Mafia 108 - Mafia With The Quickness - over!

[Netopalis]

Vote: Maemuki

No reason, really. Don't bother bandwagoning.

[Netopalis]

KMD: Because I hate random voting and because almost all suspicions coming out of the first few pages are misplaced.

[Netopalis]

KMD: I dislike it, but I realize that the game has to start somewhere. This game has a deadline which is too short to use random questions, and I still haven't finished up my random question list, at any rate. Honestly, most of the early game in Mafia stymies me - I play with logic and like to have every vote justified. So, I try to not interrupt the early game and let those who are actually good at it play - I'll jump in a lot more when the game favors my playstyle a bit more.

[Netopalis]

I have a theory about Mafia. Essentially, Mafia is a game of information. Most information, when out in the open, assists town (Obviously, some of it assists mafia too, like the identities of power roles). In my opinion, the random vote stage generates false information. Experienced players will ignore votes coming out of the RVS, while inexperienced players will panic. This panic is read as scummy, and that leads to the lynch of the inexperienced player. This explains why D1 lynches are statistically worse than random.

Unfortunately, there have not been enough games using the random question system to give a good statistical analysis. My initial research shows, though, that it has more often led to town victories. Most of the games that I have read in which the random question system leads to a mislynch are due to the town lynching the questioner for going against the established norm of the site. With more question games, this stigma would be alleviated.

Therefore, I feel that random question is superior, as it does not give out flawed information. Scum will definitely need to lie in order to answer the random questions cromulently and the responses can be analyzed in a logical and calm manner.

[Netopalis]

Sorry, that post took so long, it seems that 5 people posted in between.

I voted Maemuki based on the generation of a random number selection of people not on the bandwagon. I chose not to follow the bandwagon for reasons described in the first paragraph of my previous post.

[Netopalis]

I'm getting better. Page 2 and I have 4 pretty solid reads. Neto and Mae as scum. Haylen and Saint as town.

On what grounds? Some MD-style discussions? Many good players loathe random votes - most begrudgingly accept it, as evidenced by the number of threads in MD which attempt to find ways to get around the necessity of random votes in the early game.

[Netopalis]

But you understand my point, I take it? That RVS is not a good predictor of who is scum?

[Netopalis]

Agreed, there is a lot more that goes into it. However, if we seek to improve D1 play (I just did a quick count of the mini normals, and the count is 17 scum lynched D1 compared to 35 town lynched D1 - not as bad as I thought, but hardly optimal), and given that there is one common thread - random voting - it seems that improving that area would probably improve D1 play in general.

SK: You meant to vote for me, not for Netlava, I think.

Bogre: Not at the moment. I would normally say that I think that a few people are being overeager to lynch based on questionable tells, but I've noticed that whenever I attack people for that, they're usually town, so I don't really feel that it's a good predictor.

[Netopalis]

That said, we should lynch Bogre.

I disagree.

[Netopalis]

SK: Sorry, I had originally missed Netlava's vote for Maemuki - your vote is correctly placed based on your post.

[Netopalis]

Posted earlier, site ate it.

KMD: You, Glork and Kerrigan, mostly, but it's a light read. I don't like how quickly you are jumping to conclusions.

Also, how am I "Changing my story"? I'm not sure that I've done that anywhere. Incidentally, I've elaborated on my position in MD multiple times, well before I received my role for this game. If you want to find me scummy, go ahead, but preferring questions over RVS is not a good reason to do so.

[Netopalis]

How is that changing my story? I said from the beginning that I didn't want to bandwagon. Everything that I have said has been internally consistent. You can disagree with my position, sure, but that doesn't mean that I'm changing my story.

[Netopalis]

*claps slowly* Way to go - Saint is voting your town read and Haylen is voting with you. Bravo, bravo.

This post still gives me a bad vibe, though.

Why? Do you have any comments on the recent events? Your posts have been rather cryptic and, well...useless.

[Netopalis]

Voting for no reason and a random number generator are not mutually exclusive. I had no reason behind my vote - I chose the target of my meaningless vote randomly.

Also, I find it suspect that you started asking me about theory, then all of a sudden you're telling me to shut up about theory.

