Open 221: unclean - Day 3

[Crazy]

Hey people. This is my first mafia game in a couple months, and I had to replace out of my last two. I'm out of school now, so I should definitely be able to complete this game.

One thing that I've thought about is a possible Miller claim. In a closed setup, most people agree that a Miller claiming Day 1 is a good idea. This setup is different, and I haven't come to a definite conclusion yet, but I'm leaning that it is probably a good idea.

Pros:

-It gives the Cop a definite 2 (or 3) people to NOT investigate EVER.
-If 2 people claim Miller, then that's 2 confirmed innocents that the Mafia have to deal with (if they kill them or not).
-If 3 people claim Miller, then we can scum-hunt freely among those three (with better than average chances), without worrying about accidentally outing the Cop.

Cons:

-The major thing against this idea is that it gives the mafia two less targets for the cop.

Whatever happens though, we have to ensure that the Millers both claim before the Cop ever does.

[Crazy]

Oh, and

Vote: Migwelloni

for implying that he has a gun. Not a good sign.

[Crazy]

Vote: Crazy

for, well, being Crazy!

Indeed I am. What would you think about a Miller claim? I think other opinions on it would be nice.

[Crazy]

I think Crazy is unaware of the rules of the game, or he wouldn't have suggested an idea that is assured not to work on account of the Millers getting townie PMs, thus not knowing they're Millers and obviously being unable to claim.

It could have worked if the scum were also unaware of the rules and one of them claimed Miller. I had no idea, btw.

That makes me want to go into a rant about game balance, though... there's another game on the Open Queue that has 3 Goons up against a Role Cop, 2 Watchers, AND a Hider!

As for us, we're essentially playing a mountainous game with a Cop that has so many deterrents (Tracker, Godfather, AND Millers) that it's about 25% of the power of a Cop in a normal game.

[Crazy]

What is your policy on lynch all lurkers? (agree, disagree...)

This sounds wishy-washy, I'm sure, but it really depends on the specific circumstances. I try to figure out if they're lurking strategically (which means OMG LYNCH THEM) or just caught up in RL. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone lurk strategically, though... I imagine it's very rare. Active lurking is a different matter, and is very scummy.

Do you prefer playing as town, mafia, or power roles?

I like playing both as town and scum, but if I play too many games as either, then I get annoyed. I always prefer town power roles over town vanilla.

Why did you choose the username you have

When I was a kid, I was pretty crazy. My usernames on other sites were iamsoooooocrazy. People called me Crazy, for short. I signed up as "Crazy" on this site, because I didn't want an annoying, long username. Now most of my usernames on different sites are either "Crazy," or if that username is taken, I use "CrazyOne."

[Crazy]

I feel that, in order to clarify Rule $#14, I should state that am not a real person. I am made of smoke and mirrors. Shattered mirrors.

Also,

@Mod: You have no rules about prodding. Can you prod everyone now? I'm about to fall asleep here.

Whats up with asking for a prod 2 hours in to the game starting?

Does anyone see this as odd?

Automatic

FoS

for using the word "odd."

People who use words such as "odd" or "interesting" are either too afraid to use the word "scummy," or can't think of a reason why something is scummy.

[Crazy]

Let us delve into this a bit.

I reread the first page yesternight, and it seemed like Shattered's posts on page 1 could be viewed as a preemptive attempt to appear active while not actually saying a whole lot (this idea could fairly be applied to others. It is page 1). Note that I did not change from my random vote on Smash and never issued anything official (FoS, etc).

He did ask for a prod (which he explained) and deliberately did not elaborate on the miller claim issue (which is now moot, but regardless...).

So that was my take on it: potentially odd, perhaps something worth examining.

Wooh, more weasel words! I see "could be viewed" and "potentially odd" as well as "perhaps!" It seems to appear that you could potentially have no confidence in anything that you could perhaps hypothetically type! How oddly interesting, or interestingly odd!

Seriously, your case seems well thought out, but you didn't explain any of that in Post 25. You just mentioned the prod request. Why is that?

Why? Has anyone, to this point, done anything that you would label "scummy?"

I believe using the word "odd" is scummy.

But from what you just said, you had a semi-solid case on SV that could easily describe him as "scummy", but instead you try to avoid any backlash by merely calling it "odd." But what's scummier is that you never posted your full case to begin with! To me, it's like you were stirring the pot but setting up someone else to take the fall.

If you think I'm misinterpreting you (which I might be), then please explain what you were trying to do by holding back on your full case.

