Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Jahudo]

I don't mind how the vote count is now. It's easily understandable to me.

Not quite sure exactly what you're saying here... can you rephrase for me before I attempt to answer? I don't see a correlation between my policy voting of self voters, and my rationalization (albeit, bad) for voting pops earlier.

I am only relating it because you said you would always vote self-voters. I think that by acting through policy you are not looking at the individual situation because your suspicion and rationalization was there before a player committed the self-vote. Even if you have a meta on a scumtell, there are always exceptions. By not looking at the individual situation, it tells me you are more concerned with putting a vote on the board than finding a way to prevent it.

In a practical application for our current situation, it may be that you rushed into the pops vote because it looked like something you had seen before and inherently knew to respond with a vote. But I don't know how strong your suspicions are. And, it looks like you gave some critical analysis by asking questions.

Also, I need clarification for why OGML FoS'ed you in post 86. In post 92 he called you out for policy voting but the quote he selected was you responded to pops's riddles and that seems unrelated to me.

I don't think its pre-emptive... I've been caught twice being contradictory WRT my vote on pops. The heat is not undeserved... My explanation for it (that I'd been playing like an idiot) was the result of being asked directly about my contradictions... so whats premature about it?

That's true that you had to alter your statements but I don't think you needed to apologize or give an excuse. You trying to diffuse the situation while you had, what 2 votes?, only makes me look more carefully at what you're trying to move past.

[RedCoyote]

Red's vote on Rhinox is weakly reasoned; he makes a valid point, but I don't see how that indicates anything at all about Rhinox's alignment.

Well, Rhinox is prone to misrepresentation, as is evidenced by his comments in posts 84, 93, and 99.

He's trying to tie me and pops together based on an artifical connection that he created.

My vote is better served on Rhinox at this point than it is on Rishi (which was originally a RV) or on no one. Do you disagree with that?

---

What about no kill?

Which is why, in my mind, it's asinine to say, "omg don't worry about SK we will worry about that at a later, undisclosed date... >.>"

But on D1, there's no reason for us to make any calculations about how many scum there are.

I flatout disagree. I mean, you might as well make the argument that "well, we can't lose on D1 regardless... let's just lynch on page 1".

The more scum there are, the more connections we have to be on the watch for. I don't have to tell you that people interact with each other differently based on knowledge they have.

If that's the case, then wouldn't you think contrasting, say, a discussion between Player A and Player B Day 1 and a discussion between the same two players Day 2 could aid the town in figuring out if one of them knows something that we don't?

For me, yeah, it is important that this town is willing to say that it's probable there is an SK around so I know that the town will be on the look out for this sort of interaction.

If we don't realize this as soon as possible (e.g.

Day 1

), then we're already at a disadvantage.

Putting things in quote tags = actual quote.
Putting things in quotation marks = paraphrase.

That's the way I tend to work it.

Ditto.

Do you think we should be discussing night actions before we end this day?

I absolutely do not think we should take that option off the table.

I was just in a game where we did hypo(thetical) claiming letting everyone know who we would visit if we were so-and-so role. Everyone did it and we came up with an interesting system for doing so.

I'm not necessarily saying this would be a good idea for this game

, but I am saying that we should keep the option open.

---

How will this talk about the SK help us catch scum - any scum - today?

If that was your actual question then perhaps I misunderstood you earlier.

Essentially, it's my opinion that forcing the town to talk about the SK may help the mafia, but in general I think it's good practice to talk about all roles and their implications to the game regardless of what day it is.

That's always pertinent to the game itself and it always helps us poke one another for theories about what is taking place. You tie this in with night actions, all of a sudden you see a couple of strange kills for Day 2.

Okay, bionic died. bionic didn't particularly have one of the more forceful opinions on the SK discussion,

Actually let me stop right here and I will pick up later (possibly over the weekend) I need to get off the computer for a while because of some real life issues.

[Rishi]

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.

