Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Isacc]

I super apologize. Give me one more day to post, I got loaded with surprise economics homework tonight.

I will make a big PBPA on the posts since my last content post, tomorrow.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Along similar lines, I will have multiple band-related events through the end of the weekend; if you don't see me posting, that's probably why. (High school band in Texas = lots of work, especially with contest season approaching fast. Add in that I'm in another band that's taking a trip to Louisiana this weekend, and... yeah.) I will have content after Sunday, though.

[Walnut]

I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

BB, if you are town, would you not have three jobs:

1) To find the anti-town factions (as you say).
2) To present your case in such a way that other town players also vote for them (which is what you described magnus as failing to do in a previous game).
3) To not appear so scummy that the town targets you instead (obviously being lynched as a townie can be ok depending on circumstances)

What do you think- is that list about right?

[Nocmen]

There's a whole lot of active lurking going on this game.

I, for one, am starting to get annoyed at it.

I'm suspicious of all of you who are posting things like "I'm bored" or making these short posts. It doesn't really help your case either that you're not contributing anything on your own to the game as well.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

Hm... I don't think my posts have been generally short. Your attack on me is generally unfounded, but if a "bored" comment bothers you that much...*Smiles wickedly before cutting into my arm in a kind of writing*
*As blood pours down my flesh, I turn to Dour*

@Dour: My percents are a method of attack, not a play style. My mafia game might be flawed, but my town game is still strong.

*turns to caf19*

Who I'm hunting is difficult to read. I dunno if I'm easy to read or not. I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

*Still writing in arm, turns to Nocmen*
One second...

*beat*

Done.

*Shows writing carved into arm*

OMGUS Vote Nocmen

*Collapses*
Ow...this hurts...so not worth it.

Wait...do you actually have reasons for doing so, or just randomly OMGUSing me?

[Kairyuu]

Flame has had to request replacement due to personal issues. I'll get right on that.

[magnus_orion]

Um, what? I found something I believed was telling, and I exercised my only tool for applying pressure (a vote) and noted said fact. I didn't go out of my way to ask for others' opinions... I explained my point and use of vote.

Oh, really? Yet you feel no desire to ask me questions? If you believe I'm scum, you should try and gather information out of me. Find the scumbuddies of mine that theoretically should go along with this belief. Besides, I wasn't saying that you were trying to look for other's opinions, but rather that you were trying to convince people of your opinion.

Um, what? I'm VERY OK with polite and civil... matter of fact, I tend to go after people who go out of their way to be rude as a policy because I believe rudeness in mafia games should be discouraged. And, for the record, "IMHO" isn't vague; it's an acknowledgement of the preceding statement being opinion rather than established fact. In this case, it literally translates to "In my opinion, this point is worth applying pressure with a vote."

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

Post 119 is somewhat strange in general, though, as it constitutes another flip of opinion back to suspecting Noc again. In accordance, it appears that your previous retraction of Noc-suspicion was a 'test' to see how people reacted, with the correct response being to suspect you for it... so the suspicion of Noc was a test, and then the non-suspicion of Noc was a further test? How am I to know that this most recent FoS of Nocmen isn't another test, as opposed to being genuine this time? Constant application of these 'tests' basically puts you in a position where you can change your opinion to anything you want, in the vein of "Oh that last post was actually a test and you failed!" I would prefer a more transparent approach from you.

Not so much a test. After the first suspicion of nocmen, the following will, more often than not, be my true feelings on subjects. Walnut's post changed my opinion about him. I changed my mind, which shouldn't be a foriegn experience to anyone. Also, I'm usure as to why altering one's feelings about who is scum is bad. I'd think it worse to remain consistant. Afterall, that allows scum to predict your suspicions to better choose their nightkills to influence said suspicions.

That said, I still look at how people react to what I do and try to pick out their actions, because I know I may be wrong, and have tendencies toward paranoia as town.

So no, these were not "tests", but rather a switch in suspicion.
I currently believe nocmen and dourgrim to be scum.
However, I'm unsure of which to persue, as I have but 1 vote.

