Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[MacavityLock]

Posting in all games: Hopefully short V/LA due to being down with a nasty fever. Trying to play Mafia when I can't fully concentrate is a bad thing.

Unvote

.

[GIEFF]

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

It may be your prerogative to play as you wish, but it is NOT your prerogative to tell other players they can't attack people for voting you for what seems to be bad logic.

I don't think accusing someone of being "too eager" is piss-poor at all, nor do I think it's scummy. If somebody tries to pin a case on somebody based on no substance at all (as I believe Panzer did to myko), then that really is being "too eager" and that poster should be called on it. Why do you think it's piss-poor play/scummy?

[springlullaby]

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

It may be your prerogative to play as you wish, but it is NOT your prerogative to tell other players they can't attack people for voting you for what seems to be bad logic.

I don't think accusing someone of being "too eager" is piss-poor at all, nor do I think it's scummy. If somebody tries to pin a case on somebody based on no substance at all (as I believe Panzer did to myko), then that really is being "too eager" and that poster should be called on it. Why do you think it's piss-poor play/scummy?

1. I'm not telling anyone how I think they should play, I am pointing out something that I think is scummy, and this is indeed my prerogative.

2. Put general considerations aside and examine the time at which djekha made that accusation at Dourgrim. Do you think Dourgrim's actions at the time qualify as 'too eager'? Do you think it was a justified attack on djekha's part?

I believe it was not.

[Dourgrim]

I would like to first thank everyone in this game for giving me a crash course in Mafia game theory. I've been away from this game for a couple of years now, and this game is reminding me of many of the things I once knew about being a good player, and a few things I've apparently never learned. No sarcasm here, this is a good first game back for me to be in. Thanks.

Also, I would like to thank Panzer for using the term "Dourgrim-esque" in a sentence... I'm not sure if I should be flattered or worried.

Leaving my vote where it is for now, I'll come back to the game tomorrow at work and see what I see.

[springlullaby]

What can I say, I think it's a little extreme to accuse someone right off the bat because of a joke in their confirm post and a joke vote as their first post. I think I've explained to Dour why I was suspicious of his reaction to both of those and no OMGUS was involved. As I said, it's my way of thinking and I think how he reacted to those was a bit much. I personally don't think it's scummy at all to think someones too eager when they go after someones confirm post. Not much other way I can say it.

And yet the conversation must start somewhere to end the random stage, and the throwing around of accusations is generally where it start. Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell in my view. Especially considering that I do not think Dourgrim's criticism of my play was extreme at this point of the game.

You say that there was no OMGUS involved in your criticism of Dourgrim, but what was your post in aid of then? It wasn't followed with a vote, nor was it accompanied by otherwise relevant POV on this game.

The way I see it, the only effect of your post was to pre-emptively defend yourself from any criticism that may have come your way for not posting early in the game.

[PJ.]

I must of not thought all that threw and probably didn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.

I apoligize for this misunderstanding.

I'm an exetremely aggresive play and sometimes I get ahead of myself.

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

Currently, I'm getting very bad vibes from Springlullaby and she seems to be far more eager then I am.

[springlullaby]

I would like to first thank everyone in this game for giving me a crash course in Mafia game theory. I've been away from this game for a couple of years now, and this game is reminding me of many of the things I once knew about being a good player, and a few things I've apparently never learned. No sarcasm here, this is a good first game back for me to be in. Thanks.

Also, I would like to thank Panzer for using the term "Dourgrim-esque" in a sentence... I'm not sure if I should be flattered or worried.

Leaving my vote where it is for now, I'll come back to the game tomorrow at work and see what I see.

This looks remarkably like the 'the newbie card', or more in this instance an 'oldie card'. It amuses me but I can't say that I approve.

[Goatrevolt]

Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell in my view.

Really? Scum want to get the conversation going? Why is that?

This looks remarkably like the 'the newbie card', or more in this instance an 'oldie card'. It amuses me but I can't say that I approve.

What bothers you about it?

[springlullaby]

Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell in my view.

Really? Scum want to get the conversation going? Why is that?

This looks remarkably like the 'the newbie card', or more in this instance an 'oldie card'. It amuses me but I can't say that I approve.

What bothers you about it?

1. So they can lynch someone. So they can appears to be scumhunting. Don't you share this view?

2. The slightly apologetic nature of it and the fact that it says about nothing game relevant.

[Goatrevolt]

1. So they can lynch someone. So they can appears to be scumhunting. Don't you share this view?

No, I don't. Useful discussion is anti-scum. Games where everyone lurks are the best for scum, because it's difficult to discern who is lurking town and who is lurking scum. Getting out of the random phase and into useful discussion is pro-town, because you get to the part of the game where you actually start catching scum. The only reason scum would push for that is to look town, not because it actually benefits them at all to promote discussion.