Ridiculous. Some people did remark on how MME didn't vote or do anything but confirm. You're talking as if I am dredging up something from weeks ago. It had been a relevant discussion in this game. I was making my first post. I had something to say about it.

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.

Wow. You seem to be having reading comprehension issues in this game. I said that the content-to-text ratio in this game is low so far. I didn't say there was no content. There was a lot of fluff, though. There's becoming less fluff, though, so I'm not still saying this.

When something is paraphrased / interpreted, it is implicitly understood the person did not make that exact statement.

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.

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.

My intent was not to say that theory discussion is pointless, but that it can't be all that we're doing. I think certain players, like RedCoyote, were avoiding any real issues in this game and avoiding making accusations. You can discuss some theory, but if you're doing nothing but discussing theory, you're just spinning your wheels.

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?

All right. What I said may have been a little unfair. What I was worried about was that you were trying to invalidate my line of questioning, so that when it came around to RC again, it would be a non-issue. Since RC answered the question, it's hardly relevant now.

Also, I said I didn't find bio scummy - not that I didn't find him suspicious.

I don't know if anyone else questioned this. What's the difference between scummy and suspicious? This is bordering on doublespeak.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that you play the game the same way whether there is one or two killing parties?

At this point, yes. In fact, the only time it really affects things is much further down the line, when lynching one particular faction might give a win to the other. Also, once any scum are dead, it's helpful to look for connections, but we're not at that point yet.

Here's my issue with you, you're running around saying, "Hey, guys! We might have an SK! We should take that into consideration!" But, as far as I've seen (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), you have not offered one specific suggestion on what we should do to account for an SK. Okay, if we're supposed to play differently based on an SK, then HOW should we play differently? That's why it seems like you're creating a lot of noise but not providing any content.

You still said there was a whole lot of nothing and you mean content, so do you think people are making mountains out of moth hills (or however the phrase goes) with the suspicions on the first three pages?

Mole hills. To some degree, on the first three pages. There was some long posts on non-issues (and I don't have time to look back right now to give you specifics, but I can do this later if you want). Less so now.

[popsofctown]

[quote="Jahudo""i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't.”I can’t find her version of saying that.[/quote]

Huntress: Why don't you want to random vote?

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

This is after she said she wouldn't be randomly voting.

[Rhinox]

I am only relating it because you said you would always vote self-voters. I think that by acting through policy you are not looking at the individual situation because your suspicion and rationalization was there before a player committed the self-vote. Even if you have a meta on a scumtell, there are always exceptions. By not looking at the individual situation, it tells me you are more concerned with putting a vote on the board than finding a way to prevent it.

In a practical application for our current situation, it may be that you rushed into the pops vote because it looked like something you had seen before and inherently knew to respond with a vote. But I don't know how strong your suspicions are. And, it looks like you gave some critical analysis by asking questions.

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, and i think its a fallacy, but I can't think of the name.

Basically, you're saying that because I say in some situations that I vote strictly out of policy, that means in all situations I must base my vote on a policy without considering context (i.e. Good townie book says Action A is scummy, always vote when a player performs action A).

First thing, this is something you shuld be able to easily verify or disprove by looking at my past games and seeing if thats how I act. You were in 2 or 3 of my 6 completed games, so it shouldn't be too hard to do.

Secondly, even if you found that all of my votes seemed based on some idea of a by the book policy, would that say anything about my allignment?

That's true that you had to alter your statements but I don't think you needed to apologize or give an excuse. You trying to diffuse the situation while you had, what 2 votes?, only makes me look more carefully at what you're trying to move past.

I really wasn't thinking about the number of votes I had... based on the situation, I think a "oops, my bad, wasn't paying attention, didn't remember what I said, sorry" type of response was very apprpriate... maybe you have more of a problem with the wordiness of my statement rather than the actual content?