For now,
@Nocmen and Dourgrim: Comments on each other's play, please.

@BB: ??

[magnus_orion]

Mod: can you plz fix quotes in the above post?

Yep. Fixed.

[Nocmen]

Um, what? I found something I believed was telling, and I exercised my only tool for applying pressure (a vote) and noted said fact. I didn't go out of my way to ask for others' opinions... I explained my point and use of vote.

Oh, really? Yet you feel no desire to ask me questions? If you believe I'm scum, you should try and gather information out of me. Find the scumbuddies of mine that theoretically should go along with this belief. Besides, I wasn't saying that you were trying to look for other's opinions, but rather that you were trying to convince people of your opinion.

Um, what? I'm VERY OK with polite and civil... matter of fact, I tend to go after people who go out of their way to be rude as a policy because I believe rudeness in mafia games should be discouraged. And, for the record, "IMHO" isn't vague; it's an acknowledgement of the preceding statement being opinion rather than established fact. In this case, it literally translates to "In my opinion, this point is worth applying pressure with a vote."

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

Post 119 is somewhat strange in general, though, as it constitutes another flip of opinion back to suspecting Noc again. In accordance, it appears that your previous retraction of Noc-suspicion was a 'test' to see how people reacted, with the correct response being to suspect you for it... so the suspicion of Noc was a test, and then the non-suspicion of Noc was a further test? How am I to know that this most recent FoS of Nocmen isn't another test, as opposed to being genuine this time? Constant application of these 'tests' basically puts you in a position where you can change your opinion to anything you want, in the vein of "Oh that last post was actually a test and you failed!" I would prefer a more transparent approach from you.

Not so much a test. After the first suspicion of nocmen, the following will, more often than not, be my true feelings on subjects. Walnut's post changed my opinion about him. I changed my mind, which shouldn't be a foriegn experience to anyone. Also, I'm usure as to why altering one's feelings about who is scum is bad. I'd think it worse to remain consistant. Afterall, that allows scum to predict your suspicions to better choose their nightkills to influence said suspicions.

That said, I still look at how people react to what I do and try to pick out their actions, because I know I may be wrong, and have tendencies toward paranoia as town.

So no, these were not "tests", but rather a switch in suspicion.
I currently believe nocmen and dourgrim to be scum.
However, I'm unsure of which to persue, as I have but 1 vote.

For now,
@Nocmen and Dourgrim: Comments on each other's play, please.

@BB: ??

He has a whole 5 posts. I've commented about his post before. He's one of hte people that hasn't contributed much.

[PhilyEc]

Who I'm hunting is difficult to read. I dunno if I'm easy to read or not. I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions

OMGUS Vote Nocmen

Eh? Dude thats the biggest scumtell all game, an omgus under generally believable opinion and now you simply punish your suspector by returning the vote rather than looking past 'his mistake' and identifying true scum. I'm really susprised at this move to be honest, care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?

[Dourgrim]

Oh, really? Yet you feel no desire to ask me questions? If you believe I'm scum, you should try and gather information out of me. Find the scumbuddies of mine that theoretically should go along with this belief. Besides, I wasn't saying that you were trying to look for other's opinions, but rather that you were trying to convince people of your opinion.

First of all, I

am

currently gathering information from you via this conversation. I'm learning about your playstyle, your methodology, and your reactions to suspicion, whether

you

believe the suspicion to be valid or not. You don't always have to "ask questions" to learn about other players in a game of mafia, y'know.

Also, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the "scumbuddy" mentality in mafia. I tend to look at each player's play independently, and I don't generally pair players up until I'm sure of someone's alignment... and even then, I try not to limit myself to perceptions based on pairings, but rather the reactions of each player to the rest of the players, to votes as they're placed, etc.

Finally, if you develop a theory that you believe has merit, isn't it your

job

to try and convince the other players of its validity? If not, why play the game at all? Should we all just sit around and vote randomly? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

It wasn't you admitting bias... it was the perceived lack of conviction, and your sudden willingness to back down when attacked.