[Netopalis]

If you hate random voting, why are you voting Maemuki?

What did you mean by your statement about the bandwagon?

The first question necessarily dictates a theoretical answer. I can't explain without going into theory...

[Netopalis]

Incidentally, "I know I'm town" has failed to clear *anybody* of suspicion in any mafia game. It's a useful thing to remember, but as an argumentative point, it sucks.

[Netopalis]

And my reasons for voting Mae obviously had something to do with theory. Every vote on P1 is based on some sort of theoretical underpinning.

[Netopalis]

Meh, I was questioned after elaborating. It usually comes up early in games, and I wanted to dispense with as much of the discussion over it as possible with a longer initial post.

I agree that reasoning is needed for a vote. Unreasoned votes are anti-town. Posting reasoning gives information to the town which allows for better evaluation.

[Netopalis]

Good reasons. What are your thoughts on SaintKerrigan?

[Netopalis]

Zach: While that's true, I think that the value of reactions to unreasoned votes is vastly overrated.

[Netopalis]

Interesting. I see many parallels with Netlava's play.

SaintKerrigan has made 8 posts. Of these 8 posts, 5 are completely contentless. 2 others simply copy what other people has said. The only original post is as follows:

Haylen, I have to disagree with you on this one. RQS, in my mind, is used to determine the responses of people to the questions asked of them. I've used it myself as town, so it isn't always scum-driven.

In other news,

Unvote: Haylen. Vote: Netlava.

Something about his post just rubbed me the wrong way...just kidding. My beef with Net is that he voted Maemuki for a very vague reason and for apologizing (obviously a nulltell). Feels opportunistic.

To me, this is a rather weak post. Yes, Netlava is scummy, but the reasons for voting him are wishy-washy at best.

[Netopalis]

Why, Ellibereth? You need to elaborate more than that...

[Netopalis]

Mae: Not saying that SK should have made more posts, I'm saying that the posts that he/she has made are essentially contentless while attempting to look progressive.

[Netopalis]

Really? I don't think so. I've responded adequately to the questions that I was asked and have provided new suspicions.

[Netopalis]

It is when people ask me about theory crap.

Also, "Don't like Neto" is not a justification for a vote - in fact, your latest post is the only one with any content either.

[Netopalis]

No, I denied it. I said that theory discussion is relevant and content when people ask me about theory as KMD, Glork and Kerrigan did. I also have said several times that I have provided content. I feel that you are perhaps feeling a bit vicious towards me due to our last game together, so I am not rising to take the bait.

[Netopalis]

I'm wearing 9 layers of clothing. It's freaking cold.

[Netopalis]

Well, part of the problem is that there is very little to comment on. KMD was flailing for a while, but he seems to have gotten back under control. Ellibereth's play is about par for the course for her. Netlava's too, although I've only been in one game with him. Still, I've probably made more content-ful posts than most players - I do have several posts which don't have much in them, but I also have more posts than most players.

Annachie: The two games that I can think of in which we most heavily discussed the RQS thing are currently underway. I'll look back through my archives for a good example, though, and post in a bit.

[Netopalis]

Ok, some things in which I discuss RVS:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12274 - My first newbie game.
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12744 - My research project that is underway
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12305 - A MD discussion in which I propose another system other than RVS

There are 3 more games that I am thinking of - one is entering its last day, so I can post the link to it once it finishes up. The other two are still on-going, though.

[Netopalis]

I was talking about his attacks over the last few pages. Pages 3-5 specifically. He attacks me for "changing my story" with incredibly weak reasoning, makes lots of assertions without reasoning while attacking others for lack of reasoning and needs to be prompted to elaborate on his opinions. However, his play in the last 2 pages has improved.

[Netopalis]

Neto says that he usually ends up talking about the RQS things and I'd love to look into that as well for comparison.

[Netopalis]

Astonishing post, Ellibereth. Your little cartoon explains everything.

Everything.

Unvote, Vote: Ellibereth

I said it last game, and I'll say it again - shape up, take the game seriously and post original content or face the noose.