@Red: I think our argument is at an impasse. I think the point Rishi and I are both arguing is that regardless of the # of scum, or the type of scum, today's lynch will be who we think is acting the scummiest. It won't matter if there are 3 or 4 total scum, or if there are 3 goons, 4 goons, 3 goons + sk, or 2 goons + 2 goons. Do you think our lynch choice, or our way of determining our lynch choice should change based on assuming any setup with any number of scum?

I see your point about looking for connections, but the more its talked about, the more its subject to WIFOM... thats basically been my point since this conversation began. If any scum know you're going to be coming back to this point some time in the future to look for connections, then scum will go out of their way to make sure there aren't any connections, or set up false connections.

Maybe I just have a narrow view right now, but all i'm getting out of our back and forth is you saying, "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk", followed by me saying "thats not what I'm assuming, but how does assuming there is one help us?", followed by you responding with "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk."

I don't know if anyone else questioned this. What's the difference between scummy and suspicious? This is bordering on doublespeak.

Really? I think there is a clear distinction between scummy and suspicious. Its the nature of the game to be suspicious of everyone until we are given definitive reasons to believe otherwise. I would still be somewhat suspicious of even the most pro-town player in the game if they're not confirmed town, even if they never did a single thing I could call scummy.

Regarding bio, I'm suspicious of all the early talk about the sk, but i wouldn't call it scummy right now.

[popsofctown]

Vote: Rhinox

I challenged him on appeal to emotion, and more or less all i'm getting is him saying that that's the only defense he has for himself. Issues like totally misinterpreting me (ties in with "scum skim threads") and contradicting himself about his suspicions (ties in with scum aren't genuinely suspicious of anyone) are major issues. Appeal to emotion just makes it worse.

Someone earlier said took a shot at Korts(?) I didn't mean to attack Korts earlier, only his position on what kind of discussion is appropriate early-game. I think at the page content and development of content we were at, my fluffy analysis of BC was appropriate, the way we agree votes not based on much are appropriate early on and the same way, i think, Korts thinks random joke votes and jokes about those votes is good early on to start discussion. But if anyone implied i was trying to attack Korts himself, that's not what i intended and i hope he doesn't feel that way(?)

[Korts]

My vote is better served on Rhinox at this point than it is on Rishi (which was originally a RV) or on no one. Do you disagree with that?

No, that's true, if you state only that. My point is that there are far superior cases to be made and have already been. At this point, you putting a vote on Rhinox for a near nulltell smells of you being afraid to commit to a proper case.

I was just in a game where we did hypo(thetical) claiming letting everyone know who we would visit if we were so-and-so role. Everyone did it and we came up with an interesting system for doing so.

I'm not necessarily saying this would be a good idea for this game, but I am saying that we should keep the option open.

I'm assuming we're thinking about the same game. The difference between this game and that one is that that one is a fully open game with roles that are pseudo-investigative in a sense (they die if they target mafia) so claiming targets beforehand can help town. Here, it most likely only gives mafia a clearer picture of who is what role.

Essentially, it's my opinion that forcing the town to talk about the SK may help the mafia

If you concede this point, then what gives you the notion that it's still pro-town to talk about it? There may be some huge benefit to the town that I'm missing, but if you can't think of anything like that either, then I don't see any pro-town purpose in discussing this further. This quoted sentence with the follow-up of "but [...] I think it's good practice to talk about all roles [...] regardless of what day it is" is scummy in the sense that you acknowledge the anti-town effects and decide to knowingly ignore them.

Someone earlier said took a shot at Korts(?) I didn't mean to attack Korts earlier, only his position on what kind of discussion is appropriate early-game. I think at the page content and development of content we were at, my fluffy analysis of BC was appropriate, the way we agree votes not based on much are appropriate early on and the same way, i think, Korts thinks random joke votes and jokes about those votes is good early on to start discussion. But if anyone implied i was trying to attack Korts himself, that's not what i intended and i hope he doesn't feel that way(?)

Sure, I understand. But I felt that you understood my point quite well, yet intentionally misinterpreted it. You know exactly that I didn't mean conventional jokes (or riddles in this case), but rather non-serious reasons for votes.