My obsession with interesting/odd/etc. comes from a game I played a long time ago as scum (Open 87) where I got talked into a circle after using the word "interesting. Somehow I managed to escape that, but I had to lie out my ears with random definitions of "interesting" vs. "scummy." Since then, I've been careful to never use weasel words as scum, and I pay close attention to anyone that does.

[Crazy]

After we've had a few people examine prod request, it seems that it was likely (more weasel words) an innocent, "Hey mod, let's get started asap" rather than, "I'm scum and I'm looking to present myself as an active and constructive member of the game within the first two hours to establish a good foundation to hide under."

Agree or disagree?

I agree, actually, but that doesn't answer my question. Why didn't you mention the rest of the stuff that you found "odd," mainly the not-commenting-on-the-miller-thing. I found that a lot "odder" than the prod request.

Do you think that this is a "semi-solid, well thought out" case against Shattered? Does anyone?

No, but it's a lot more well thought out than what you originally posted in #25.

I didn't even insist it was odd to begin with! I did not inquire, "does anyone else see this as odd?

So now you're saying that you

didn't

see it as odd? What's was your intention with Post #25, then? Just to stir up some random crap?

Hi.

Crazy is my first town read.

Thank you. I love to buddy up to other people when I'm scum; however, when I am town, I am immune to the charms of other people.

If you believe I am pro-town, then you must have read the thread. Did you find anything scummy, mildly scummy, or perhaps "odd?"



*****

Footnote in the Third Person

Something that is "odd" is not pro-town. It can only be neutral or scummy. Thus, anyone that uses the word "odd" is either...

a. Referring to something that they think is neutral, which is not a very useful thing to do.

b. Referring to something that they find scummy, but they are too scared to use the term "scummy."

So, if dRool really thought that SV's posts were neutral, then his post #25 was entirely useless.

The only other option is that dRool thought that SV's posts were mildly scummy, or something to examine further. In this case, use of the word "odd" is just being cowardly, meaning he's trying to avoid backlash from SV or being associated with any argument against SV.

Neither of these options are very appealing.

[Crazy]

@Crazy: Which do you prefer to play as, Crazy, town or scum?

I like a variety. I'd probably enjoy being scum about 50% of the time, which is more than you'd get on average. I recall at one point I was scum for like 4 or 5 consecutive games and I got really frustrated with mafia in general, simply because I was feeling nervous all the time.

Also, you may have notice that I use a lot of qualifiers in my speech. I'm sorry if this makes you tear your hair out, Crazy.

Your posts don't bother me. It's not literally about the words, rather about the ideas conveyed.

Regarding the "weasel words". That is (again, in my opinion) total bullshit. The ONLY way that you could use that as a case, is if you played multiple games with the same player. Then, if you notice a change in their speech patterns, THAT would be a scum tell.

Trying to deduce that from someone you never played with before, is not logical. We are all from different parts of the world, with different ways of speaking. Can't get too worked up over it, without more evidence.

I haven't heard anything from dRool that suggests that he has a different definition of "odd" than I do. And regardless of where people live, we are all humans and have similar thought processes. I really don't understand your point at all.

I wasn't intending to make a "whole big thing" over this, btw, I completely understand it's nowhere close to a case to lynch anybody.

[Crazy]

@Dizzy - What's the point of mentioning something if you don't find it at least mildly scummy?

[Crazy]

Well, things that I note for future consideration are things that I find scummy. That's why I pressured dRool about his post. His reactions I find scummier than his original use of the word "odd." What I particularly don't like is this quote, where he's disowning himself from anything:

I didn't even insist it was odd to begin with! I did not inquire, "does anyone else see this as odd?

[Crazy]

@Migwelloni

(Assume the Millers knew they were Millers, as I thought at first. Also assume I'm scum.)

If a cop investigated me and got "guilty,' then I'd claim miller.
If I claimed miller on Day 1, then the cop would never investigate me.

Your assertion is that I brought up the plan so I could claim Miller? I could just as easily claim miller after a cop got a guilty on me; that really wouldn't change anything. I'm not grasping your logic right now. If you don't explain well enough, I plan to vote for you.

[Crazy]

Let's turn up the heat a bit.....

Vote Crazy

Do you agree with Izzy's case or with Migwelloni's case?

Izzy's case is meaningless because I think it's clear my interest in weasel words comes from my own experience as scum, and obviously I'm not just making it up.

As for Migwelloni's case, I have no idea what he was getting at. If you do, I'd actually prefer you to explain it rather than him.

[Crazy]

I would be very surprised if Crazy flipped scum.