[Netopalis]

My vote on you is because I feel that you are intentionally attempting to impeded the progress of the game by not posting content and by distraction.

[Netopalis]

The problem isn't just the comic, it's the combination of the comic, your basic assertions that "X is scum", "Y is town" etc, without backing up and your cryptic PBPA which really doesn't elaborate on anything other than whether each of my posts pushes me further towards town or scum. You need to explain why you feel something is scummy. That was and has always been my problem with you.

Glork has explained himself. Gayle has as well. You have not.

[Netopalis]

Thank you for making my case for me, Ellibereth. Would you mind voting for yourself next?

[Netopalis]

I was in the game with Ellibereth. However, my points stand against him as scum or as town. Ellibereth fails to use logic or reasoning and is generally dead weight to any town, if not outrightly scummy.

[Netopalis]

Used the playstyle to success? He might have ended up on the winning faction, but I would argue that it is probably due more to luck than to skill.

[Netopalis]

In his game with me? Yes, eventually, but we had to coax him for the better part of 6 pages to get him to actually say who he suspected. I haven't read his other games, but it is an interesting question. Regardless, there's a difference between being right for the right reasons and being right for the wrong reasons. If I am right for the wrong reasons, I consider it to be a loss. Further, even if Ellibereth is right, the town should not follow unless the reasons are right, no matter how vaunted his claims to scumhunting fame might be.

[Netopalis]

Just did a bit of research - Ellibereth has only 2 completed games on this site, so I don't feel that there is enough to really determine whether his techniques "win" or not.

[Netopalis]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Ellibereth has been right on occasion, but his posts show no real reasoning behind said suspicions. I attack players of all statuses for this - I'm good friends with Albert, but him and I have butted heads over this issue on a number of different occasions.

I think that part of the problem is that, since there have in the past been players who used cryptic methods to achieve results, it is automatically assumed that a person who plays cryptically gets results. I played a game in which Battle Mage was *convinced* that I was scum without posting reasoning. He then attacked me when I asked for reasoning and the town followed because he apparently has this mystical aura about him that makes people follow him. I was town, of course, and BM ended up killed right before the scum won the endgame.

I also think that it should be noted that I don't exactly have a shabby track record. I've won the majority of my games and my suspicions are often proven valid. For a good exemplar of my playstyle, please see day 2 of Hellsing Mafia in Coney Island.

[Netopalis]

You were already voting me, Ellibereth.

[Netopalis]

Glork: Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with a policy lynch, given that there have been substantial scumhunting efforts made during the day, the policy lynched player has at least a bit of scummishness and that there is not a strong reason to do otherwise. As said earlier, D1 lynches are statistically bad - the vast majority of them are mislynches. Therefore, if we're probably going to mislynch anyway, it's best to mislynch the player that will contribute the least. I also find, however, that often times the player that you want to policy lynch is the player that's scum anyway.

[Netopalis]

To start some more productive discussion, I present the following suspicions.

I would be willing to lynch the following 3 players today, as of right now (In no particular order):

Netlava - Netlava's posts are short, content free and are blatant attempts to copy someone else's suspicions. The fact that he normally plays like this makes it a bit tough to call him as scum or town, but I feel fairly confident that this is above and beyond the usual. Still, it's my hope that we can get him replaced and not have to lynch him.

Ellibereth - It seems to me that Ellibereth came into this game with a goal: To lynch me for my previous attacks on him. This could be because he felt that I would be an easy target based on my previous game (It's true, I do tend to say controversial things on D1 - I find it to be productive, but unfortunately, it does get me lynched sometimes). Regardless, his play is distinctly anti-town and should not be rewarded.

Maemuki - Maemuki has used what is perhaps the most bizarre defense that I have ever seen in a Mafia game: I'm a known lurker. Her posts do indicate this: I can't find a single noteworthy sentence amongst them.

Lesser suspicion goes to two players:
Camn - Hasn't posted much and what he has posted has been devoid of reasoning or logic. I would like to see some better notes from him regarding his vote on Ellibereth and any other assertions that he feels are worthy of discussion.


