Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[AGar]

Ok, maybe my post about activity came off as harsher than intended. I was somewhat frustrated that we have a lot of good active players and yet only about 1/3 of people were posting. I expected that given 48 hours was prod-able, there would be more activity.

I am not the activity warden, I've lurked through D1 before, and not posted for a while before, I don't mean to be overly critical, I just felt the game could use more participation than just the 4 players who were (lets face it) writing semi-walls about theory that noone else would read.

AGar - unlike Sando, I don't have a problem with giving my reads. What I object to is people asking me to tell them who is scum or who is town when I don't have a good enough idea yet. It makes me feel like I have to take a stance I don't believe in, or 'make up' reasons why they are scum, and I know for a fact doing that leads me to tunnelling and playing badly. So if someone asks me a question I don't have an answer to, like tell me who is scum, or place your vote on someone non-random, I can't give them what they want. Believe me, you'll hear a lot about my reads throughout the game.

For the first part - no worries. I was just letting people know. The past few games I've played have accused me of active lurking because I make a few bah posts or stupid posts in mishmash (I'm in Scumleague) but it's literally because those take 30 seconds, and my schedule is crammed into two days.

To the second - fair enough. I just wanted to know what the general debate was about. Thank you. Think I have some further ideas here.

[SerialClergyman]

Zorblag, any thoughts on alignments? So far you've called me officially null and not much else, unless I missed something?

[Sando]

Wow, a whole 1.5 days. Anyhow, I am behind in this game and plan to catch in my free time today.

Maybe I just know Serial well enough to have known he was basically joking and that he was only asking fairly gently, but this seems like an unnecessarily defensive reaction right after he posted it.

Too townie fallacy?

You're not being accused of being too townie, I read it as being accused of theory over substance, which is scummy. And yes you were invoking it, calling it a fallacy means you're trying to say he's wrong, not trying to confirm whether that's what he means.

If only we were all as bright of a star as you. So your stance is you have no suspicions and saying "I find XYZ scummy" is anti-town.

I'm confused. You think that me saying "I find XYZ scummy" when I actually don't would be pro-town? That seems patently ridiculous. Are you saying that I still don't have any suspicions, because a quick look at my recent posts and the fact that I'm voting would seem to contradict that.

But this is getting stupid and repetitive, if you want to lynch me over it, go ahead, but we're just going in circles and wasting our breath at the moment, there's not much more I can say, I've said it ad-nauseum.

Serial, you're being way nicer than your regular townie play. I think that's the second argument with someone you've backed away from, and now backing away from a fairly innocuous post of yours, why are you so much less aggressive?

Zorblag, any thoughts on alignments? So far you've called me officially null and not much else, unless I missed something?

Officially un-lynchable it was a think. Speaking of, considering that's a major part of your D1 proposed play, got your list of non-lynch targets yet?

[SerialClergyman]

I was very tempted to put zorblag on it but I just finished a game with a player who reminds me of his early posts - very intelligent and reasonable. There was one reason that sort of gave her away by mid game though, so I'm waiting to see where he goes with it.

As for backing off, I haven't got enough to push on yet. Need some wagons on people who aren't me.

[Sando]

I was very tempted to put zorblag on it but I just finished a game with a player who reminds me of his early posts - very intelligent and reasonable. There was one reason that sort of gave her away by mid game though, so I'm waiting to see where he goes with it.

So you're looking to eliminate people as D1 lynch targets, and are waiting till mid-game (ie not D1) to see how Zorblag continues, but will still keep him on the D1 lynch list?

Seems like you don't want to lynch him but still want to leave him on the list.

[SerialClergyman]

Mmm good point.

I guess I wouldn't want him lynched, no.

[Ojanen]

Then he comes back and accuses me of playing the newbie card. Now it would be one thing if I said something like "I don't get how this works" and multiple people had called me out on that. Instead, I said "I'm out of my league" and the only other person to mention this was Zorblag. This really perked me up.

ekiM showed you say "I really feel like ekiM is reaching on Scien here, but I'm not sure. I'm way out of my league in this game " and then you unvoted your RVS vote because there was no real reason to suspect PZ.
Which is pretty strongly saying that you feel something is suspicious, but are not sure because supposedly being not in others' league, which is a reference to lack of proficiency and seemed a potentially deliberate fence-sit, and had no meaningful difference to playing the newbie card in this context.
Also, what does few vs. multiple people calling you out have to do with anything?
I really don't get this coupled with the OMGUS vote.