Everyone

in a game of mafia, regardless of alignment, has bias... if you don't, you're a soulless robot and probably shouldn't be playing at all (see "convincing others" above). I will admit, of course, that it can be difficult to have ironclad conviction about anything this early in a game of mafia, but I believe you're better off sticking to your guns a bit more than it looks like you did. At least then no one can accuse you of being too wishy-washy later.

For now,
@Nocmen and Dourgrim: Comments on each other's play, please.

I'll reread and give you an analysis of Nocmen tomorrow, I've officially run out of time here at work for today, sorry.

As an aside, thanks to Nocmen for trying to fix the quote tags for magnus.

[Riceballtail]

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

[magnus_orion]

Finally, if you develop a theory that you believe has merit, isn't it your job to try and convince the other players of its validity?

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

First of all, I am currently gathering information from you via this conversation. I'm learning about your playstyle, your methodology, and your reactions to suspicion, whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not. You don't always have to "ask questions" to learn about other players in a game of mafia, y'know.

Fair enough, I'll concede this.
However,

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you

for

suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

It wasn't you admitting bias... it was the perceived lack of conviction, and your sudden willingness to back down when attacked.

Once again fair enough.
However,

Everyone in a game of mafia, regardless of alignment, has bias... if you don't, you're a soulless robot and probably shouldn't be playing at all (see "convincing others" above). I will admit, of course, that it can be difficult to have ironclad conviction about anything this early in a game of mafia, but I believe you're better off sticking to your guns a bit more than it looks like you did. At least then no one can accuse you of being too wishy-washy later.

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

Reasons?

[Isacc]

Alright so let’s see here…PBPA

Posts 83-88: Primarily, Magnus and Noc argue over whether B_B is acting the way he did in the previous game, with Nocmen seemingly reading Magnus’s comments as “B_B is cleared from suspicion.” Odd there, but not relevant really. Personally, I’d have to say that B_B isn’t playing Drastically different or similar to our last game with him, mostly because I didn’t think lurking was part of his play, but more as busy (as he didn’t really lurk a ton after Day 1).

A few more posts of meta-analysis/discussion…

Post 93: Here is the start of the big “BB is undermining you Magnus!” argument that Walnut makes. This argument he makes bothers me, but I’ll get to it nearer to the end of said argument…

95: Caf makes an argument that is a decent counter to Magnus’s style. However, I can’t honestly find Mag scummy at this point, because I recognize his actions as his particular style. Whether it’s effective is another topic, but I think he is sincere in scumhunting thus far.

99: I find it odd that with a lot of things going on, Phil wants to let things develop more. Town unsure of how to read things, or scum unsure of what people will bandwagon on? Consider it noted.

101: Here’s where I reiterate: Is Magnus’ scumhunting strategy effective? Debatable. However, is this post an accurate description of how he has repeatedly described his scumhunting strategy? Yes. While I can sympathize with suspicions of his actions, as his scumhunting strat tends to be risky and suspicious, I vouch that he uses the strategy he describes here when playing as town.

Let’s note that I don’t consider him cleared. Just, as of yet, I haven’t detected any real scumtells.

103: Woops votecount and my random vote is still on. Lol.

Unvote

106: Hello SSK. Welcome to another game together.

111: Here’s one of the major comments that got my attention. Walnut has been strongly arguing this “B_B is undermining Magnus” stuff. He continues to argue (against Magnus himself) that Mag has been undermined by BB’s comments. This is suspect IMO.

Walnut

, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other? What purpose does it serve? If Magnus and BB both feel that each other have been honest and accurate, why are you so strongly pushing the contrary? This seems like an attempt to incite an argument between the two, and I do not see any relevance to scumhunting. Care to explain yourself?

113: This seems odd. There are a few lurkers in game so far, however BB is probably the most active of all the potential “lurkers.” Noc, why did you choose him to pressure, over say, Flame (

Mod: I don’t think he’s posted since confirm…prod please?

), Rice, Trumpet, or Dourgrim?

