Mini 961: Insane Asylum II: GAME OVER :O!

[Glork]

So your question to me about voting for a known town was what?

It was me being intentionally obtuse at the start of a mafia game for the purposes of generating discussion.

A simlar example can be found in these three posts from NY60: Face-to-Face.

[SocioPath]

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

[Glork]

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

Except I recognize when to move beyond that to seriousness, making me not mediocre at what I do.

[farside22]

Glork can you link me to a few of your more recent scum games for comparison your wiki is out of date.

[Glork]

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I

was

scum in a game. It had to have been at least a year ago. The most recently completed large game was Mars 3, which finished in November '08, when I flaked off-site entirely.

[Glork]

EBWOP: I was a Serial Killer in mirth's "Congratulations! You are..." Mafia, which finished in May 09, but I also flaked off-site then. Beyond that, I think you'd have to look for meta examples from completed games in my wiki.

Although I should point out that you'll probably have a hell of a hard time trying to meta me. I know of only like three people who could actually read me well, and they've all played dozens of games with me over the last five years.

[StrangerCoug]

Am I the only one that sees the SC+Glork love here?
It is just so amazing.
Essentially its a massive "rolefish" debate back and forth...
...but thats fine with them...
...because no fishing is needed, cause they already know the other's role...
...and overplay their hand.
This silly distancing is silly.
I'm happy with a SC/Glork double lynch.

Vote: StrangeGlorkerCoug

First off, how the hell am I fishing? I thought he had to be scum due to definite knowledge of town at this point. He has proven it completely false, and I pursued no further. Nothing supports that he is a power role that he says contradicts my claim that he has to be scum, especially since he admitted exaggerating it. Scumhunting the wrong way ≠ rolefishing.

Second, this distancing accusation of yours is out of date for reasons that should obviate themselves through my posts.

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

If this even

DESERVES

to be called a tell, I would call it somewhat of a towntell. Reaction-fishing is good.

[Kairyuu]

Here, reading, posting hopefully soon.

[Kairyuu]

Hrm. I'm just realzing how much I like the look of this playerlist. This oughta be fun.

@Iec:

Sometimes scum can chat til the game starts. Delaying confirms lengthens scumplanning. There is no reason for town to delay confirming. So delaying confirming is scummy.

Really, farside. I've made this RVS vote in games with you before.

Statistically speaking it has been shown that this is wrong. It is my personal belief that those who try to push serious votes based on this accusation are much more likely scum. However, it seems clear that your vote was for RVS purposes.

Not to mention the fact that you're wrong.

Actually, my mistake; I had it displaying "topics" instead of "posts." You're totally right that you were globally off-site. Unvote

I think farside has mischaracterized the reason for my vote being crap. I think this is slightly scummy because it indicates an interest in finding a framework for voting someone more than reflection on whether said actions are scummy. Vote: farside.

I do have to wonder where this is coming from though. She seemed to have a fairly valid point in voting you, especially considering that you were wrong about the initial accusation, random though it may have been.

@Glork: I dislike the self-vote on principle, but am not stupid enough to call you scummy for it, given that you're either town hurting yourself, or scum hurting yourself and helping town with it.

Re: Iec vs. farside. This looks quite like two townies arguing over a misunderstanding. Neither looks like scum from first impressions.

Tar's miller claim is the proper move. I've no reason to doubt it right now.

Glork's looks iffy, but if the first game is anything to go on, we probably have quite a large number of millers.

@Glork:

So I was like "yeah, I'm a miller." But as it turns out, after asking the mod something, I am not a miller towards investigative abilities. Sane investigations on me should get a sane result.

Elaborate please?

SocioPath's posts are rubbing me the wrong way, but I can't put a finger on why.

Strangercoug's miller claim I don't like at all. It seems like scum thinking "oh, there's lots of millers, so I can sneak in too" and then trying to be as non-confrontational about it as possible so that if any of the millers are looked at/lynched it won't be him.