I dunno what is up with Sando. His first catch up makes no stance in any direction except "I don't use meta" so incoming questions for him on any playerslots would seem a pretty expected in mafia, but he gets all haughty.

I'm not saying that asking for peoples opinions is scummy, merely asking for run-downs on everyone is scummy.

Fair enough if I got that wrong, I got that wrong, if noone asked me for a complete rundown of everyone, fine. I was in a rush and late to the game, I may have misread it as asking me for that sort of post. However, there's not a lot of difference between asking just who is scummy, and a complete run-down post. Clearly, anyone I don't include as scummy can be assumed as being seen as townie by me, and I'm providing even less info. So there's not exactly a lot of difference.

I don't like the fact that he seemed not willing to admit his mistake, I don't get how he forgot the existance of neutralish between positive and negative.
@Sando: If asking "who is scummy" is almost the same as the rundown thing, what were you referring to in the first quote to as the thing that s not scummy?

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.
For the record on a player who seems serious I view this as more of a slight towntell because it seems honest instead of checked.

I have some more stuff in a bit.

[VP Baltar]

I wish I could say I had no failings in my confidence, but he's gone rather inactive, so I can't get a better read of him. However, I feel it fulfills it's purpose right now.

And what is that purpose?

Under VP's argument, I couldn't really assume a meta for either of them as scum. However, I know of several games where PZ was scum, and I could easily read them over, no? That seems to be something you somewhat overlooked, VP.

Reading over or having read over games were not in his original statement. I'm not going to assume he has simply because that is something he COULD do. Incomplete meta is incomplete meta and could simply be scum excusing their partner's behavior without explanation.

Ok, maybe my post about activity came off as harsher than intended. I was somewhat frustrated that we have a lot of good active players and yet only about 1/3 of people were posting. I expected that given 48 hours was prod-able, there would be more activity.

Well, I think it is a bit overboard to start calling people out when they haven't even been prodded yet. Additionally, the pace of this game is very quick and a lot of it was simply a theory debate, which ultimately wasn't very interesting and didn't help find scum. You can't expect people to be jumping at the chance to read that. Anyhow, I didn't take it personally, I just wanted to point out that it hadn't actually been that long since people had posted.

Maybe I just know Serial well enough to have known he was basically joking and that he was only asking fairly gently, but this seems like an unnecessarily defensive reaction right after he posted it.

See above.

I'm confused. You think that me saying "I find XYZ scummy" when I actually don't would be pro-town?

I think if after 8 pages you have no idea, then that is pretty scummy. That is my overall point. Not only that, but you are attacking Amished for asking you for reads, which is ridiculously stupid. That is the only stance I have seen you really take and it's founded on a false arguement that you are clinging to.

I'm still waiting for you to reply as to why you ignored my ignore post and attacked Amished over it.

[Papa Zito]

Catching up. I've skimmed the thread but I need to really read it.

I can't believe how hung up you kids are about the intro SC thing.

Let me rephrase it then. I think PapaZ doesn't have a case, and even if he does it is 'meh'.

hurp durp it was page 4. I know I'm good but damn, everybody's expecting miracles. I voted him because we needed a wagon and he needed to stop talking theory.

If he doesn't have a case, then that is bad, because he lied.

lulz

Anyway reading now. Actually I need to post elsewhere then I'll come back.

[Ojanen]

I find Amished's initial stance of

However, I rarely use meta (and think it's overall pretty worthless) so don't expect me to really take too much meta discussion.

weird compared to some of the clutter he brought to the thread like

Look at LOST mafia. I'm pretty sure you ignored CKD when he was right about [blah blah]

and the rest of that exchange with VP.

His posts have a carpet of alien overall feel to me. The votehop explanation feels vaguely revisionist but I can't put my finger on how exactly.

@Amished:

AGar, ODDin and Sando are the three people I've never read a game of so I'm looking more at them right now.

What did you mean with this?
What is the reason you're voting for Serial at the moment?

Spouting goody-two-shoes theory = sounding town without doing anything that is pro-town or anti-scum = scummy.