116: Laaame excuse. Better hold true to the promise of improving your content, or I’ll be looking back at this.

117: This post is bothersome. You note a problem with BB’s comment, but drop the issue immediately after mentioning. Also, your suspicions on Magnus beg this very important question:

Dour,

what do you think of Magnus’ explanation of his scumhunting style? This is very important.

119: Magnus’ argument about attacking “for being polite” seems like a complete misunderstanding of the argument being made. Coming from him, this isn’t too surprising.

His “more importantly,” however, is definitely notable. I will wait to post my stance on this accusation until Dourgrim answers my question.

The suspicion on Nocmen is more null in my mind. The interpretation is possible, but I don’t see a strong sense of his attitude swinging that way.

124: Lol, this is why I requested that Kairyuu get you into the game, if you hadn’t already signed up. You’re fun BB =P, one of my favs.

132: This certainly seems like a blatant attempt to not scumhunt. Noc, couldn’t you have easily analyzed those 5 posts?

133: Phily here ignores attitudes and seems to be looking at superficial face-value. Not a good thing to be doing. Does it seem logical that a scum (or anyone) would openly post an OMGUS and be serious? I saw his OMGUS as a joke, and a humorous retort to a tunneling-esque case. Idk, maybe BB will clear this up.

134: Dourgrim’s arguments are as I expected them to play out (not counting the first two paragraphs in this posts, which are mostly about playstyle). His counter-argument about the second quote follows what I meant when I said it seemed Magnus had misunderstood him. However, I still think my question needs answering, because frankly the way he answers should be more helpful than any of the reads this argument is giving me.

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

Summary:

Walnut and Dourgrim have sparked my interest. Answer the above questions, as it will help me better detect your alignment.

[Isacc]

Hmm...I think the questions I posted may be hard to find...here they are!!

Walnut, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other? What purpose does it serve? If Magnus and BB both feel that each other have been honest and accurate, why are you so strongly pushing the contrary? This seems like an attempt to incite an argument between the two, and I do not see any relevance to scumhunting. Care to explain yourself?

And,

Dour, what do you think of Magnus’ explanation of his scumhunting style? This is very important.

[magnus_orion]

@Issac: How are you feeling on Philyec (as in analysis of play so far)?

[Nocmen]

113: This seems odd. There are a few lurkers in game so far, however BB is probably the most active of all the potential “lurkers.” Noc, why did you choose him to pressure, over say, Flame (

Mod: I don’t think he’s posted since confirm…prod please?

), Rice, Trumpet, or Dourgrim?

What can I say, I take notice to people whose posting screams out they are lurking.

132: This certainly seems like a blatant attempt to not scumhunt. Noc, couldn’t you have easily analyzed those 5 posts?

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

[magnus_orion]

double post:

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

....?
135?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

There were sections in there?
I'm completely lost on how to read RBT.

[magnus_orion]

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

...
Anything to say about his posts NOT involving you?
ie. the rest of them

[Nocmen]

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

...
Anything to say about his posts NOT involving you?
ie. the rest of them

As of that time, the posts were 5 total, the first 3 which had little to no value at all, and the fifth that was merely an explanation of some of his actions.
His 6th post is to me, raising a debate of what your goal is to do in Mafia. He only has stated his playstyle there, and how it differs from yours. Though I am curious to see if he really will add more content as he claimed he would tomorrow.

Do you not like his mentality or take on Mafia?

[Isacc]

double post:

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

....?
135?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

There were sections in there?
I'm completely lost on how to read RBT.

Sorry, meant 136 (your post).

[Isacc]

@Issac: How are you feeling on Philyec (as in analysis of play so far)?

It seems like IIoA a lot of time, stating things that aren't really analysis or scumhunting but that rather are an attempt to avoid seeming like lurking. The few times he posted actual analysis content, I sensed a lack of sincere thought (post 133).

Summary: Definitely suspicious, however I am giving him a chance to improve his content and follow through on his promise of catching up.

[magnus_orion]

Yes, and of those 5 posts, there was only one that was worth commenting on, and I mentioned that I already commented on it.

