore he does not have ANY meta on how he responds to pressure. AtE is one of those things I have trouble with. It always feels scummy, but I think it is less often telling of a persons alignment than it is just a reflection of the person.OhGodMyLife wrote: And it is nothing like your example with crywolf - AtE isnotpart of Rhinox's meta.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I guess you haven't been reading too closely then. There have been multiple discussions about assuming the worst case scenario for games. In this case, the range of scum is 2-4. Mafia role PMs are written for 2-3 mafia and there is a possibility of 1 SK.Rishi wrote:
Will respond to other points later, but did I miss something? Why are we assuming four scum in the game? In a setup like this, three is normal. We get four scum if there's three scum plus a serial killer or two scumgroups of two. But how can someone know that if not a member of one of the groups?Rhinox wrote:and assuming 4 scum in the game.
Will wait for an explanation before switching my vote, but this looks like a genuine slip to me.
How would this be a scum slip? How would a person in either group be able to determine there are 4 scum? A sk, could only guess if there are 2-3 mafia and mafia could only guess if there was a SK. Neither group has any way of determining the possibility and more than a town player would.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
Let's delve further into the mind of Spyrex. I think it can be productive. Comments and questions in whatever order they pop into my head:
1. I won't completely dismiss the idea of Pops-scum since I do feel you are a solid scum hunter and I currently feel you are town. I feel it may be driven by his play style. The tough part is that he has a play style that would be very easy for him to carry into games when he is scum, especially if people accept it as his norm.
2. Since you have put a 33% chance on your 3 top suspects all being scum, I would be curious to know your 4th suspect if you have a clear one.
3. I need to update my Rishi notes now that he has posted a little more, but he is neck to neck with RC in my mind. Having fewer posts leaves me with less identifiable reasoning behind my suspicions of him though. Maybe this is an avenue worth pursuing.
4. I see I am not the only one who notices Jahudo floating around. Asking nice little questions, but not expressing any strong opinions. I can't find many things 'scummy' per se, but worth noting.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
1. This part just seems silly.Jahudo wrote:
Are you agreeing that pops could be more likely scummy than Huntress, or are you agreeing that imausername could find pops more scummy than Huntress? If the former, is that a change of opinion from your previous post or is your suspicion of pops about the same as your suspicion of Huntress?bionicchop2 wrote:
I might agree with that.iamausername wrote:Rishi > pops > Huntress, I'd say.
Would I really post to say, "Yes I think you might think that way"?Jahudo wrote:or are you agreeing that imausername could find pops more scummy than Huntress?
2. Both Huntress and Pops are muddled in the majority of semi-suspect people. Earlier in games, I tend to lean towards players who post less as more likely to be scum if two players are close in scumminess. My initial post probably should have been clearer in the seperation. Rishi>>>>>>>>Huntress>Pops.The above written statement is pro-town.-
-
bionicchop2 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3069
- Joined: March 12, 2008
I wasn't sure if I should go this far, since I am entering into 'defending the actions of another' territory. Always a slippery slope. Anyway, I think this should be on the table since the biggest knock on Pops is his joking and fluff. I originally had Pops high on my rankings for the same reason, which pushed me into my next level of investigating.
Link to Pops-scum
Link to Pops-town
Can he change? Yes, sure. From what I saw though, it looked like Pops-scum knew his normal playing is going to draw too much attention. He took a very straight forward approach to the game. Since the game ended with him winning for his team, I don't see much incentive for him to change course and try the riskier approach of joking/fluff pops-scumThe above written statement is pro-town.