Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[Copper]

Hello everyone.

I'm looking forward to the game.

[Copper]

An interesting first couple of posts.

AGar attempts to get the ball rolling with a random vote, but DavidParker claims that, rather, this vote is based on their prior history. Two very different perspectives... I wonder, which is more accurate?

Let me

vote: MichelSableheart

because if our last game together is any indication, then he'll be playing too good for me to consider ever voting for him again.

[Copper]

After skimming the long walls that Michel and Agar wrote, I've come to the conclusion that they are by-and-large worthless. If either of you think there is a legitimate point for the game at hand buried in all of that noise, feel free to illuminate it, but I suspect that the lot of it is just mis-aimed MD fodder and not relevant to us.

AWA seems a little too focused on logic as the underpinning of the game. While it can be useful in small doses and is very useful in certain endgames, mafia is much more of a game of psychology than logic. This isn't a scumtell on your part, but continued focus on 'people who make fallacious arguments are scum' and 'people who discourage utilization of logic are obviously scum' aren't going to get you all that far. Focus on intentions and interactions.

I dislike this post of AGar's:

Also, per MME's request, I'll stop with the spewing MD stuff.

Vote no longer necessary.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Screl

Scum like nothing better than to muddy the waters and confuse the town. Not every firebrand is scum, of course, seeing as there is almost always a townie somewhere in the argument and all people can get angry from time to time. But when people get into these sorts of arguments it's usually because they got carried away without thinking. The fact that you feel your vote is no longer necessary once you have stopped arguing theory seems to imply that you never really thought Michel was scum, and you were simply trolling for an argument that had the effect of making the game thread harder to read.

Unvote, Vote: AGar

[Copper]

I did feel that Michel was scum at one time, but I was also furiously engaged in the argument similarly, so my vision was clouded. I wasn't simply trolling for an argument, and that MD thread will likely re-surface in MD post-game.

Be that as it may, can you really respond to the idea of vote hopping so early in the game without relying on tunneling? I appreciate the honesty, but can you elaborate on what exactly the catalyst was for the original vote (or, better still, for the vote switch) without pushing us all back into an unnecessary argument? Additionally, I don't think it's just Michel either, you were voting AWA before him, and had a random vote on DavidParker before that. Why did you not reconsider your AWA vote after you decided to unvote Michel? Why did you choose screl instead? It feels a bit scatterbrained, not something I would expect coming from you.

Either you are too stupid to figure out that this was the only OMGUS vote, or you are trying to project your scum on me. Either way that is bad for town.

I don’t care if you are in the middle of a posting spree, I will post where I please, if you decide to ignore it and let it go by unnoticed then that is your fault. Town wants people who pay attention to everything and not just the big posts between two people.

Although seeped in emotion, this makes me wonder what Michel would have to say about how screl is arguing here. I feel as though if you're too willing to let aggression read as town, then posts like this may pass that check as well. AGar, I think, is right to criticize screl here. This seems overly reactionary for a player who isn't in any form of danger. His playing of the newbie card, I think, doesn't bode well for him either. However, it does seem like there may be some genuine confusion on screl's part:

Feel free to correct me, but from my understanding an OMGUS vote that early on is a random vote, not a serious vote.

An OMGUS vote is inherently nonrandom, screl, regardless of when it takes place. Any vote that has an objective or motivation behind it is definitely not a random vote.

[Copper]

I'll construct a broader post in a bit, but I find this offensive. Conciseness is decidedly anti-town. It allows scum to hide behind strawman arguments, and forces protown players to defends themselves in as few words as possible, when more would be more effective. Just because you're too lazy to read a large post, don't claim that smaller posts are "protown". This is at least the second time you've claimed this. Man up and start playing.

I disagree fairly strongly with this post; from what I know of my fellow heads, I'm not alone in this. Strawman argument are not a scumtell of any reliability. It is very rare that scum deliberately make an argument that they, at the outset, know to be a weak one. Overwhelmingly, scum and town use poor reasoning at about the same frequency, for about the same reasons. Scumhunting is ferreting out why they are making the argument they are making, and discerning the information and biases they have that are contributing to their opinion.

More importantly, this line of thought can very easily implode on itself. People who feel that very lengthy posts are necessary to illuminate their thoughts oftentimes have over-complicated ideas about the gamestate. When people comment on these views, they're bound to get some details wrong, seeing as the wallpost is very often regarding some odd point not wholly grounded in the real (because if it was an idea that could be naturally derived from the gamestate, it wouldn't take that many words to explain). The wallposter, if they are from the "Mafia is a game of logic" school, will often cry misrepresentation, because after all, they clearly stated their ideas at length. This tends to start a pointless wall-war in which the combatants award town reads to those who can sift through and comment on their garbage, and scum reads to those who forestall wading through the muck or who get some detail wrong in their response. This has next to nothing to do with who is town and who is scum and bogs down the game for those who are trying to play it, which leads to a general lack of interest on the parts of everyone but the wallspammer. Caution yourself against this kind of thinking, AWA, because it sounds suspiciously like you're coming from this perspective.