Tar's 83 looks like town, and I'm leaning toward agreeing on Snow, but Glork seems fine to me.

@UK:

Actually, I think it's ended in no lynch for every game except one marathon game thus far ^-^;

All the more reason to do it. The fact that you're acknowledging this means on some level you WANT us to lynch you, which is exactly the way I acted in LRCM v1.0, when I was lynchable. I LIKE THIS WAGON

The good news for you is that it's not really OMGUS. The bad news for you is that your vote on me is partially based on something not really a good tell either (that I'm being zealous about it). I can accuse you of being a zealot too, but it hasn't come to your head that it's illogical for town to consider Iecerint cleared. Definite knowledge of Iecerint-town requires the person that has it to be scum right now.

Reads as: "You've got nothing on me, so if you know what's good for you, you'll back off." Coug is a scummyperson.

SocioPath is GRATING ON MY BRAIN but I cannot for the life of me figure out why.

Glork vs SocioPath put me strongly on Glork's side. Socio seems to be trying to get a rise out of Glork so he can jump on it, rather than finding him legitimately scummy.

farside is barking up the wrong tree. SocioPath is probably scum, and Coug is right behind him. Glork, not so much.

Overall, I really want to lynch the mod because she seems to want it to happen, but I'd get behind either a Coug or Socio lynch. They're independantly scummy, and I somehow doubt they're buddies, but it's vaguely possible. For now, I'm keeping my vote on the mod.[/quote]

Well, I AM a masochist. Maybe I made and all new super awesome win con that is similar to jester in every way except NOT a jester :O

[Glork]

If a player targets me with ability X (which is not an investigation), then that ability will have its "sanity" reversed, meaning it will have the opposite effect that it normally would.

Anyway, I think you hit the nail on the head Re: Socio. He may be trying to troll me into doing something stupid, and if that's the case he's mostly failing miserably.

[Iecerint]

Kai, my point was that she didn't vote me for misrepresenting the fact, but rather because (as I read it) she thought it was scummy to vote based on late confirms (similar to what you just said). I thought it was scummy because it was evidence that she wasn't really investigating my content, but was instead looking for an accepted reason to vote someone. It's the same logic that makes you think that people who push votes based on late confirms are scummy.

(It turns out that, assuming she isn't backpedaling, and I think it's plausible that she isn't, she was voting me for neither reason, but rather to indicate that she was serious about the question and wanted it to be answered.)

I'm not personally aware of the statistical stuff you've alluded to, but I'll take your word for it on the math. I can say that I've been in a scumgroup where I was chastised for confirming too soon, and I've been (IIRC) in a scumgroup where a scumfriend took ages to formally confirm while talking pre-game.

(My guess is that depending on how you operationalize it, you'll see an effect. For example, if all the confirms are on the same day, confirmation order is not a strong tell; but, if a subset are delayed significantly (as in this game), the tell might be stronger. But this is all neither here nor there six pages in.)

Regardless of whether UK wants us to lynch her, that probably doesn't reliably indicate that town wants what UK wants to happen to happen.

I think I interpret some of Glork's behavior a little differently from you. Townies have no motivation whatsoever for voting themselves, except to construct an obnoxious meta, whereas scum have WIFOM-inducing motivation for doing something like that. I also didn't like his self-meta of "wacky Glorky" when someone mentioned as much. I also also didn't know what to make of his allusion to the possibility that I might be masons with him. (I also also also don't really know why he'd have a town read on me given the farside interaction, but people seem to agree with him, so w/e.) SC (IIRC) calling Glork pro-town "if anything" for being wacky (it brings conversation!) was even more bizarre, though. I understand your perspective on that issue, too, though.

As such, I'm more ambivalent than you on SP-SC-Glork. I'm tired of voting farside, though, frankly.

Unvote; Vote: StrangerCoug

. I'll read through the last few pages again and see if I change my mind.