Now that's one hell of a stretch. I think I'm doing enough pro-town / anti-scum things. I've been pointing out scum-tells or town-tells I see about people since the beginning of the game. Seeing that neither you nor anyone else has been accusing me of not scumhunting enough prior to this, I guess I'm not the only one with this opinion. So, I'm "spouting goody two-shoes theories" IN ADDITION to scum hunting, not instead of it. And on its own, I can't see it as a scum-tell.
If you think I haven't been scumhunting enough, explain how.

ODDin, the theoryratio in your arguments is actually higher than you seem to make it to be here. Yeah the game is young, but the non-theory-based arguments I can see on a skim so far are actually relatively few and dislikes are often this-is-anti-town-flavoured.

Looking at the impulse that made AGar go over the threshold and vote Mike I'm leaning at the moment:

vote AGar

[VP Baltar]

I can't believe how hung up you kids are about the intro SC thing.

Well, see, keep in mind that you attacked me for "ignoring" you and all you were bringing to the game. Turns out, I was correct in the first place that your "SRS BSNS" wasn't very serious.

Here's a refresher:

I assure you the SerialClergyman wagon is SRS BSNS. As are my questions to you {VP}. Putting someone on /ignore is scummy BTW. I'd swap my vote but I don't want to hurt a fledgling wagon.

So, what was I really missing out when I said I would ignore you until you contributed actual content?

Rhetorical answer: Nothing.

And yet you said you'd be happy to switch your vote to me if you weren't already on the very serious Serial wagon. Now you are trying to downplay it as just a bandwagon vote.

Unvote, Vote: Papa Zito

[Scien]

No, I find generic 'xxx is scummy because he's done 1 tiny screw up in 5 pages' people freakin useless, and way too easy to turn into a link case later on. You seem to think that it's a good idea to make an incredibly weak linkage case?

And Scien, saying that I was responding to being asked for opinions is an absolute lie, and one that I've cleared up multiple times. My posts will focus on a single player or only 1 or 2, I won't make big 'these 6 players are likely scum'.

Er... those two thoughts don't go together, but I think that's just carry over from what you were talking about to VP.

I am not lying. Someone asked for someone you thought was scum. I believe there was an implied 'why do you think they are scum', because just listing who is pointless, and typically people go the extra mile.

Since you supposedly don't know the roles. Asking for a scum list IS asking an opinion due to you not knowing roles.

This is what happened. Amished (IIRC) asked you for a scum list (your opinions). You immediately fight him on this on the grounds that it is unhelpful to town, and your views would be used against you. You think this is a misrep?

I don't see either. Just as I don't see how I lied. Nice stretch though.

Where am I disconnecting from what you are trying to say?

[ODDin]

And yes you were invoking it, calling it a fallacy means you're trying to say he's wrong, not trying to confirm whether that's what he means.

There was a question mark at the end there. I wasn't sure what SC was trying to do. If he was implying that what I'm doing IS townie, then it was the too-townie fallacy. If that's not what he was trying to say, then obviously it wasn't. That's why I wasn't sure. And yes, I did understand him now.

-----

PZ's post makes me weary. The fact that most of the players believed him to have some sort of case on SC means it's not just some misunderstanding - this was the obvious way to interpret his words. Now he says he didn't actually have any case, and was just voting for the sake of a bandwagon.

Now he's almost accusing Scien of thinking he had a case - but this IS the impression he'd made.

So yes, PZ, you pretty much lied - at any rate, you've created a very wrong impression.
Also, you're not really doing much of a job to contribute more - you just laugh of the things said against you, trying to make Scien look foolish (which isn't a valid defence).

[ODDin]

EBWOP: wary, not weary, obviously.

[Amished]

Finally have a chance to catch up. This first section will probably be edited due to other people realizing the holes in Sando's position and saying what I'd want to say, so try to ignore gaps in grammar/tense (they annoy the hell out of me).

@Sando: Starting with ISO 190 (page 8):
1) I didn't ask you for a rundown. I wanted your top suspect because you weren't voting for anybody. There's a big difference. Also, due to my explanation below; asking for information does help instead of looking like busy work, "when bugger all is happening" in your words.