I do, however, agree that TheButtonmen's extremely short posts are not examples of good content. He makes good, specific accusations such as "DavidParker is blatantly townfollowing" but there is a difference between concise justification and no justification.

AGar's post #130 makes good points and he's given a satisfactory answer to the initial accusation. Our vote seems to me now to be a little stale. I'll leave it on for now only because I want to consult with the other heads about something; expect either a vote change or additional points against AGar from another head soon.

[Copper]

@Cooper:

Your keeping your heads secret I'm assuming?

It's "Copper", "You're" and not "Your", and yes.

@ Copper - How many people are actually posting in this game? If it is more than 1 will you add signatures to your posts so there will be no confusion?

There is more than one person posting in this game, but the signatures seem unnecessary. I'll occasionally say something to the effect of "speaking as the player who wrote that case..." if I think it's relevant, but generally it's not. I will say, as well, that at least one person in the quicktopic does not actually post in-thread, and we act on the suspicions and opinions of everyone in the topic, regardless of who's posting. That is more or less the point of the hydra in the first place (all of our heads continue to play mafia with our 'normal' accounts; Copper is not one of the hydras created solely to dodge negative opinion) and quite honestly I feel that notating the specific posts of each head would be a tad counter-productive.

Button's 151 is a very solid post. I also agree with the point Michel has been pursuing - it's quite curious that screl has chosen to play hunt-the-lurker against MME while completely ignoring Remus. The thing that makes me the most leery about screl is this post:

@ DP - I voted for MME on post # 156. MS voted for MME on post # 158. Why are you only attacking me on the subject?

Lurking is bad, and pressuring lurkers is good. Yet there is also considerable incentive for scum to vote for lurkers. Why? Because they are impossible to defend - no one can give a good reason NOT to vote for someone who has provided nothing. So it's important to find those who are pressuring lurkers in the hopes they post and separate them from those who are voting for lurkers because they are safe votes. Screl's vote is the absolute definition of a safe vote. He makes sure to vote for the lurker someone else voted for, and now, coming under fire for his vote, he pulls out the argument "But MS did it first!" I've voted people in the past because it looked like they might be trying to set this up - to actually see it happen is fairly damning.

Unvote, Vote: Screl

[Copper]

I apologize on that point, screl. That being said, it does not change my logic overly much. I pointed out that your vote seemed like the epitome of a safe vote and not a genuine pressure vote. On one point (that it was following MS's vote) I was mistaken. But in your haste to correct me, you gave far greater evidence that you are safe voting. You say that:

I disagree with Coppers logic because 1 vote does not really put pressure on a lurker, especially with DP being L-3 (I think). Therefore a few people would have to vote for the same lurker to get them out of the little hole they have dug.

So, if one vote doesn't put pressure on a lurker, why would you vote MME? Clearly not to pressure him. Instead, it only reinforces the idea that this is a don't rock the vote, you can't say I'm wrong kind of vote.

If you really think MME is scum, you try to push his wagon. The fact that you respond to DP going after your vote with nothing more than "MS is doing it too!" shows that you're not interested in that. You yourself claim that one vote doesn't pressure a lurker, but you go after him only for breaking a self-imposed deadline, without trying to find any scum motivation. Lurking is bad, but it's all too evident that you're using this lurker as a way to dodge the responsibility of casting a meaningful vote.

[Copper]

MME seems to be getting a little emotional here, though I can't help but notice how defensively screl is playing. His last five or so posts have contained anything from, "I said I had been drinking" to "Why me?". Moreover, he seems fixated on the idea that he was the one who "brought MME back", trumpeting it like some sort of badge of honor. Now, it's the nature of the beast to be a bit lacking in the offense department when you are voting a player who isn't active, but should this completely excuse screl for his behavior? There are generally just the two main motivations for doing something in this game (not counting third parties), to contribute to the town or to make it look like you are contributing to the town. When it comes to that fundamental analysis, I still hesistate to see screl in the former group.

[Copper]

DP, unless people have abandoned your wagon, I'd strongly recommend you claim in your next post. Better early than too late.

[Copper]

Michel, that's a surprising post you've made there. Your thoughts derive from the idea that screl scum/DP town is impossible, which I fail to see. Scum players, especially newer scum players, are reluctant to hammer, even more so if the person they target flips a power role. A flippant "he hasn't hammered yet, so obviously this isn't scum driving a mislynch" doesn't do justice to the issue, and given what you've concluded from this psuedo-axiom I'm surprised you think it does.

The most worrying sentence is "In the case where both are town, it would prevent a mislynch." But that line of thought expands as, "If we lynch DP and he flips cop, we know screl is a townie." Not only do I not agree with that statement, but even if you do that doesn't seem like a fair trade. You seem to be drastically under-valuing the use DP would have to the town if he was telling the truth. I can understand not believing in his cop claim (as your continued vote and the "giving the scum you found time to wriggle his way out of a lynch" comment would seem to indicate) but your sloppy town/town hypothetical focuses on information from lynching while treating the outcomes of their lynches as identical.