I want to see a post from Shattered Viewpoint right now.

One of {Migwelloni, Johnny Rotten} is probably scum. Probably not both though.

I'd agree with you, but your shameless buddying makes it harder for me to do so.

Have you played mafia somewhere else, or are you an alt or something?

[Crazy]

Basically, I put a vote on Crazy to pressure him and see how he reacted. When he didn't react right away, I got impatient and unvoted.

I responded to your post. Were you expecting me to freak out or something?

I wouldn't even call it a case, considering I haven't even voted for you.

Perhaps not. You can substitute in the word "argument" or "suspicion," then.

[Crazy]

Neither of those are really quite appropriate. I don't think it says anything about how scummy you are, I'm just saying you're wrong. It's a philosophical debate on how to play mafia more than anything.

Note:

No. I don't think you could be more wrong about this. There are plenty of odd or weird things that are said during a mafia game. The vast majority are not, in the end, scummy or evidence of scumminess. These things are worthy of note, because they could form part of a case against a player when put in a wider context, but alone are just... weird. I'm sure you've seen it plenty of times - people word something in an odd way, draw an unusual conclusion from evidence presented, take an unconventional analytical approach, etc. These things are odd. They are not necessarily scummy.

Frankly, this approach seems liek a weaselly way to attack someone whilst giving yourself some kind of policy excuse to fall back on later... which is more scummy than the behaviour you're accusing other people of.

[Crazy]

Migwelloni, please respond to my post #54.

[Crazy]

Hence the continued conversation leading to further analysis leading to the new conclusion of "wrong, but not in and of itself scummy".

Okay.

[Crazy]

Migwelloni, please respond to my post #54.

Also, what did Johnny Rotten do that was a trap? When he voted for me? How is that a trap?

@SSSSSSS: Yes. Crazy still looks suspicious to me. All that Miller speculation, and the semantics debate. I just don't like it.

I'll accept your "semantics" accusation for now, though I'd naturally disagree. I like language, though, and not all language-related discussion is bad.

What I want to know is why my "Miller speculation" is scummy. As in, what was my intent in doing that?

[Crazy]

As far as your Miller thing, I never speculate on anyone's intent, because I'm not sufficiently evolved to read minds. (Yet.) However, scum skim, and you skimmed the rules. QED.

Everything that is scummy either has to be scummy because:

a. Many scum intentionally do it because it helps them.
b. Many scum unintentionally do it because of their subconscious thought processes.

Now... why would a scum be more likely to skim the rules than a townie? That seems pretty irrelevant to me.

[Crazy]

Crazy: Your vote on Migwelloni is a random vote. Are you going to unvote?

No, that was a cool coincidence that my random vote ended up being on my top suspect.

That's all I read... I don't have time now... I'll read the rest and post tomorrow.

[Crazy]

The last sentence bothers me. Crazy is planning to vote for Migwelloni if he provides a bad explanation, or no explanation. My problem is that he's telling Migwelloni how to not be voted for by Crazy. Another thing, which I've mentioned before: now that Crazy has made such a big deal of weasel words being scummy in this game, how reliable of a scum tell is it? So far Crazy has been telling scum how to avoid his suspect list.

I said that I was planning to vote him to make sure he didn't blow it off and ignore me, which it seems he did, anyway. I didn't actually realize that I still had my random vote on him.

I don't see how me saying "explain your logic well" is tipping him off on how to avoid my suspect list... really, it's pretty obvious that arguments should be presented coherently, isn't it?

Crazy: His asking in his first post about everyone's thoughts on a miller claim seems off. It reads to me as more "Hey scum here is the play to make" than "Hey town, here is the optimal play".

I don't understand this. I was telling the scum that the millers should claim?

I have not been able to add much to conversations because there hasn't been much to talk about, and by the time I saw the posts, everything has been said.

There's always something to say. You mentioned in your last post that there were a couple people you were "watching right now." If something bugs you, or interests you, or whatever, you can pursue it.

[Crazy]

Hey, apparently you didn't like my little "odd" debate. Note that it wasn't intended to act as a solid case. I think it's obvious; however, that I'm not making it up, and that it does come from my own experience as scum... as I pointed out in one past post of mine.

Your last post, SD, actually makes me think you're probably not scum, though... not for the content but mainly because you didn't claim cop. It may be too late to switch targets, however... and it's still better to lynch you than to do No Lynch.

I don't think a different wagon can build up in 2 days, and Mig's behavior was scummy enough that I'm not going to let a recent slight town read on you possibly create a No Lynch.