(I think this comes up later, but it ties in as well) I ask for people to say what their primary "suspect" is so that we can all further explore what each other are thinking, and give a wide base to see what we can find that's scummy. If more people explore it, and the person has a townie response (logical reason for acting the way that they did) then we can get a read on them because of it. If they overreact, then we can explore that and see why (which I typically don't interpret to be a townie reaction. Scum (more towards the non-experienced spectrum, but it's worth a shot here) tend to not like having the spotlight on them; so when somebody brings something minor up, and they overreact it's worth looking into. (ODDin's 2nd paragraph in post 200 ties in perfectly with this, agree with that 100%)

2) The "about time comment". Look at the time line. I said that after your ISO 4. Your first 3 posts do absolutely nothing for the game for 4 days, so I was really looking forward to you actually contributing. That's beyond a lurker timeline, when you're actually here.

191: {You find rundowns less scummy in newbie games.} It's been gone over that I wasn't looking for a rundown, but I like how you think only scum ask people for their suspicions.

193: Do you even know why I "vote-switched"? Do you know who, if anybody, has voted for more people than I have?

197: (this is broken up into numbers)

1) No, just cause you think 1-2 people are scummy does not automatically translate into you thinking everyone else is pro-town. Absolutely does not work that way.

3) Asking you to vote for somebody and give reasoning is a general question? This is after I wanted to know where your suspicions were, and you said to look where you were voting.

--page 9--

(Not sando related:) I don't see the points of SC against ODDin really holding ground. VP's 232 is basically what I was gonna say about the 1.5 day point, I don't really agree with the other points either.

Back to Sando:
212: --edit out-- Covered by VP Baltar in 217

(This was @Scien from Sando): Saying "6 people are scum" is both not what I asked for and a stupid/scummy idea to actually say. Obviously in a 12 person game 6 scum is too much; so you're clearly fabricating cases there. 1-2 is all I really wanted to know. As an aside: I've only really seen one scum-linking case work in all my time here (and that just happened in a game that just finished, Hellsing Mafia (mini-theme)). I think everyone should be judged based on their own play as that will turn up scum more often than not in my opinion.

@Troll: Ahh, yeah. I got more of a weak pro-town vibe from SC after the questions, so I thought that you might've looked at the situation the same way I did. Sorry for the confusion.

Sando 216: Ok, so then what are your reasons for voting me. The most prominent part of your point against me that I recall is that I was "whinging for your vote". If that's all, or if there's more; I'd certainly like to hear it.

@AGar: {Why I want opinions out right away} I feel it breeds a better D1 atmosphere to actually look for people who aren't operating on the towns agenda, and get people to talk about something. Low activity games hurt the town. If I get everyone to talk about something, then it's helpful to my faction.

@SC {giving reads} Then explain that you really don't have solid reads at this point. Nothing is sticking out to you, whatever. As town, I definitely don't expect you to make anything up.

--page 10--

@Sando (end of 217): This will be the main reason for my vote at the end of this post (I realize it's a long one). You're essentially asking for people that SC has as pro-town. This is much much worse than asking for scumspects. If there's a wagon on somebody that SC doesn't mind seeing lynched, you'll see that he's not pro-town enough in SC's eyes. Scum only benefit from that type of information.

@OJ: Meta and an occurance that happened in another game aren't exactly the same thing. I was trying to get a point across about a situation that I saw that I thought hurt town. I was pointing out why ignoring people's more serious posts (that turned out to not be serious at all.. -_- ) is a bad idea. It doesn't really correlate to this game as I'm not giving him town points for saying he'll ignore people (like he did in that game as town) like a normal "meta" would, I just wasn't in the game at the point where VP said that he was going to ignore CKD to attack the behavior.

I meant that I've never played nor read a game of Sando/AGar/ODDin. I've read one or two of the rest of you that I haven't played with; or played with them. I like to get a feel for how active they are, primarily, and look for a super gambit or something. If they're just solid, that's fine too and I like reading the games.

My vote on SC was initially due to wanting a bandwagon (and forgetting the VC on the page); and I thought due to his post on page 3 that he was going to set up a push for a cop claim early on and try to dismiss his action as not scummy because he brought it up D1.

PZ's retraction gives me scum vibes as well.
@PZ: We have 10 pages to go on, now that you don't have a case (that you never really had), what do you think of some of the debates that have gone on recently?

Unvote
Vote: Sando

[SerialClergyman]

Out of curiosity, what's the PZscum thought process to that bit of play? What was he trying to achieve?

And amished, thoughts on that development?

