Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[Raskol]

/confirm

[Raskol]

(Having to have votes at the end of the post is going to a bit strange)

Those of you who don't already have them on your wiki page: could you post links to some/all of your completed games?

For being the first to post in the game:

Vote: Scien

[Raskol]

No, just a random vote. Posting first means nothing as far as I know.

[Raskol]

Raskol, what do you hope to do with these game links exactly? Do you feel you can get an effective meta of every player in the game? Who have you already played with from this list?

I plan to look through them, yes. I'm not looking to form a detailed meta on everyone so much as get a general idea of what to expect. I may want to look into specific people in more detail later on, though.

I've played with SerialClergyman, no one else. I read a lot of games, though, so I've seen some of you play.

[Raskol]

Last time I saw someone get worked up over an obvious joke in RVS, they were scum.

Last time I caught someone doing something I found scummy in the RVS, I voted for them.

[Raskol]

Last time I saw someone get worked up over an obvious joke in RVS, they were scum.

Last time I caught someone doing something I found scummy in the RVS, I voted for them.

Last time Troll saw someone hammer it was scum. That no makes hammering something Troll finds scummy.

Of course not. But then, you didn't mention that fact after someone hammered as a prelude to some probing questions. ekiM did. Now, the context and timing of his remark may have just been a grand coincidence, but I find it more likely that ekiM intended to raise a bit of suspicion. Maybe not a lot, but enough to override a random vote, I'm sure---so it's worth pointing out that his actions don't match with what he seems to be doing, at least at this point.

So you're voting him because he made an action, and all actions have motives, and some motives are scummy motives? Do you not see the problem here?

I'm going to ask you a similar question---your vote on SerialClergyman was placed, you said, because bandwagons are good. (I agree with that, btw). Don't you think bandwagons on people who've made plays you find irrational are even better, though?

Your vote could easily have been placed on Scien right now to bring him up to 2 votes, which is as high a threat level as SerialClergyman is now at, giving you your early game bandwagon just as surely as your SC vote does now---why wasn't it?

Here's hoping for some answers.

unvote

Vote: ekiM

[Raskol]

I read the second part of your post as well. It's not the fact that ekiM's pushing on Scien that I have a problem with---that part I understand---it's that he's not putting his vote where his attacks are going. I'm reading that as at least somewhat suspicious, especially when he still has his random vote on.

[Raskol]

The above was for Zorblag

Raskol --- because I'm trying to discern Scien's thinking and motivation.

I don't feel the need to vote for everyone I'm questioning.

At a later point in the game, I'd agree with that completely. As it is though, you have your random vote on despite raising suspicion of someone who's not your random vote. My expectation of town players is that they'll put their vote on the person they find most scummy relatively quickly after deciding that they find them the most scummy. I find scum more likely to do otherwise.

So...do you think Scien's play would make a vote on him even the slightest bit better than a random vote, or not?

[Raskol]

I place enough importance to override my previous random vote. As little as there is to go on in the early stages, a vote based on little is always better than a vote based on nothing. That goes for ekiM with Scien and it goes for me with ekiM. The standard of evidence will shift as the level of evidence shifts---you may not see a pressing need for a vote this early, but there are at least some good reasons for doing so.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason for town to hold a vote back if they think it's even slightly better than the one they have on now. I can think of a few reasons scum might have, though. So yes, it's worth pushing on until I've got something better.

[Raskol]

I don't think Scien is meaningfully more suspicious than any other player at this point, so I'm not placing a "real" vote on him. Thanks.

Do you think it's unreasonable of me to think otherwise, based on your recent interaction with him?

On the other hand, I don't see any reason for town to hold a vote back if they think it's even slightly better than the one they have on now. I can think of a few reasons scum might have, though.

Please expand.

Reasons scum have for holding back a vote when raising suspicion on a player

:

-waiting to gauge support before firmly committing to a wagon
-plausible deniability if such support is found lacking, or if the attacks are questioned ("I didn't

really

find him suspicious!")
-distancing a buddy without putting them closer to a lynch

Reasons townies have for holding back a vote when raising suspicion on a player

:

-they've got an even better vote that they don't want to switch off of
-laziness
-?

[Raskol]

I'm not sure what answer you're hoping for here. I generally investigate before I draw conclusions, not the other way around.

I found his moves questionable, so I questioned him. Having done that, I don't think he's suspicious enough to warrant a real vote.