[popsofctown]

I know.

But i'll take any chance i can to tell my riddles. It's fun making Rhinox's head sore.

I would say that me and Korts have very different playstyles (after ~not being with him in two games i can't comment on because they aren't completed.) I think i can read him better than he reads me though. Korts tends to be like "wtf what is this pops thing", but he's a rational guy so i can tell what he's doing and thinking. Not saying anything about alignments in all that. Oh noes!! the fluff not the fluffs!!! we will suffocate in the horrendous bunny fluffy fluffs and aaaahhhhhmmmmmmm....

[Rhinox]

It's fun making Rhinox's head sore.

My head was sore before your riddles

Vote: Rhinox I challenged him on appeal to emotion, and more or less all i'm getting is him saying that that's the only defense he has for himself. Issues like totally misinterpreting me (ties in with "scum skim threads") and contradicting himself about his suspicions (ties in with scum aren't genuinely suspicious of anyone) are major issues. Appeal to emotion just makes it worse.

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. What I have said is honest. I know you don't have a problem using wifom, so do you really think that it would have been beneficial for me to be THAT honest as scum? 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. On the other hand, I've seen townies be even more contradictory than I was, and were lynched for it... like I said, for what its worth.

[bionicchop2]

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.

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.

do you really think that it would have been beneficial for me to be THAT honest as scum?

Yes, it can be.

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.

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.

unvote rishi

- Last post appeases me for now

vote rhinox

. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.

[Rhinox]

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.

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.

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 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. All I can do is link you to a game where a townie was even more contradictory than I was just now... Mini 716

Look at Deuxime Octopus. There were many examples, but this was probably the worst/most obvious:

Here's my top 3 scum candidates. After this post, I suggest you lynch me, find out I'm a boring old vanilla townie (yes that's a claim) and then go after these scumsuckers in order:

1. zu_Faul

2. Rhinox

3. Joonster

The only reason I don't say Panzer is because I think it would be too obvious.

It would also be nice if you actually include reasons (I expect more than what I quote above) as to why I am supposed to be your number 1 scum-probable

Well, you brilliant man you, you may not have noticed that this was not an ordered list, and that - lo and behold - I did provide a reason!

this still makes me *facepalm*. Yes, DO was town.
------------------------------

vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.

Aparently nothing I can say to stop it, since my defenses are overrated

[Jahudo]

I was just in a game where we did hypo(thetical) claiming letting everyone know who we would visit if we were so-and-so role. Everyone did it and we came up with an interesting system for doing so.

I don’t really see the benefit since everyone would be lying part of the time and scum could lie just as easily here IMO.

There was some long posts on non-issues (and I don't have time to look back right now to give you specifics, but I can do this later if you want)

If you are referring to SK theorizing then I can see the connection in your opinion on that in other posts I guess.

"i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't.”

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

I see it now. Huntress never said “I just didn’t”, but it’s implied she knew she didn’t. Anyway, I agree that discussion concerning Huntress and her own contribution should move past this RVS event because I don’t think there’s anymore to be gained and she should catchup in other areas of discussion.

Also, I've gotten nothing from how people have acted towards MME in his absense so I don't think there's any bussing or distancing going on. Since he didn't say anything I don't think bussing or distancing would appear substantial enough to make any difference. But he should contribute more too.

Basically, you're saying that because I say in some situations that I vote strictly out of policy, that means in all situations I must base my vote on a policy without considering context (i.e. Good townie book says Action A is scummy, always vote when a player performs action A).

I did not try to correlate them as a fact for your gaming all the time, I just wanted to investigate it in this instance. I also said in that same post that there were factors going against this conclusion. You asked questions and your suspicion might not have been that strong as we are not that far into the game. But I do think that you may have leapt into the vote and it could have been a decision that was made by conventional wisdom as opposed to your own feelings.