...
Anything to say about his posts NOT involving you?
ie. the rest of them

As of that time, the posts were 5 total, the first 3 which had little to no value at all, and the fifth that was merely an explanation of some of his actions.
His 6th post is to me, raising a debate of what your goal is to do in Mafia. He only has stated his playstyle there, and how it differs from yours. Though I am curious to see if he really will add more content as he claimed he would tomorrow.

Do you not like his mentality or take on Mafia?

I'm not sure I understand what your asking me.

Huh. Your way of interpreting things interests me. Describe your own play to me, nocmen.
I don't care that the source is highly biased. How do you go about finding scum?


@issac: Yes, I agree, especially with the lurking bit.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

BB, if you are town, would you not have three jobs:

1) To find the anti-town factions (as you say).
2) To present your case in such a way that other town players also vote for them (which is what you described magnus as failing to do in a previous game).

3) To not appear so scummy that the town targets you instead (obviously being lynched as a townie can be ok depending on circumstances)

What do you think- is that list about right?

If 1 and 2 are successfully done, then 3 should be automatic. Only scum have to make a conscience effort to look town. (As do amateur townies, but I am not a novice. Not an expert, but not a novice.)

Wait...do you actually have reasons for doing so, or just randomly OMGUSing me?

I don't think your vote is a threat, really, so I'm playing a game with you, yes. Thanks for being a good sport.

Who I'm hunting is difficult to read. I dunno if I'm easy to read or not. I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions

OMGUS Vote Nocmen

Eh? Dude thats the biggest scumtell all game, an omgus under generally believable opinion and now you simply punish your suspector by returning the vote rather than looking past 'his mistake' and identifying true scum. I'm really susprised at this move to be honest, care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?

Guinea Pig! *Takes scalpel, and cuts open the rib cage* After I cut the aorta, I wonder how long you can watch your heart beat before you die...hm... so many questions:

Seriously though, you're proving my point.

Isacc's post: I knew you would get it. Go ahead and ruin the sick, twisted joke. Now, as for the point of it:

Scum, if the object of a joke (which ends in there being voting) causes their percent to be raised by 1% (at least on day one) if they over react. In other words, if Nocmen has posted something similar to PhilyEc's post, I would have found him the slightest bit more suspicious. However, I don't. He handled it well, in a town "I'm sure this will be explained" manner. (Though, not in those words, per se.)

Magnus is playing like himself, but I must admit, something is nagging me.

Dourgrim's play in this game also bothers me, but I'm afraid I must wait before I can say anymore on this.

[Walnut]

Walnut, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other?

I pointed out that a comment from BB that I thought undermined Magnus' credibility. I asked Magnus to comment on whether he thought it was valid and what he thought the purpose and impact of it was.

What purpose does it serve? If Magnus and BB both feel that each other have been honest and accurate, why are you so strongly pushing the contrary?

The continuation of it has been because Magnus thought I was undermining his credibility.

This seems like an attempt to incite an argument between the two, and I do not see any relevance to scumhunting. Care to explain yourself?

I thought it was appropriate for Magnus to be the one to respond to BB's comment, as it was regarding him. Not sure what you define as scumhunting- I observed a few things from that conversation.

@BB: I liked this answer:

If 1 and 2 are successfully done, then 3 should be automatic.

However, 1 and 2 aren't always successfully done, especially earlier in the game, hence the value of 3.

[Isacc]

Walnut you failed to

actually

answer the question. Why did you think it was important that Magnus' credibility was being undermined? Why did you think the issue was worth pushing? Repeating "because it looked like BB undermined Magnus' credibility," is not an answer. Please answer the question again.

Also,

I thought it was appropriate for Magnus to be the one to respond to BB's comment, as it was regarding him.

If this is so, then why did you keep pushing the issue when BB and Magnus both said it wasn't a big deal? It sure didn't seem like you wanted Magnus to respond to BB, because you weren't satisfied with that and kept arguing the case. In actuality, it seemed like you wanted Magnus to specifically respond

antagonistically

.