I'm looking for the honest kind of answer. Like, "Yes, I did find him at least somewhat suspicious, and did question him in a way that I knew would tend to make others more suspicious of him as well." You are free to follow that up with "After questioning him, I no longer find him suspicious."

Keep in mind, though, that from my point of view you have cast suspicion on someone without voting them and then denied being suspicious after having been questioned about it. This is minorly scummy-looking, and you're my best vote at the moment. Of course, at this stage in the game it doesn't take much for someone to be the most suspicious. What you've done isn't a huge deal, just the closest thing to one that's happened yet---imo. Which reminds me...

The problem might be that you're suffering from "I need to be sure someone is scum before I vote for them" syndrome---a terrible disease that sometimes afflicts overly cautious townies (and unfortunately, more often, overly cautious scum). The thing is, you don't really need to have a great reason for voting someone---you just need to have better reasons to vote for them than you do to vote for anyone else. Taking a position early on and backing it up with a vote is super-awesome and extra-town and everyone should do it. I would have thought someone who advocates early bandwagon would understand that.

[Raskol]

SerialClergyman---do you think the RVS has ended yet? If so, where did it end, do you think? If not, what would you take as a sign that it's ended?

[Raskol]

I don't need to be sure someone is scum before voting for them. But I need more than something I've decided is effectively null. Placing a vote for a null reason is worse than placing a random vote, in my opinion.

At what point did you decide that the points you were making against Scien were effectively null, then?

[Raskol]

Amished---it's okay, you have enough material on your Wiki for me to work with. I was asking primarily for games from those who don't have pages.

WRT meta---I don't use meta for cases, generally speaking, nor do I either use or accept meta defenses. I think it's more useful than you give it credit for, though. In order to fake a meta tell, someone has to be conscious of it---and most people would be surprised how little of their behavior they're consciously aware of. There are other reasons why meta is useful, too, but I won't go into those. As for time spent in thread vs. out, the things I look for don't generally take long to find, and I wouldn't read other games at the expense of this one in any case---anything I do will be after my inthread time here, not instead of it.

[Raskol]

3) Raskol's 38 seems like a weak attempt to cast suspicion on something that's not inherently scummy; especially at this point of the game. Counterpoint to your {Raskol's} argument: If I find every "lurker" suspicious for not posting yet, should I then vote all of them? It's not going to affect anything.

I expect votes to be placed when there's a need for a vote. If people are active and will answer questions you post to them, don't really need a vote. If they do something so scummy you don't think that they could be town, sure, go ahead and vote. If they're avoiding questions deliberately or unintentionally, go ahead and vote. But if you think that somebody needs questioning, but you don't really have an overall scum-vibe from them; ekiM's reaction is just fine.

-Of course it's weak. As multiple people have said so far, there's little to go on in the early stages. If we wait until we have something serious to go on before we begin scumhunting, though, we never will. Not everyone can hang back and watch, or there never will be anything to watch.

-Yes, if you find it even slightly suspicious then you have better than random reason to vote all of them. You can't, though, so I would accept a vote on any one of them. I wouldn't accept as townie-rational a vote on someone you had no suspicion of when there was someone you did have suspicion of, though.

-You say it won't change anything. I disagree. It may not be game-shattering, but there are several reasons it helps.

1

: it commits and locks you into a pattern of voting that does not hurt town but can hinder scum, at the very least making it slightly more difficult for scum to maneuver the way they would like.

2

: Although it may not be a lot, every vote you place adds a little pressure and solidifies your seriousness in suspicion. People respond to votes, even weakly reasoned ones, differently than they respond to voteless questioning.

It's better than nothing.

[Raskol]

@Raskol: what do you think about AGar's recent unvote?
After which exact post did you start to find ekiM suspicious?

---I would prefer that he form an opinion about what's going on and vote accordingly, if he thinks enough has happened that votes need no longer be random.

---Post 36.

[Raskol]

I agree that PZ needs to get serious pretty quick. I'd like to hear him unequivocally let us know whether his vote is anything more than just an early bandwagon vote, and if so, what the reasons are. That should eliminate the problem of being unsure whether he's trying to leave himself open for shirking responsibility for it later.

I'd also like to see everyone either explain the reasoning behind their vote (unless they have already), or if there isn't any reason, find a reason to vote for someone and vote for them. At the very least, I think everyone should at least begin making clear efforts to show that they're working towards a position. The deadlines for this game are short, and we don't have a hell of a lot of time for feeling things out or joking around. People need to start taking positions ASAP---we'll need them later on.