SaintKerrigan - I've moved SK down to the lower category because apparently he was busy. My point still stands, though, that his posts have been largely cases of "Yeah, what he said!".

All in all, I feel that we have a number of good lynch targets for the day. I would like to hear from each of these players, as the main running theme in this game seems to be "Lack of original content". To each of you: Please try to remedy this.

[Netopalis]

I'm not sure that I see the inconsistency. We need to improve D1 play, yes. Ideally, it would lead to more surety over who the lynch should be for D1. If we can't come up with a good lynch target, though, it seems only logical to lynch someone who will only end up hurting the town in the future.

[Netopalis]

No, I'm saying that she is both a good target AND a good policy lynch. There are two reasons for lynching him today.

[Netopalis]

On further thought, I think I can clarify my position a bit more:

Given a field of players that would be equally good lynch targets, it is logical to lynch the one that will hurt us the least if the lynch is wrong.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* I still think it's difficult to refute my position that, given equal candidates, you should lynch the one that plays the worst. I don't feel that breaks internal consistency whatsoever. However, I'd rather not get drawn into yet another theoretical argument.

Annachie: I would disagree. I never intended to enter into theory discussions, I was asked why I hated random votes. People then continued to press me for more information. I would have been perfectly fine if KMD and, indeed, everybody else had just ignored my first post and moved on. Instead, people were determined to poke and prod at me for my theoretical positions, and then attack me for discussing theory. It's really rather frustrating. I can't stop discussing theory or certain people will attack me, yet I can't continue discussing it or I derail and get attacked by others.

Of course, I've learned in life that it's impossible to please everybody. Therefore, I've stopped trying. I would just hope that you can appreciate the situation that I've been put in, all due to a single phrase that was blown way out of proportion.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and Glork, another thing: I'm only choosing to assume that Ellibereth is still angry at me because his actions make no sense otherwise. He came into this game swinging at me to the fences for little-to-no reason. The only thing that I could think of was that he was still mad at me. I don't think it's that unreasonable of a position. Perhaps I'm wrong. I really hope that I am. But in the absence of a logical explanation to the contrary, I'm forced to accept the only answer that seems logical to me.

[Netopalis]

What are your reasons? Several have been thrown around, but what are yours specifically?

[Netopalis]

I probably do put too much stock in logic, but I find it's the only way that I can work. Usually, it works out for me. I really wouldn't know how the game would look if played in any other fashion...

And yeah, doesn't float well with me....Predictably. However, we're getting content from you, so we have bigger fish to fry for now.

[Netopalis]

My computer is experiencing total suckage right now, so I can't quite respond to the Gayle and Haylen points as well as I would like. I'm thinking that the reason that I've been looking at others rather than them is because I've been looking at players for their post count/content ratio, and it doesn't look like they've been around much to post. Could be an error, though.

Zach: I said that if anyone bandwagoned Mae from my random vote, I would unvote because I dislike the RVS. You and KMD read all that extra crap in there. I am a very cautious player who dislikes early bandwagons as well, but that's not what I said.

KMD: The switch I was referring to wasn't your unvote, it was your opening up to new suspicions. For a time, you were tunneling, but with a few later posts, you throw out a few extra suspicions. I don't mind if you suspect me, but I do mind if you aren't doing decent scumhunting all around.

I can't respond to anything else right now because I don't know that my computer will load another page. For whatever reason, it keeps halfway-loading most sites I'm going to. Very frustrating. At any rate, here's a post for now...

[Netopalis]

Well, you're not getting one based on that vote. Not until I see a decent case against me, at any rate.

I've got my internet back to a semi-workable level, so I'll be going back over the last 5 pages or so. Expect a post to follow shortly.

[Netopalis]

Response to Haylen:

I didn't want anybody to bandwagon Maemuki on my first vote

because it was random

. How many times do I have to explain this? I am not a fan of random bandwagons at all. In my experience, they lead to poor play, mislynches and bad decisions. The only reason that I random voted was because we didn't have time to do questions and because I wanted to participate rather than lurking.