[Glork]

For what it's worth, I would argue that self-voting during RVS is a complete null-tell, provided the vote is (re)moved as soon as the game gets serious. The only protown motivation is for discussion, and the only scum motivation is to pretend you're promoting discussion (which you end up doing anyway).

[Iecerint]

I guess maybe if you think you read people best early on when you're making off-topic, jokey discussion, which I could kinda see.

Results of reread:

Typically with RVS I vote some person I know will make my life hell and watch for reaction.

I'll make your life hell?

Second SB's request that SP and /or Tar change avatars. (Do they have the same one because of some other game? DTM had it, too.)

Tar, have you played with SB before?

The interaction with Sociopath and Glork about the dictionary business is very unnatural, especially since Glork had already criticized Iec-farside for being a "distraction." But I have a slightly townier read on Glork this time through, for whatever reason.

[Iecerint]

V/LA this weekend. I'm visiting family. I'll try to get a post or so in.

[Snow_Bunny]

I've been a bit busy, I'll try to post tonight or tomorrow morning.

[farside22]

I guess maybe if you think you read people best early on when you're making off-topic, jokey discussion, which I could kinda see.

Results of reread:

Typically with RVS I vote some person I know will make my life hell and watch for reaction.

I'll make your life hell?

No that's typical of my vote. Meaning I didn't do it this game

(It turns out that, assuming she isn't backpedaling, and I think it's plausible that she isn't, she was voting me for neither reason, but rather to indicate that she was serious about the question and wanted it to be answered.)

And this ^ was exactly what my vote was in the beginning of the game. It wasn't I find Iec scummy when I voted but his behavoir after brought my scumdar up.

Kai: I'm not sure how you get from one post from the mod that she wants to be lynched. If every game ended in a NL how does the risk = a reward based on one marathon game being different?

I need to look into glork's links.

[SocioPath]

So much to say...where to start...

First off, how the hell am I fishing? I thought he had to be scum due to definite knowledge of town at this point. He has proven it completely false, and I pursued no further.

Firstly, this is false.
Your original reason for voting Glork was this:

Glork's bugging me. Right now I feel he's taking his spat with SocioPath the wrong way, and SocioPath comes off town to me, if frustrated.

Vote: Glork

Then you later got into a debate about something completely different.

Secondly,

First off, how the hell am I fishing?

You are missing the point entirely.
Your "discussion" with Glork was merely a charade, hence the quotes around "rolefish".

Second, this distancing accusation of yours is out of date for reasons that should obviate themselves through my posts.

Uh huh.

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

If this even

DESERVES

to be called a tell, I would call it somewhat of a towntell. Reaction-fishing is good.

Missing the point entirely.

Moving on.

Except I recognize when to move beyond that to seriousness, making me not mediocre at what I do.

This is cute, because it is trying to nullify actions.
In fact, in the way that you move on, is what truly makes you mediocre at it.
For one to be truly skilled at it, they wouldn't look at it and go 'HAHA! OH WELL NO INFORMATION GAINED HERE!'
You give yourself way too much credit.

Glork vs SocioPath put me strongly on Glork's side. Socio seems to be trying to get a rise out of Glork so he can jump on it, rather than finding him legitimately scummy.

This is wrong.
In fact, if you pay attention, you'll notice the exact opposite happening.
Timeline dictates that I'm responding to him, not him to me.
Glork is being intentionally dismissive and condescending in my direction, in order to claim a higher ground to not respond legitimately.
Of course Glork eats it up:

Anyway, I think you hit the nail on the head Re: Socio. He may be trying to troll me into doing something stupid, and if that's the case he's mostly failing miserably.

Doing something stupid?
Like outing yourself as scum?
Or Coug as your partner?

For what it's worth, I would argue that self-voting during RVS is a complete null-tell, provided the vote is (re)moved as soon as the game gets serious. The only protown motivation is for discussion, and the only scum motivation is to pretend you're promoting discussion (which you end up doing anyway).