[Raskol]

Well, there's a slight problem with that, Sando: you're not voting for anyone.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm willing to say I think you're fence-sitting. How scummy that is will depend on how long you continue it.

[Raskol]

To be fair, I think I can see what people might be hung up on, but I'm not sure I agree that it's voteworthy.

Guess I'll wait and see if it's the same thing PZ is on---or if PZ even has anything at all. That's not to say I'll be sitting on my ass in the meantime.

Speaking of which: I'm glad to hear you bring up scumhunting, SC. Care to do any of your own? As far as I can tell you've mostly been joking around. I think that might indicate a lack of a desire to scumhunt on your part as well =P

[Raskol]

Guess I'll wait and see if it's the same thing PZ is on---or if PZ even has anything at all. That's not to say I'll be sitting on my ass in the meantime.

Congrats on finding a way to say 'I'm awaiting PZ's case with fervour' while still directly addressing my point about scumhunting in the meantime lol

Yeah, that part and the next part were connected. I really do await PZ's case with fervour, but that's not to say that I'm not scumhunting in the meantime, see what I'm saying?

Anyway, could you let me know how the vote-hopping could be scummy? I'm having a hard time thinking of ways it could be. I'd be willing to give you more scumhunting points if you could help me out there.

Also, I would appreciate seeing you at least try to jump at shadows as accurately as you can. D1 isn't easy for anyone, but later days are easier if we all give our best shot at the shtick. I don't like when people make excuses for themselves like that, anyway---it makes me a bit itchy.

[Raskol]

I don't mind trying to find a couple of people you don't want to lynch. In fact, I do that too. But if you're trying to convince me that lynching randomly among the rest is the best way to do things, you've got a long way to go and little hope of success. Moreover, even if you could somehow convince me that scumhunting D1 won't help our D1 chances, you'd still need to jump at shadows. Everyone's attempts to find scum (or look like they're trying to) today will be one of the main things we will have to analyze on later days to increase our chances of hitting scum

then

.

IOW, meta-defense fails to convince. Roll differently. =P

[Raskol]

Raskol - I disagree fundamentally that you need chasing shadows scumhunting D1 to look for scum on D2. In fact, I think it obscures scum, because chasing shadows is EXACTLY what scum want to do. You can make anyone look scummy in a PBPA, yet people who do this are regarded as protown for no reason. Scum depend on being able to use such scumhunting to both get townies lynched and appear pro-town. And you can use town reads just as well as scum reads to determine alignment.

But in the end, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm telling you how I play the game, irregardless of your demands. If you don't like it and vote me because of it, you're playing badly, or at the very least policy voting someone for a very poor reason. If you disagree, fair enough, get on with the game.

Obviously scum has to pretend to scum hunt in order to get townies lynched, and look protown. The thing is, we have to be better than them and catch them in their fake. Not having people try to scumhunt doesn't make that easier---it makes it harder. If everyone failed to scumhunt D1, there would be nothing to go on, including nothing for you or anyone else to get town reads off of. What else do you suggest people do? Joke around? Do nothing but talk about theory?

IOW, your D1 playstyle, if you're town, relies on a hope that not too many other people will play like you---not a good thing to rely on. It also makes it harder for us to track you if you're scum. Neither is particularly good for town, so do me a favor and contribute to the thread with a real attempt at scumhunting and other alignment-relevant and connection-forming behaviors before we have a lynch. By all means, form your town reads and do what you normally do, p.o.e. and all---just do this on top of it. You may not see a reason to do it, but there is one---it helps the rest of the town track

you

. If you're innocent you have

nothing

little to fear.

[Raskol]

SC, what you don't seem to be getting is that it's partly about

creating

information. You scumhunt to get info so you can scumhunt. It's not at all impossible to out scum on D1, either. I've done it and seen it done, so don't pretend as if it's futile. On top of that, every player leaves behind a trail of attacks and defenses which will allow us to form connections later. It also forces people to adopt positions which they'll be responsible for. Telling us whom you'd rather not lynch helps in that regard, but it isn't enough. Sitting back and refusing to participate in the hunting-voting D1 wagon game until you've got a flip completely destroys all the D1 information that makes that flip useful in the first place.

That's all I'm going to say, though. If you do end up continuing to refuse to scumhunt, I won't try to force you. It will just make me that much more willing to lynch you. I'm not going to vote you for disagreeing with me alone, just letting you know that what you say you're intending to do sounds scummy to me, and it will move you up on my target list.