I didn't explain why I disagreed with Glork over Bogre to make a point - I can do it too. Many players have said "X is town" or "Y is scum" with no backing, Glork being one of the main offenders. I was trying to show why that style of scumhunting simply doesn't work. He needed to either post a reason or drop it. There was no reason to go after Bogre at that point other than the fact that he was the first random vote.

You honestly see it as a town tell? That's shocking. I've said it as town and scum, as have other players that I have played with. I'm not saying that it's scummy in that post, I'm saying that it's not a defense.

You need to understand the difference between game theory and theory of who is scum. What I meant was that to explain why I random voted even though I hate random votes requires a delve into game theory, the same thing that many people have been attacking me for.

Ellibereth has bad playstyle, is attacking me for no real stated reason, fails to back up his accusations and is generally anti-town. I've explained this. Yes, there is a policy aspect to it. No, it is not ONLY a policy vote. However, the combination of the two deficiencies means that he is a good candidate for the lynch.

39: Coming from you, Haylen, this is absolutely hilarious. You've pointed to your meta in every single game that I've been in with you. However, specifically, I was questioned about my meta, so I provided some games.

42: Maybe it IS hopping on the first bandwagon that he sees. That is also scummy. That WOULD fit in line with his play in my previous game...However, it is also a commonly used scum tactic. Scum likes to attack whoever happens to be the easy lynch. Regardless, I can't find a town justification for his actions.

45: Not really. I'm accepting the fact that, if we have 5 people who would be good lynches, at least 1 is probably town, and there's probably several scum not on that list. If we have an equal case on all of them, though, why is it better to lynch someone who plays better? To me, we want to try to keep the town scum-hunting team as strong as possible while eliminating scum in order to keep us as effective in future days.

Also, it's clear that you only read me in isolation and failed to read the context of my posts. They make a lot more sense if you read certain posts in there (Particularly the last few) as responses to questions posed.

[Netopalis]

Maemuki: Please elaborate. That's all I really want from you - more elaboration in your posts. A post larger than 3 lines would be immensely helpful. Thanks!

[Netopalis]

Glork: You've attacked me several times for talking about theory too much...but now you're voting for me because we have a difference in theory? That is illogical. I'm not going to be baited into another MD discussion, and it appears to me that you're trying to make me start down that road again so that others will attack me for it. I find that to be scummy.

[Netopalis]

How about responding to my latest post?

[Netopalis]

Oh, and incidentally, Incognito, V/LA from roughly midnight tonight to 8 PM tomorrow. I'll be driving from WV to Georgia.

[Netopalis]

Because you enjoy bandwagoning? That's about the worst reason for a claim that I've ever heard. Sounds rather role-fishy to me.

My reasons for voting Ellibereth are good. He has shown a propensity to jump on the strongest bandwagon, which I find to be a good scumtell. He also has failed to post logical responses to any attacks on him and has, in other cases, merely parroted what others have said.

Next, your perceived scum connections are vague and are not sufficient for a vote.

Finally, you are the one who said that you were voting me because I disliked bandwagons. That is a theoretical point.

[Netopalis]

Yeah, but I'm at L-2 for crap reasons. That is not enough to substantiate a request for claim.

[Netopalis]

Unvote, Vote: Neto

I like wagoning. I also like seeing claims.

I took this, combined with KMD's attack because I don't like bandwagoning in the early game to be an attack on me because I don't like bandwagoning in the early game. Am I incorrect?

[Netopalis]

Well, then, redact the theory point. Your scummishness diminishes in my view.

[Netopalis]

Right, it's a useful tool...but the iso is what caused certain errors in your judgment.

[Netopalis]

Camn, I was saying that if Neto is willing to vote for me because of the comic, why wasn't he willing to vote others for messing around too? He also accused me of having no original content. Methinks Gayle has less. My point was that he chose me over Gayle.
Townreads on Kmd+Mae are gut.

Neto's still scum.

Wow, what a misrepresentation. I wasn't voting you because of the comic, although it was the final nail in the coffin. I was voting you for your meaningless posts that parroted others, made it sound like you were giving content when you didn't and generally being unable to find anything really scummy to say about anybody. Also: Misrepresentation.