For what it's worth, NOTHING IS A NULL-TELL.
As long as a person is posting in game, everything has a reason always.

I guess maybe if you think you read people best early on when you're making off-topic, jokey discussion, which I could kinda see.

This part confuses in me in that it is agreeing with Glork, but saying the exact opposite thing that Glork is saying.

[Glork]

I mean anything that you can attempt to jump all over. I think you know I'm an enormous threat to scums in any game I play, so your behavior towards me is largely premeditated.

I'm pretty sure you know I'm not scum, though I love how you seem to have decided I've "outed myself as scum" without actually naming what makes you feel that I'm scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

The good news for you is that it's not really OMGUS. The bad news for you is that your vote on me is partially based on something not really a good tell either (that I'm being zealous about it). I can accuse you of being a zealot too, but it hasn't come to your head that it's illogical for town to consider Iecerint cleared. Definite knowledge of Iecerint-town requires the person that has it to be scum right now.

Reads as: "You've got nothing on me, so if you know what's good for you, you'll back off." Coug is a scummyperson.

I have realized this as a bad line of attack and am no longer pursuing it.

SC (IIRC) calling Glork pro-town "if anything" for being wacky (it brings conversation!) was even more bizarre, though.

I am more solid on Glork-town than your post implies. The "if anything" I posted is a counter to SocioPath thinking Glork is scummy for being "wacky", and we are in agreement that what Glork is doing is bringing discussion. I'm not sure I fully understand why I got your vote.

First off, how the hell am I fishing? I thought he had to be scum due to definite knowledge of town at this point. He has proven it completely false, and I pursued no further.

Firstly, this is false.
Your original reason for voting Glork was this:

Glork's bugging me. Right now I feel he's taking his spat with SocioPath the wrong way, and SocioPath comes off town to me, if frustrated.

Vote: Glork

Then you later got into a debate about something completely different.

Translation: "Your vote is only valid for the reasons you say it's for. If you develop them or shift lines of attack, your vote is no longer warranted." That's not a fair way of playing Mafia. Glork's "taking his spat with [you] the wrong way" is vaguely worded as quoted and admittedly a gut feeling. Yes, I make no explicit mention of Iecerint until later. (Iecerint is the guy you and Glork were arguing over, is that correct?) Does that mean that my vote no longer has a basis? Hell no, it doesn't.

Secondly,

First off, how the hell am I fishing?

You are missing the point entirely.
Your "discussion" with Glork was merely a charade, hence the quotes around "rolefish".

So Glork and I decided to cover up one scummy action by looking like we're doing another? Does this make any strategic sense whatsoever?

Second, this distancing accusation of yours is out of date for reasons that should obviate themselves through my posts.

Uh huh.

Have you, in all honesty, missed the memo that I'm the serious type? I hate being blown off like this.

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

If this even

DESERVES

to be called a tell, I would call it somewhat of a towntell. Reaction-fishing is good.

Missing the point entirely.

X

Denying that something is a scumtell and explaining why it's not is not "missing the point entirely."

Glork vs SocioPath put me strongly on Glork's side. Socio seems to be trying to get a rise out of Glork so he can jump on it, rather than finding him legitimately scummy.

This is wrong.
In fact, if you pay attention, you'll notice the exact opposite happening.
Timeline dictates that I'm responding to him, not him to me.

I see where you're coming from him, but this does not validate your Glork counterattack. It

IS

seriously lacking.

Glork is being intentionally dismissive and condescending in my direction, in order to claim a higher ground to not respond legitimately.
Of course Glork eats it up:

Anyway, I think you hit the nail on the head Re: Socio. He may be trying to troll me into doing something stupid, and if that's the case he's mostly failing miserably.

Doing something stupid?
Like outing yourself as scum?
Or Coug as your partner?