I don't like lynching claimed cops day one. I like it even less when, instead of blatantly saying "I don't believe in your cop claim", you monger for their lynch with incomplete lines of thought and throw out subtle comments cheering on their lynch without directly engaging the claim.

I'd still prefer a screl lynch to a Michel lynch at this point, but Michel's attitude toward DP unsettles me.

[Copper]

I somewhat disagree with nopoint in that I think the best place to start this day off is with a

vote: MichelSableheart

. His unsettling move towards the end of yesterday to push for DP's lynch over screl's was awkward, that screl actually flipped scum only makes it worse. What's reasonable is generally not far from the truth, and what seems reasonable to me is that, even despite DP's past sins, advocating lynching a Cop claim seems unnecessarily bold.

Additionally, Michel's statistical argument is unconvincing. It depends, in large part, on the continued misbehavior of DP. Being skeptical is one thing, but a lynch is completely another. Michel seemingly backpedaled hard and fast when he realized there were no takers to his proposal. screl flipping scum puts all of us in a position to question his motivations.

[Copper]

Oh, that's a good find, don. I agree with you, too. One of those three is certainly scum.

[Copper]

Unfortunately for Michel, I just don't see a logical reason not to go ahead with this lynch. I simply have to concur with DP, Oso, nopoint, and don's collective sentiments that I prefer to see the end of the day right now. The worst case scenario that I could possibly imagine is that DP isn't who he says he is, and he merely lucked out on not having anyone to counter-claim him. Even if Michel were to claim a power role at this juncture, would it really change anyone's mind? The town has the maneuverability to be a little more aggressive, so why not rationally use that aggression on the uncounterclaimed Cop's guilty investigation?

[Copper]

We have the numbers advantage to test a counter-claim to the mason. As such, we should get the confirmed townies established as quickly as possible. We have a strong edge over the mafia right now and we should use it to end this decisively.

Remaining mason(s), come forward. DP, give us your results.

I am not a mason.

[Copper]

This changes things.

I see no reason to lynch the cop when a guilty result of his has flipped guilty, but I also see no reason why a townie cop would suddenly want us to lynch them to be "sure". A roleblock N2 with no roleblock N1 also seems very odd. Overall, it's a weird sort of WIFOM game when a real townie would have no reason to create it.

I would like David to post again when he's not so out of it. In the meantime, we should stop the mason/not mason claiming, because the mason claims become worthless if we easily agree on a lynch. Don, as to why I wanted the masons to claim previously - we have a tremendous tempo advantage and it would be a waste to fritter it away for a day only to find our number one lynch suspect is a mason. It's far better to combine our mason or masons with likely townies (as nopoint said, it's fortunate that we have some town-seeming people claiming not mason) and start trying to find the last scum by process of elimination. Now, if we all decide on someone to lynch who has no chance of being a mason, then we want to refrain from claims for a day.

[Copper]

DavidParker, while Jester speculation is bad, looking like a Jester (and self-voting for idiotic reasons qualifies) is even worse. The policy tends to run: "If someone looks like a Jester, lynch them. If someone starts speculating about Jesters, lynch them too." You come first.

My first thought was: David's not playing to any sort of scum or town wincon, but he's not a jester. (For those of you who are curious, a jester that people thought was a cop would keep throwing guilties on random people. He'd probably hit a townie and be subsequently lynched after their flip.) He's probably just following some really dumb plan, and our best bet is to pretend he's not here and get on with our lives.

My second thought was: That's probably the reaction he's trying to elicit.

Vote: DavidParker

[Copper]

Do not give the mafia that luxury, please. If DP is the lynch, then there's absolutely no reason for Mason claiming to continue. We're in good shape, but that doesn't give us an excuse to play sloppily.

[Copper]

You can hammer yourself anytime you want, David. Unless, of course, you don't want to be lynched at all and you're trying to get lynch immunity by looking so pitiful no one will hammer you.

AWA, overly long days do more to help scum than town. When it's clear who's going to be lynched, further talking only serves to inflate the post count and scumhunting is difficult if not impossible (as soon as scum know exactly who is getting lynched that day, they no longer have to risk outing themselves by trying to get certain people lynched/not lynched.) A quick mob is the ideal reaction to an obviously necessary lynch.

[Copper]

Good game. It's a nice feeling to get a perfect game as town.

To the scum: I'm curious as to why we were never nightkilled. I had pegged Copper as the target for both the N1 and N2 kills.

Also, this game is a good example of the power of a hydra. Day two was entirely posted by a single head of the hydra. Day three had a different head that demanded we see the DavidParker lynch through, against some internal thought that he might just be a newbie townie. Without one of the heads, the whole account would have flaked and needed replacement; without the other, David very well might have pulled off that gambit.

[Copper]

Great game everyone! All I wanted to add was thanks to everyone who didn't need to be replaced and thanks to our lovely Mod for a great, if short, game. The setup seemed balanced and you were attentive throughout the game.