[Netopalis]

No, that's all the same thing. Compare the two. Nothing has really changed. The PBPA is a misrepresentation...The only real difference is that I forgot to mention in the above quote that your arguments are without reasoning. And yes, I will go back and get some parroting quotes...Expect a post in the next few moments with one.

[Netopalis]

Ok, so, admittedly, I can't find a post that exemplifies it as much as I would like. My biggest problem is that your first post said that you suspected me and thought KMD and Mae were town. That appears to be based solely on the suspicions and beliefs expressed on the immediate prior two pages. You have yet to really explain why you suspect anybody, other than ill-defined attacks on me and the fact that you have yet to suspect anyone that nobody else has given strong suspicion to.

[Netopalis]

Post-by-post on Ellibereth:

0) No content. Disagreement with my theory post, but little else.
1) No reasons. States a few suspicons and town reads, but does nothing to flesh those out.
2) Extremely weak post, given that he is in such a bad position to criticize me for contentless posts.
3) PBPA against me. Ignores the fact that the theory discussions were prompted, that the anti-Bogre-lynch post was a response to a weak post from Glork, calls most of the posts irrelevant and does this all without any explanation of why any of it is scummy.
4) States that "Don't like Neto" is more than enough justification for a vote. I disagree completely. If we were all to play like that, the game would never progress beyond a childish "YOU'RE SCUM!" "NUH-UH!" "YEAH, YOU ARE!" "NO, I'M NOT, YOU ARE!" "NO U!" "NO U!" "NO U!" "NO U!" Yeah. Not the best outcome. 5) Expands a bit, but 4 content posts is more than he has at this time, and probably more than a lot of other players in the game.
6) Fluff, but response to fluff.
7) Fluff, but response to fluff.
8) Questioning others trying to drive them towards me, despite having no real case. Basically starts a trend of stating a suspicion and asking others to explain why he suspects that person.
9) Reasonless vote. Does not follow other posts. (OMGUS?)
10) Sarcastic comment that makes no sense, given that Gayle's response was fairly meaningful.
11) No real content, question that's been answered before.
12) Fails to understand that we need to evaluate players as a whole and not just over their "last few posts". A comparison shows that Gayle's play is slightly better than Ellibereths, but Netlava's is worse. He'll hopefully be replaced, though.
13) States that a post is scummy without explaining why.
14) Statement of meta, fairly weak.
15) See above, but response to a question.
16) Questions others, trying to get them to flesh out his case agianst me rather than doing his own bloody work.
17) My mistake. Admitted.
18) States that his actions are based on "vibes". The "vibes" that I get say that Elibereth is scum. The only way to differentiate between two candidates for lynch is to provide reasons for wanting to lynch one or the other, which Ellibereth has not done.
19) Misrepresents my reasoning for voting for him.
20) Expresses a preference for suspicions without reasoning. (?!) Highly scummy.
21) Misrepresents my reasoning for voting for him.
22) Failed to show that. Even if it did, I think that my PBPA shows that his signal-to-noise ratio is even worse.
23) Questions others yet again, trying to get them to flesh out the same case that has, as of yet, never really been explained.


Ellibereth, I'm getting fed up. You're lazy, illogical and anti-town. Either post some reasons for going after me so heavily or drop the case entirely.

[Netopalis]

Didn't see Ellibereth's last post: Good, I'm glad to hear that it's nothing personal. I would like to know why you are attacking me, though.

[Netopalis]

Yes, Haylen. I know that he thinks I'm scum. He's made that abundantly clear. It's so astonishingly clear that the American Waterological Society has decided to create a new color to describe the color of glass and water, since they're simply just not as clear as Ellibereth's feeling that I am scummy.


What I don't know is

WHY

he thinks that.

[Netopalis]

I don't feel that the posts have been contentless. I may have misinterpreted KMD's original question about my random vote. However, the following theory posts were only in response to direct questions - failing to answer direct questions is anti-town. Yes, I've made a few joke posts here and there, but overall, I've done my absolute best to try to provide as much content as possible.