[Raskol]

No offense, but the approach that's appropriate for D3 is not the same as the approach that's appropriate for D1. Not to mention that the fact that scum can sometimes fool people in no way changes that we have to do the best we can to force them to do things that have the potential to get them caught.

I appreciate you not having any concrete reads at the moment, but you should have to do your part in getting us some concrete things to read!

Your D1 scumhunting doesn't have to be done in full certainty that your target is scum. It should be reasonable based on the evidence you have at the time---if that's not very much, then fine, but you should take the best you currently have to work with and use it like a wedge to split a rock---take a small crack and push into it until you've got a bigger one. It helps

zero

to just stare at it and say you can't do anything because you don't have a big enough crack to work with.

[Raskol]

First of all, nothing anyone did on Day three has any bearing on what would have been optimal D1 play. Second, the kind of thing you (and others) like to do on later days

relies

on people, everyone, generating the kind of information I'm asking you to provide. If there is no specific content then there are no general theories to be made. Do not think that you are the only player that forms big-picture game reads, or that what's involved in forming those theories is anything other than the same using-tells-and-connections-to-determine-alignments-and-possible-pairs strategy that I've been advocating all along, which you've called "conventional play", and telling you we need everyone's involved participation to get. Being able to form big-picture theories is an important skill for anyone to have---but it does not excuse you from helping to generate the content that goes into making those theories as well. You are not an observer, you are part of the game and your alignment is in question.

Second, and related, if you don't feel you have anything to go on that will get you a better than random read, then your first order of business is to go about getting information that will get you a better than average read. You don't sit around and wait for someone to provide you with that information. I'm not asking you to make things up---far from it. In fact, I would find that scummy and I think it's strange that you think that's what I'm asking. What I'm asking you to do is take the strongest evidence you currently have and work with it.

This goes not only to you, by the way, but you're currently the best person to be saying this to as you're actually responding to it. For what it's worth, I expect this out of everyone (each in his own way) and you're not the only one who isn't delivering at the moment.

[Raskol]

Who says you use it to make them seem more scummy than they were? You operate just like anyone who's trying to find the truth would---you form a theory, and you seek out to test it. If your'e wrong you're wrong, and you move on---now using your new interactions (which hopefully generated new content and more information) to generate a new theory, which you then test, and so on.

weak theory->test->evaluate->stronger theory->etc.

If you're going to assume that anyone who scumhunts is operating under confirmation bias or any other fallacies then of course you're going to think it will be ineffective. Give people a bit of credit, for god's sake.

[Raskol]

Sando, would you say that being asked for a read is your primary reason for voting Amished?

What do you see him as trying to accomplish by asking those sorts of questions, if he's scum?

[Raskol]

I don't even know where to begin with that, Sando. I have to say, I disagree that asking for people's opinion is scummy. Unless you seriously think that the only way to give your opinions is in a weak and useless way, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

As for your involvement in the game---you haven't done anything except whine about people accusing you of not being involved, and vote the person who's asked you specifically for content. That is not involvement. If you think giving a list of people with stupid unreasoned remarks about their alignment won't help the town, you're right---but that's not what you're being asked for. You're being asked for your thoughts on the game, and those will only be useless if you are.

[Raskol]

Just one problem, Sando---no one ever asked you for a stupid rundown post. You were asked who was scummy to you and

why

. No one has asked anyone for a rundown. So basically, as far as I can tell, you're getting really angry over something that didn't even happen. Amished asked you for opinions, you refused and made a big deal over it, making it into some big scummy thing. After thinking it over a bit, I'm not sure I see your behavior as scummy, but you're being antitown at the very least and I hope you'll start making your positions clear in whatever way you're most comfortable with---and as soon as possible, too.

As for my 'calculating misrep'--where did I say that was your only reason?

[Raskol]

Anyway, there are a lot of people I'd like to hear more from. It's not good to have a situation where there are 3-4 people taking up all of the conversation.

[Raskol]

@Raskol v SC D1 theory discussion--that's enough folks. Raskol, that's how he plays. He's not going to change it. 'nuff said.

Edit: Actually, since you continued to harp on the issue Raskol, do you think this a scumtell from SC?

No, not really. After we stopped arguing and I let it go, he essentially did what I asked anyway---which was to make a vote and a case on someone (ODDin), so I'm seeing it as him simply not wanting to do something "because I said so". I'm fine with him atm.