2. The slightly apologetic nature of it and the fact that it says about nothing game relevant.

Ok.

[PJ.]

I'm with Spring lullaby on the "Oldie card"

[dejkha]

And yet the conversation must start somewhere to end the random stage, and the throwing around of accusations is generally where it start. Town and scum alike want to start the conversation going, as such early accusation throwing is pretty much a null-tell

in my view

. Especially considering that

I do not think

Dourgrim's criticism of my play was extreme at this point of the game.

You say that there was no OMGUS involved in your criticism of Dourgrim, but what was your post in aid of then? It wasn't followed with a vote, nor was it accompanied by otherwise relevant POV on this game.

The way I see it

, the only effect of your post was to pre-emptively defend yourself from any criticism that may have come your way for not posting early in the game.

With the amount of times you implied you think a certain way, it kind of proves my point of personal preference. We don't all think like you do and obviously I thought otherwise in most, if not all, cases.

My criticism of Dourgrim was just that: criticism. I thought it was mildly suspicious, so I FoS'd him.

[mykonian]

Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. It

could

point to scum covering for each other.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to

FoS: mykonian

and

vote: Panzer

. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

My reaction on this part you didn't understand yesterday. While panzer was really starting the game with that accusation of him, you manage to make a scumtell out of it, and one good enough to vote him.

after this, GIEFF votes for a contradiction...

FoS GIEFF and Dourgrim

If someone makes an accusation in the random voting stage, that makes sense, then I can't see how you would exactly pick that person for looking for "contradictions" and "distancing". Abstract terms. contradictions: what do you expect from panzers first post? weak reason.

distancing: nice, early game. But is this the only explanation for that situation? that we are both scum? Two townies make the same posts just as easily. So plz don't look at relations till you know some peoples allignments, then it becomes usefull.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?

[ting =)]

I'm really sorry guys, but it's late in my time zone and I've only had time to skim through. I promise an actual post with actual thoughts on players tomorrow.

Till then - please no more theory discussion to the point that my scroll bar is a mere dash? A number of the posts in the past few pages seem to be only tangentially related to issues actually relevant to the game. Don't get me wrong, I think discussion is great, but I also think there's a point when theory discussion can drown out actual game discussion. We're bound to hit it soon-ish at this rate.

Also, I don't get what the beef against the 'oldie card' is. I don't see how it's indicative of alignment in any way.

[GIEFF]

mykonian, I agree it makes little sense to try to label attacks and defenses as deflection this early in the game. Yes, two players "could be" scum, and therefore their interactions "could be" deflection or bussing, but without any other evidence, that's an arbitrary claim that could be made about any two people int eh game.

What I don't understand, mykonian, is your FoS of me. It's because I voted for a contradiction? Are you referring to my vote of Panzer or my vote of Dourgrim? And what contradiction are you talking about?

--------

I echo ting's thoughts about the theory discussion. While it started off in actual game-related discussion, it's gone way past that, and is now just making it harder to read back.

--------

All I can do is attempt to scumhunt my way out of this whole I accidently put my self into.

If you really are town, what you should do is stop lying about your reasons for voting people, and yes, as you said, start scumhunting. If you do end up getting lynched today (which is by no means probable at this point), the more people you attack and interact with, the better for the town, as we can read back later on how people interacted with you.

I think you are scum because you lied about the way in which you interpreted mykonian's post. Are you still happy with your vote of mykonian? Why or why not?

----------

2. Put general considerations aside and examine the time at which djekha made that accusation at Dourgrim. Do you think Dourgrim's actions at the time qualify as 'too eager'? Do you think it was a justified attack on djekha's part?

Yes, I think they qualify as too eager. Yes, I think it was a justified attack.

Scumhunting and dragging the game out of the random-voting stage is good. Doing it for ticky-tack reasons is bad, especially when those reasons are inconsistently applied.

--------

I agree that Dourgrim's "oldie" card was a tad scummy, but not much. Unfortunately, the nature of this games means all statements that could be seen as buddying, compliments, or the like have to be viewed as potential scum-tricks. There is no need to apologize, Dourgrim.

[mykonian]

mykonian, I agree it makes little sense to try to label attacks and defenses as deflection this early in the game. Yes, two players "could be" scum, and therefore their interactions "could be" deflection or bussing, but without any other evidence, that's an arbitrary claim that could be made about any two people int eh game.

What I don't understand, mykonian, is your FoS of me. It's because I voted for a contradiction? Are you referring to my vote of Panzer or my vote of Dourgrim? And what contradiction are you talking about?