As for other arguments against me, Glork really hasn't provided much of anything in the way of reasoning. KMD's posts are questionable at best. Zach and Haylen haven't really explained that well why they're voting for me either. If someone wants to give me a concrete reason for why they suspect me, I'd be more than happy - indeed, overjoyed and jubilant - to respond, but I can't respond to such nebulous attacks as "dont like net."

[Netopalis]

Ok, fine, I'll claim, I guess. For the record, I still think that you are all *morons* for your reasoning behind these accusations. I mean, honestly, if you want someone who has posted nothing in their posts, then you should look at Haylen, Netlava, Gayle or Ellibereth. Most of the things that are being termed as "white noise" are responses to

direct questions

asked of me by the same people who are now accusing me of derailing. It seems awfully convenient.

I am a commuter. I can choose the nights on which I protect myself. That is all.

[Netopalis]

Yeah. No double-night commuting, as per the usual restriction.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* You can believe it or not. Frankly, at this point, I could care less what you think. I've been attacked for 95% of this game for absolutely nothing and the only reason that I claimed is because I really hate playing against my wincon, even if it does preserve my sense of gaming ethics.

[Netopalis]

Hey, folks...Sorry about the extended absence. I crashed after my 8-hour drive yesterday and am just now getting awake again.

Neto, have you seen a commuter in a game before? Had you heard of the role before this game?

I've not played in a game with one in it before, no. I had heard of it before, though, in the MD discussion of what constitutes a normal setup. Obviously, I've been paying attention to that and going over roles in the Wiki in preparation for modding my mini normal in a few months.

[Netopalis]

Idea:

One thing that I've been trying to figure out is why exactly I was attacked so strongly right from the get-go, mostly for the following statement:

Vote: Maemuki

No reason, really. Don't bother bandwagoning.

Rather innocuous, really, if you look at it. However, it's been turned into a mountain by primarily three players: KMD, Ellibereth and Glork. If you look at their posts, there's an interesting interplay between them that, to me, suggests a scumteam.

It starts pre-game, with Ellibereth mentioning that I'm most likely susceptible to attacks based on my theoretical discussions - I was drawn into theory discussions in our previous game too, and he probably thought that it would make me an easy target.

However, she also probably thought that it would look suspicious if he started the attack, so he planned to hold off on posting while KMD and Glork start building a case on me.

In the first few pages, we see an interesting set of posts in which Glork and KMD pass me back and forth like a ball. KMD attacks me for posting about theory, while Glork tries to correct my theoretical positions. Obviously, most players will fall on one of two sides, making it an extremely strong attack. Glork also votes KMD in there for a bit, just to make sure that they're distanced enough. He never really follows up on this suspicion strongly, which is odd, considering that it merited a vote.

Enter Ellibereth, attacking me for weak reasons and not really substantiating his case. When I attack Ellibereth for poor play and scumminess in return, Glork responds by comparing him favorably to another famous player (BabyJesus) and protecting him, implying that we'll need to lynch me in order to determine if Ellibereth is an idiot savant or just an idiot.

Then, enter the claim discussion. Glork, Ellibereth and KMD ask me to claim for weak, unspecified reasons and push for my lynch. They are hoping that either A) I will out myself as a power role or B) I will actually be a vanilla townie and will be mislynched without any information coming into play, leaving a clueless and frustrated town for the next day.

Brilliant plan, really, except for the fact that nobody beyond the initial five seems to be following it. I am convinced that at least 2 of Glork, Ellibereth and KMD are scum - most strongly Ellibereth and Glork, but KMD is a close third.

Zach is, interestingly enough, somewhat interchangable for KMD in this discussion. If there are 4 scum amongst us, he is probably the fourth (Although that would be incredibly overpowered, IMHO, and I don't think it's likely).


That's my going theory right now. I think it's a pretty good one.

[Netopalis]

OMGUS only applies if there is no reason to suspect the people attacking you. I have good reasons for suspecting each of you. Why did you each start attacking me from practically your first post? It seems rather suspicious to me.

[Netopalis]

Glork: I disagree strongly. You have admitted intentionally hiding your motives for voting, have cast votes for no reason and have generally tried to be disruptive, IMHO. However, if you had made that post a lot earlier...I probably would have felt differently about things. I don't feel that all attacks on me are unwarranted, however I do feel that for every good reason for my lynch there is a player to lynch who is a worse offender.