Trust me. I've seen idiotic scum. Glork may be playing the fool, but he is not idiotic scum.

[UncertainKitten]

The Fourth "DancingMad" Vote Count

"I hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE YOU!"

Mod Note: Gonna be gone til sometime tomorrow afternoon. Try not to fill my game with pages, since there won't be a votecount til like, Saturday evening.

0. UncertainKitten (4): Kairyuu, Snow_Bunny, Leech, CSL
1. CSL (0)
2. StrangerCoug (2): SocioPath, Iecerint
3. SocioPath (3): StrangerCoug, Glork, bv310
4. farside22 (0)
5. Glork (1): farside22
6. Leech (0)
7. Tarhalindur (1): Slicey
8. bv310 (0)
9. Kairyuu (0)
10. Iecerint (0)
11. Slicey (0)
12. Snow_Bunny (1): Tarhalindur

Not Voting (0)

UncertainKitten is at L-3

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in 10 days at 3:00 PM EST, Monday, May 17th, 2010

[Iecerint]

Checking in --

The Fourth "DancingMad" Vote Count

"I hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE YOU!"

Freeze your eggs for me.

SC, the vote for you is a reflection of ambivalence about SP/Glork. I'd lean toward voting SP between those two atm, I think.

[SocioPath]

I think you know I'm an enormous threat to scums in any game I play,

This is silly.
I think that you know if I know you are an enormous threat TO scums, that you would also conclude that you would equally be, if not more so, an enormous threat AS scums.

Besides, I can say the exact same thing:
I think you know I'm an enormous threat to scums in any game I play.

so your behavior towards me is largely premeditated.

This is off.
I've been mostly reactionary towards you.
My first votes on you were clearly not serious, as your first disdains towards me shouldn't have been as well.
UK very clearly in my posts that UNVOTING IS REQUIRED.
So I had an entire slew of posts that were intentionally invalid.
For those paying attention, my first vote without the unvote prior, UK quickly made sure that it was clear it was invalid.
After such, during the slew of non-unvotes, UK made some errors, and then later corrected it, and then commented on each of my invalid votes.
I would think you of all people would realize this, so my responses to your posts of my Iec vote and the Glork vote should have been clear.

I'm pretty sure you know I'm not scum,

You are certainly second on my list, don't pretend that you are not.
Pity that SC has tied himself to you so strongly.
Maybe that is his own gambit.
I wouldn't put it past him to villianify you when he goes down to help take out another strong player by tarnishing their name.

Second, this distancing accusation of yours is out of date for reasons that should obviate themselves through my posts.

Uh huh.

Have you, in all honesty, missed the memo that I'm the serious type? I hate being blown off like this.

Oh okay.

INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE?
SCUM!

If this even

DESERVES

to be called a tell, I would call it somewhat of a towntell. Reaction-fishing is good.

Missing the point entirely.

X

Denying that something is a scumtell and explaining why it's not is not "missing the point entirely."

Have you, in all honesty, missed the memo that am the intentionally obtuse type?

Glork is being intentionally dismissive and condescending in my direction, in order to claim a higher ground to not respond legitimately.
Of course Glork eats it up:

Anyway, I think you hit the nail on the head Re: Socio. He may be trying to troll me into doing something stupid, and if that's the case he's mostly failing miserably.

Doing something stupid?
Like outing yourself as scum?
Or Coug as your partner?

Trust me. I've seen idiotic scum. Glork may be playing the fool, but he is not idiotic scum.

That is quite the non sequitur.
He is the one that mentioned 'doing something stupid' and saying I was 'failing' meaning that there would be methods that wouldn't, as he said, 'fail' at doing such.
Meaning its possible.
Don't have to be "idiotic scum" to screw up as scum.

[StrangerCoug]

Have you, in all honesty, missed the memo that am the intentionally obtuse type?

Must have, if I haven't realized we're polar opposites yet...