I was talking about your vote on panzer. First, based on overall play, I don't have the feeling that panzer deserves those votes. Then I looked at how those votes got there. First two votes because panzer is too aggressive, dourgrims vote for a null-tell. And you because you have found a "contradiction". Like that is a scumtell. You say that two statements panzer said cannot both be true, and so he must be a liar. It is "how-do-I-find-scum-in-three-days" and it doesn't work.

[GIEFF]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

[mykonian]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.

[GIEFF]

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.

But Panzer's vote wasn't random. Of course the lie isn't intentional; that's a silly thing to say. That's the whole point.

It doesn't need to have a great impact on the game. He was caught lying about his reasons for voting. That is a giant scumtell.

And yes, I can think of a reason a mafia would lie about the reasoning for his vote. As I've said before, townies don't have the information the mafia do, and so they actually use logic to try to figure out who to vote for and who is scum. The mafia already know who is mafia and who isn't, so all they have to do is FAKE logic, as their real reasons for voting are the knowledge they already possess. And when you fake logic, you get caught in lies, as Panzer was.

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

[mykonian]

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

assumptions: GIEFF knows something about the setup.
GIEFF wants to lynch scum.

logic: The fact that GIEFF knows something about the setup makes him antitown. Town doesn't know a thing.
GIEFF can't be scum, as he wants to lynch scum.

antitown + not scum + standard = SK.


But the assumption that a SK knows something about the setup is clearly wrong. The logic part is good. Scum can use logic, but as long as the assumptions are not right, the conclusion doesn't need to be right. And because you don't know a thing in this game, assumptions can be based on guesses.

[GIEFF]

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it. As I said in post 113:

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell. There is no reason for a townie to lie about the reasons for a vote, and to do so reveals the fact that the logic presented at the time of a vote isn't the actual reason for the vote.

[Dourgrim]

Well, apparently we're not quite ready to abandon discussion of game theory.

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

Therefore, what we seem to have here is an unprovable theory. There is no way whatsoever for someone to prove what another person believes or disbelieves, so how precisely can you decide who is lying and who is just not playing up to your standards? Example: Do you think I believed the logic I was originally using when I voted for you? How did you come to that conclusion? What factors might have changed your mind in this regard? And why exactly, when I conceded your points regarding the fallacy of my logic, did you insist that you believed I was trying to appease you rather than agree with you? What all this tells me is that your methods of finding "scumtells" via reading intent seem to be somewhat flawed.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

[subgenius]

First, I'd like to assure everyone that I am keeping up with thread despite my admittedly low post count. Having read through the last few pages, I feel like we are chasing our tails a little bit. I don't feel like I have a lot to add to the game theory discussion going on at the moment, but there are a few points I'd like to mention.

First, I'm still not a big fan of Macavity's vote on Panzer. According to post 81, he considers Panzer the leading suspect for both SK and mafia, which would seem to be a pretty dire accusation, one that would warrant applying some tough questions to Panzer, but Macavity has neglected to ask any questions of Panzer that would help him build a case. At best, I feel this is perhaps complacent town play, but I think it could also be an example of scum trying to appear aggressive without every presenting a trail of arguments or claims that could later be used against him. It's unfortunate that Macavity has been forced to take a short hiatus, but I would really like to know why he isn't a more active participant in the bandwagon on Panzer if he feels that Panzer truly represents the both most likely SK and mafia suspect.

One other trend that I notice is Dourgrim's penchant for explaining his habits without real prompting. In post 80 he describes himself as a verbose and visceral player who has a tendency to interject himself into different discussions and operates on hunches. In post 128 he mentions that he's been away from the game for awhile and might be a bit rusty on theory. I feel that this sort of preemptive defense indicates a certain kind of paranoia that a townie wouldn't have. I'm willing to dismiss post 128 at face value, but post 80 especially looks like a defense for an accusation that nobody had yet presented.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.

Please do.

why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?

Also, can you answer this?

I

must of

not thought all that threw and

probably

didn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.

I'm highly skeptical of the bolded words above. You're describing your own mentality, here, and regardless of whether or not you were wrong in what you did, you should be able to at least confidently describe your own thought processes.

Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?

I don't really have an issue with it, but I can understand the problem other people have with it. It can look like you're trying to create the impression that you are a less capable player and thus shouldn't be as closely scrutinized or punished for mistakes.

I echo ting's thoughts about the theory discussion. While it started off in actual game-related discussion, it's gone way past that, and is now just making it harder to read back.

I can agree with this.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

I disagree. I'd like to hear GIEFF's response to the last sentence, though.