Gayle: I did it because the game had to start somewhere. Yes, it leads to false positives, but it also leads to people starting to discuss.

[Netopalis]

Ellibereth: Reread
Glork: Making my point

[Netopalis]

Unvote, vote: Zachrulez

I think there's a chance that he's scum. Since I know that I'm not...I'd rather the town have a chance of a correct lynch today than a mislynch. The players voting me right now are far from a majority.

[Netopalis]

What the crap? Those posts don't mesh. If you're going to do that crappy style of posting, at least make them somewhat relevant to each other.

[Netopalis]

Yos: Here's my defense:

The arguments against me, as I understand them, started out as a reaction to my dislike of early bandwagons - a position best left to MD. This then snowballed into an extended discussion of theory which were responses to direct questions from Glork and KMD. These were later termed as "White noise" by many players in the game. I've also been accused of not doing enough scumhunting on my own. This is an admitted problem, but traditionally, I've been pretty bad at D1. Also, I really haven't had room to get a word in edgewise, given all the "OMG! NETO IS SCUM!" crap that's been flying around, most of it unjustified.

Glork has attacked me (Although he's only recently made these points clear) for attacking Ellibereth early after her replacement in and for attacking anyone that disagreed with me. Ellibereth's play is illogical and follows from the opinions of others. I find that scum basically copy other peoples' opinions, then ride on coattails to get ahead, much like he is doing. As for the attacking people who disagree with me, I attack anyone who actively tries to lynch someone on such a sub-par case. There is practically no logical justification for lynching me that would not be more fitting to lynch another player in the game. White noise? Ellibereth. Attacking those who attack you? Maemuki, Glork and KMD. No original scumhunting? Netlava, Ellibereth, Zach and many, many others.

[Netopalis]

Yos: Looking back, flailing probably wasn't the best word. I meant that his posts seemed to be making farfetched, drastic attacks once his first few decent points were eliminated.

[Netopalis]

Deadline's in 54 minutes, we're not going to be able to get one of the people you'd be happy with lynching today... (As much as I would like to)

[Netopalis]

There are 3 of us online. If we can get another person to show up, then we can do it...

[Netopalis]

Haylen's here too, and there's a lingering vote on Netlava.

Go go go!

Unvote, vote: Netlava

[Netopalis]

There are 5 of us online now, and Net already has a vote. We have enough votes, if we all vote.

[Netopalis]

Yos: Agreed, but...really, unlikely based on his previous activity levels.

[Netopalis]

Please don't tell me that you've decided to become a professional breeder. Of anything.

[Netopalis]

Well, for the record, I really didn't want to engage in that from the beginning. However, once Ellibereth showed up and started attacking me, I knew he wasn't going to back off, so I had to go into it a bit harder than I wanted to.

I think that Ellibereth needs to improve his play - that's not a judgment on his person, it's a reaction from having played with him several times. He won in this game because we started attacking each other early and got a reputation for having a fantastic gut. This is not a strategy that will work every game, though.

That being said, I'm solidly in the logic camp of mafiascum players, and am strictly against the growing tendency to play by gut. This is true regardless of my alignment. Someone who prefers a more guttural style of play might think otherwise.

One final note, I'd like to apologize for my poor play early on. I really didn't want it to turn out like that...But I would have had that policy discussion regardless of alignment. For proof of this, compare to Nouns Mafia. Still, I should have played a bit differently as scum, since I know that I have a tendency to get lynched on D1.

[Netopalis]

Camn: I actually didn't really want to kill you that night - I would have much preferred to kill KMD, as he was more of a threat. However, Zach and Ellibereth seemed convinced that the power roles would be found among the least talkative townspeople, and of the choices that they presented, I felt that you were the best choice, since you were actually somewhat of a threat, unlike Bogre. At the time, you had some light suspicion, but it wasn't as sure of a thing as a Bogre lynch would have been later on.

[Netopalis]

That's....that's the most convoluted breadcrumbing I've ever seen. Good grief!