I'm going to see how SocioPath vs. Glork continues on its own for awhile.

[Leech]

UK very clearly in my posts that UNVOTING IS REQUIRED.
So I had an entire slew of posts that were intentionally invalid.

How is a slew of intentionally invalid posts even remotely helpful?

Pity that SC has tied himself to you so strongly.
Maybe that is his own gambit.
I wouldn't put it past him to villianify you when he goes down to help take out another strong player by tarnishing their name.

I'm not sure I follow this. First you're saying it's a pitty that SC is tying himself with Glork, then you state that he might Villianify him when he goes down to take out a strong player? What you're saying is an indication that you have a town read on SC which makes it a pity that he's attaching to Glork. Then you follow it up with a statement that directly contradicts it, expressing a malicious intent on the behalf of SC, which would result in a "strong player being taken out." This is expressing a read on Glork.

That series of statements is expressing simultaneous town/scum reads of both players. This just isn't making any sense.

Unvote, Vote: Sociopath

He's admitted that he's intentionally posted a series of invalid posts, and now his posts aren't even really making sense. It seems like he's intentionally being a distraction in a game that probably doesn't need any more confusion.

[Glork]

Besides, I can say the exact same thing:
I think you know I'm an enormous threat to scums in any game I play.

Actually, the only games I know of that you've been in were Open Source, which I stopped following as soon as I died; and a certain ongoing. I'm really not impressed by you at all. You evidently think that you're an enormous fucking deal, but from my limited experiences with you, you're a pretty small fish in a very, very large pond. So don't sit here and try to tell

me

what

I

think of you when you have zero credentials and I have read approximately two days' worth of your mafia play.

so your behavior towards me is largely premeditated.

This is off.
I've been mostly reactionary towards you.
My first votes on you were clearly not serious, as your first disdains towards me shouldn't have been as well.
UK very clearly in my posts that UNVOTING IS REQUIRED.
So I had an entire slew of posts that were intentionally invalid.
For those paying attention, my first vote without the unvote prior, UK quickly made sure that it was clear it was invalid.
After such, during the slew of non-unvotes, UK made some errors, and then later corrected it, and then commented on each of my invalid votes.
I would think you of all people would realize this, so my responses to your posts of my Iec vote and the Glork vote should have been clear.

From your own perspective, maybe they are clear. But I certainly didn't recognize that you were intentionally failing to move your vote, and I don't even bother to understand some of the seemingly-throwaway comments you make, like the whole "arbitrary" thing. As soon as I realized you were trying to make that a distraction, I dropped the subject entirely.

That is quite the non sequitur.
He is the one that mentioned 'doing something stupid' and saying I was 'failing' meaning that there would be methods that wouldn't, as he said, 'fail' at doing such.
Meaning its possible.
Don't have to be "idiotic scum" to screw up as scum.

What you are evidently failing to understand is that "doing something stupid" is largely independent of my alignment. In fact, I probably "do stupid things" as town MORE than I do as scum. Mith metas that a sloppy/careless Glork is a protown Glork. Sometime later, I'll try to see if I can dig up the game in which he said that -- I forget which one it was, and it was probably 2-3 years ago... but I think it continues to apply. All of my remotely memorable scum games have been characterized by me being meticulous and conniving, while there are probably dozens upon dozens of examples of me screwing up in games, because -- and this is a concept that just might make a little too much sense -- I am still extremely human. Sometimes I let myself get carried away. Sometimes (California Trilogy III) I'm just flat-out wrong on every level possible. Sometimes I make a big deal out of the wrong things and make it easy for the scums to lead the town in the wrong direction. So yeah, when I said "do something stupid," I was talking about the fact that I am bound to make mistakes at every level. In fact, I'll even admit that you've gotten under my skin just a little bit in this game, and I'm trying really hard to not let that skew my scumdar unfairly against you, but you're doing a damned good job of convincing me that you're scum in spite of that.