[Amished]

I think that if the wagon took off more; it would've been easy to condemn anybody else that really hopped on you, passing himself off as just trying to start a BW (null-tell). As nothing happened, now he {PZ} really doesn't have any content in the game since the BW wasn't SRS BZNZ.

[Zorblag]

@SerialClergyman, it be a bit curious that you no had noticed this before as you and Amished seemed to be talking about it earlier (Troll's answer to a question as compared to yours) but Troll has given a few opinions beyond saying that Troll no wants to lynch you today as Troll expects to get a better read on you as we go. A summary appeared in Post 162:

@Amished, Troll intended to include some opinions beyond simply interesting in Post 90 (i.e. Troll had town reads of varying degrees on Scien and ekiM, weak scum reads at the time for Raskol and AGar and null reads on Amished and Papa Zito.) Since then Raskol has moved back to null and Sando has slipped to a bit scummy as him has posted but not given Troll anything to work with. What beyond that do you be expecting from Troll so far as opinions go? The game be early and Troll still largely be getting a feel for the lay of the land so strong reads be unlikely.

Troll can update those. Sando's reactions seem defensive with a vibe Troll no cares for so Troll be happy enough with Troll's vote there. ekiM's town read was based on his activity that Troll found helpful but since that has dropped off Troll has some worry that him be going for a strong start then background play approach that Troll would expect from him as scum given what Troll knows. If him gets replaced or starts being more active in the way him was earlier Troll will give that player spot a slight town read but if him continues with reduced activity Troll would change that to a slight scum read.

Papa Zito was apparently going with the opening Troll thought him was. As him was away from all of Mafia Scum over the weekend Troll now needs him to participate but Troll thinks that this will happen; scum in the background isn't really his cup of tea for playstyle. ODDin isn't play how Troll be used to but this could be because him be more on the defensive. Troll has only seen him as scum and has thought him was town both times with some reservations. Troll thinks him be a bit town with some reservations this time as well as him no be doing what Troll would expect him to as scum but Troll no trust Troll's ODDin reads.

VP Baltar going after Papa Zito no be surprising but Troll be trying to decide whether Troll expects him to be more likely to do so as town or scum. He has enough knowledge of Papa Zito to make it something he might not have done as well.

@Amished, you really thought anyone here was going to push for an early cop claim and expected to have any chance to get away with it? That sound unlikely to Troll.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Amished]

@Troll: No, the way that ekiM and SC were talking about proper time to claim (page 3), the way SC was talking was that I thought he was setting up pushing for claiming earlier rather than later on .. day 4 for example. He {SC} mentioned how he pushes for massclaim earlier and brought up other examples of why a cop should claim early, etc.. I thought (and it might be a possibility, but I'm not sold on it anymore) that he was setting himself up to not look like scum for pushing for a cop claim or anything down the road a couple of days.

[Zorblag]

@Amished, and you thought this was what Papa Zito might have picked up on? It was you who said them thought them knew what Papa Zito had in mind, right?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Amished]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking PZ saw after going back to look at a "serious" vote.

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry Zorblag, you are completely correct. My bad.

@ all - I'm still waiting for a convincing reason why PZ would do what he did as scum any more than he would as town. To be honest, if he wanted to cover his tracks he could just make a lame playstyle/theory case if he wanted to dodge suspicion over the expectations around his 'case'. He didn't, admitted it was a general wagon on nothing and that reads town to me.

Amished - you watch me push for an early massclaim if I think it's worthwhile. I think VP has been in at least 2 games where i rammed a massclaim request down a town's throat. People are too scared of massclaims, and often of claims in general, imo.

I've been looking at your scumhunting and noting a light pattern - PZ was scummy because if the wagon took off he'd be in a position to accuse someone on it. SC is scummy because he was setting the groundwork for tryign to force a claim. Do you usually look for these kinds of tells on D1? The 'setting up a situation where you'd later be able to do something scummy' type tells?

[Amished]

Yeah, I typically don't like people explaining away "typically scummy" behavior due to anything. Most of the time I just have to keep my eye on them, it was just due to the earliness of you explaining yourself that I didn't have much else to work with to make me move my vote.

[Amished]

EBWOP: Cause the way I see it, scum have to try to have a longer term goal (staying alive and then being able to mislynch convincingly) rather than just trying to lynch scum that day like town does.

[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.