[Raskol]

After which exact post did you start to find ekiM suspicious?

---Post 36.

This was interesting because Raskol actually didn't vote Mike in his first post after this, although he was stating suspicion on Mike. Which, if I understand correctly, would go against the philosophy he was pressing and from inside which he was formulating suspicions.

Not really. I voted for him after I pointed it out and he still didn't vote: the first post I made was to point it out and remind him so I could see if he didn't vote simply because he overlooked it---if it had been a simple mistake it would have been completely null. But since it was deliberate, I voted for him.

WRT AGar---Searching through his games, I don't think the OMGUS vote can be regarded as a scum tell for him. He votes people who are voting him all the time as town---and never has done so, as far as I can find, as scum. I'll take another look at the specific context behind and reasoning for this vote, but I don't think the OMGUS portion of it means anything.

[Raskol]

VP, do you think that Papa Zito's SRS BSNS comment was intended to imply that he had a case?

If so, why?

[Raskol]

I have to say I agree with PZ on this. Early bandwagon is 'serious business' in its own right, and I don't think I have good reason to believe that he was implying anything other than that with his comment.

SC tinged my radar with his gameplay shenanigans, so I picked him as my Day 1 bandwagon. Getting the town moving and starting up pressure on someone is indeed SRS BSNS.

[Raskol]

[quote="SerialClergyman"ever had a game which stayed in the RVS for weeks because noone decided to do some stupid stunt?)[/quote]

Actually, yeah.

[Raskol]

Newbie 839

[Raskol]

Sorry for the inactivity, guys. I've been concentrating a bit more on one of my other games.

Reading through what's happened in the past few days, I don't think my vote on ekiM is doing much, and charlatan is looking good atm. I'm considering whether to move to ODDin or Sando at this point; I wouldn't mind either one of them for today.

[Raskol]

I'm looking at you for your votes. I'm not sure I like the way you backed up your vote for your latest target, and that has me looking at your previous vote as well.

That said, for ODDin and Sando, a question for both of you: if you had an awesome one-shot day-vig power that could only be used in thread right now, would you use it? Whom would you use it on?

[Raskol]

Sando ignored my question, which makes baby jesus sad.

Unvote

vote: Sando

[Raskol]

"And Raskol learned that he hated limited reveal, and he was depressed."-The Book of Mafia, Chapter 8 Verse 11

I'm going to have to do a re-reading of this game: I honestly have very little idea at this point. I hope to fix that and have something useful to say in the near future.

[Raskol]

Sorry about inactivity---I've had another game that's been taking up all my brain-thoughts and such (mini 872)---we were in mylo and a lot of very interesting things were happening; this game just hasn't caught my attention much in comparison recently.

I have done a re-read as promised, though. A few questions and comments for now:

-AGar---would you say it's usual for you to park your vote all Day? Were you that sure that ekiM was scum?

-I think ODDin's case on PZ is genuine (town read on ODDin). I don't think it's very convincing, but it feels genuine.

-Ojanen started an alternate wagon to the Sando wagon. +10 townie points for her. Not for the others, unless Amished flips scum at some point (nulltell for them, I think).

-I wish I'd done a few things differently yesterday, but one of the things I don't apologize for is my Sando vote. He was as good a lynch as anyone would have been, both in 'policy' terms and likelihood of being scum (as far as could be known then).

For now,

vote: AGar

[Raskol]

-AGar---would you say it's usual for you to park your vote all Day? Were you that sure that ekiM was scum?

It's less of that and more of I ended up being on V/LA for the 4 days preceding the deadline. I don't intend on repeating that feat this time around.

Where would you have put your vote if you'd been around, and why?

Ojanen

---What are your thoughts on VP Baltar and charlatan?

charlatan

---Top 2 or 3 suspects, please.

[Raskol]

PZ, your current top three scum suspects, please?

Also, what do you think about ABR/Amished?

[Raskol]

Oh wow, you're going to love this, VP:

I've asked to be replaced. I can't find any interest in mafia at the moment, and I think I'm going to be taking a break from the game entirely for at least a few weeks. I'm pretty burnt out.

I've been wanting to do this for a while now, but I held off thinking it would pass and I'd get back into things: I haven't. So, since it's not fair of me to force you guys to continue to put up with me if I can't motivate myself to get more involved, I think it's better that I give someone else a shot at livening things up a bit.