First thing, this is something you shuld be able to easily verify or disprove by looking at my past games and seeing if thats how I act. You were in 2 or 3 of my 6 completed games, so it shouldn't be too hard to do.

Possibly. I’ll look into it if I think you are doing it later in the game when the stakes are higher.

even if you found that all of my votes seemed based on some idea of a by the book policy, would that say anything about my allignment?

The attitude you take into follow up questions and suspicions would tell me more.

Its the nature of the game to be suspicious of everyone until we are given definitive reasons to believe otherwise.

How would you define scummy to go along with your usage of suspicious here?

[bionicchop2]

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.

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.

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.

The best defense for any suspicious action is a mountain of overwhelming town play to go alongside the action.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

vote rhinox. This is a good place for the first strong wagon of the day IMO.

Aparently nothing I can say to stop it, since my defenses are overrated

That is a little extreme, but I think you know that.

[My Milked Eek]

Router problems. Will be fixed by Monday normally.
Will download this topic, read during the day and post at my gf's tomorrow...

=/
I'm going to my gf's to post on ms...
I'm sad...

[popsofctown]

MOD: Blot out the answers to the riddles before MyMilkedEek downloads it. MME needs more stess and confusion in his life.

[Vi]

MOD: Blot out the answers to the riddles before MyMilkedEek downloads it. MME needs more stess and confusion in his life.

Is this a serious request? I'll consider it

[popsofctown]

Dead serious

[popsofctown]

gotta hurry though

[popsofctown]

I'll give you a replacement IOU. :DDD

[Vi]

Nah, I'll err on the side of being a responsible mod for a change. I'm doing enough unorthodox stuff as is.

Also, you pre-/inned for this game; you're already my replacement slave. (You replaced Person #7 on in the Mini Normal Queue pre-emptively.)

[popsofctown]

Wait, what? I don't remember doing that. My mind is under Vi's control.... aughhhhh!

[Huntress]

I've got a bit behind with this over the last couple of days. I'm re-reading and will post something tomorrow. At the moment RedCoyote is looking like a good prospect for a vote but that may change as I continue reading.

[Vi]

Vote Count:

Rhinox (L-3) ~ Jahudo, RedCoyote, popsofctown, bionicchop2

popsofctown (L-4) ~ Korts, iamausername, SpyreX
Korts (L-6) ~ OhGodMyLife

bionicchop2 (L-7) ~

popsofctown

Rishi (L-7) ~

bionicchop2

Minimum (L-7)

Not Voting:

Huntress, My Milked Eek, Rishi, Rhinox

First Deadline Review: Feb 14 2009
Current Deadline: Feb 18 2009

-----

I'm letting pops' vote from 130 go through without an unvote... partly because I did the same for SpyreX yesterday.
It really does help me keep things straight if you unvote though.

I'm getting good at posting vote counts at the bottom of every page.
That's just my luck at work. I try to post a vote count once a day around this time.

[popsofctown]

Korts, why are you voting me again?

Rishi: Is my case against Rhinox valid enough for a vote? Is Korts' and iamusername and rest of

crap

wagon's arguments valid enough for a vote on me?

[SpyreX]

You know whats funniest to me about this last page of information?

We've got a now growing wagon on Rhinox getting pushed on an appeal to emotion... which, sure, could be true but what is the initial issue(s) that the appeal is covering?

I'm still not seeing that.

On the flipside, we've got pops who has managed not to mention me by name (yet referenced my call on fluff AND my note of his poking on Korts) - whereas earlier interactions with people holding supsicion was followed up directly.

In fact, lets look at this last post:

Rishi: Is my case against Rhinox valid enough for a vote? Is Korts' and iamusername and rest of crapwagon's arguments valid enough for a vote on me?

Why the specific talk to Rishi?

Why mention Korts and username and leave me oddly out, once again?

What, exactly, is this case against Rhinox? What changed from "Don't really get an alignment vibe from him" to pushing a wagon on him?

These are serious questions. This behavior is reaffirming my belief and my vote.