Newbie 994: Stop! In the Name of Sudo! Game Over!

[dimaba]

Confirmed

[dimaba]

What's your experience playing mafia? Is it in real life, forums, chat, etc.?

I've never played a RL or chat game. I've played two games of mafia on this forum, which makes me a semi-experienced player. I played those games about a year ago. I then had a big gap because I was just too busy to play well.

What do you think the pros/cons may be of playing online vs. real life?

Never having played in real life, this is a tough question. My guess would be that in RL games you can rely on physical tells (looking away, shaky hands and whatever) and it will be easier to put words into context. I have seen people get lynched online on a badly worded sentence when really it is almost impossible to judge the true meaning of a sentence that can be explained in more ways than one over the internet. That's especially true when there are language barriers. Advantages of online play would be that it's easier to keep track of the flow of the game, you can read back to discover contradictions and you have more time to word your accusations and responses.

Do you think wanting to skip RVS in favour of RQS is scummy of me?

No. Tbh I think there isn't much of a difference between the two, as both won't really deliver significant suspicions and do a good job at getting the conversation started. If anything, RQS is probably better as it requires people to produce more text and that makes it easier to get a feel for their posting style.

Lynch all Liars?

If there are no confirmed scum out there, yes. Lying is a terrible thing for town to do, so at worst you will lynch a townie that acts anti-town. An exception might be a lynch or lose situation where the cop has identified certain scum.

Is lurking scummy?

It depends on the definition of lurking. Some say that every kind of inactivity is lurking while others say only being there but responding as little or with as little content as possible qualifies as lurking. In both of of the games I have played before I was attacked for "lurking" when I really was too busy to respond every day. In both those games I was town. So it's by no means a guaranteed scumtell. Personally I only find lurking scummy when it can be verified that the lurker has posted in other topics in the same period of time, or if they are pretending to be active but aren't really contributing. Those are deliberate anti-town actions and are therefore scummy.

What do you think of someone hammering, specially right away?

I agree with what theperson says about quickhammering. Everyone should have a chance to respond to the imminent lynch before the hammer (unless the deadline is very close). A hammer before that is suspect. But when all opinions have been heard and there is no further discussion, there is nothing wrong with hammering.

[dimaba]

Do you think wanting to skip RVS in favour of RQS is scummy of me?

No. Tbh I think there isn't much of a difference between the two, as both won't really deliver significant suspicions and do a good job at getting the conversation started. If anything, RQS is probably better as it requires people to produce more text and that makes it easier to get a feel for their posting style.

EBWOP for clarification: should be "...as both won't really deliver significant suscpicions and

both

do a good job at getting the conversation started

[dimaba]

Vote: dimaba

Here's to hoping that not every single one of your posts is as long as 21.

Probably not, but would it be a problem? Tbh I don't see why, other than that you might have to spend 2min more reading.

You made an interesting point with your answer to question three. I'd like to hear why needle thought we might find skipping RVS in favour of RQS scummy. I don't believe it is necessarily scummy to ask, but to decide I'd need to see needle's reply.

[dimaba]

I care less about what people think of me this early, and more about peoples' responses and reasoning in hopes that it would generate conversation to propel the game.

Seems like a reasonable answer to me. I don't see much reason to find the question scummy.

[dimaba]

I think there's something to be said for both short and long posts. It's true that long posts with too much fluff are useless, but I often feel the same way about short to-the-point replies that leave many questions to be asked. Those questions then need to be asked and answered, causing equal delay. In the end it's just a fact that everyone has a different writing style and that we'll just have to deal with them.

@iamatree: I gather from your post that you can't reply to the questions because you're unfamiliar with some of the concepts (RVS, lurking, lynch all lyars etc) that were used, so I suggest you read the relevant articles in the Wiki pages.

[dimaba]

Whoops, facked up the URL: Wiki

[dimaba]

Meanwhile there are three players (correct me if I miscounted) that haven't replied here since answering the random questions. Those players are Hollyquin, maxmatsu and theperson. Having taken a look at each of their profiles, Hollyquin and maxmatsu both haven't been online for two days now so it seems likely that they have lost interest, dropped out or forgotten about us. Theperson however was last online less than a day ago.
@theperson: why have you not responded for so long if you have visited these forums over the past two days? If it is a time issue, why didn't you take the time to drop us a line?

[dimaba]

@warriormode

Let's see what I said shall we?

Anyways, I don't like lengthy posts

because then I have to read them

If anything they may just be long because people are wordy.

It's like you're intentionally twisting things.

Well he did ASK wether or not you were going to read them... So he probably just didn't read your earlier post that well. There's really no need to assume evil intentions. I don't like how this is the second time that you've tried to turn a fairly innocent post into a scumtell (needle's question being the first).

Sorry. The first day, I checked but didn't really have anything to add. The next day, I was in a bit of a rush. I really should have posted something, I guess. Sorry about that. I'll try to be a lot more active, as I said. There's no excuse for being prodded so early, unless you are gone unexpectedly.

About what's going on about needle, I think it's a null tell. It's his first game, he was probably checking to see if we thought it was OK to have RQS instead of RVS. I think it could have been worded better, but I don't find it scummy.

Alright no problem I'm glad you're back and I hope you'll stay with us.
I agree with you about needle, he was probably trying to find out what is and isn't considered scummy around here. After all, he had already done the thing he wanted our opinion about (skipping RVS in favor of RQS) so it's not like our answers would give him a chance to avoid a slipup.

Well I"m going to get on the bandwagon here and

Vote: Seth

just because you sound the most suspicous to me so far..

What about him exactly do you find the most suspicious? Votes are rarely useful if they aren't supported with good reasons.

[dimaba]

From his absence of elaboration, I think that he didn't read carefully enough, otherwise I'd be voting him right now wouldn't I?

Then don't insinuate otherwise.

I don't like how you're twisting my reasoning for my FoS when it has been generally agreed upon that the question in question was strange and superficial towards conveying more conversation.

How am I doing that? I agree with you on both those points, I just disagree on wether to believe needle's explanation for it.

Really, I believe that you are town but it would help if you didn't get so stuck on one very very weak scumtell.

I can see people getting on my BW because I made a lynch vote without any "suitable lynch " reason but I'm new and going with my gut feelings~!
IF YOU ARE INNOCENT (AND I'VE WRONGED YOU)
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT

Soo you are basically asking us in advance to excuse you for an improperly motivated lynch on a townie?

Since 1) you have lacked content in all of your posts, 2) you voted for seth (who I believe is town) initially without reason and then stating a RVS-vote as a reason and 3) you're asking us to absolve you of any responsibility for a poorly motivated lynch in advance, you are my top lynch option right now.

vote: iamatree

My second option would be warriormode, for the reasons stated by DDDP

[dimaba]

I was typing up a retort but then realized - it seems strange that he would ask a question and vote without waiting for an answer. Do you think noob - scum would be inclined to do that? Apple did it too, but my gut says he's town, what do you think?

Mmm tough one. I think both newb town and newb scum might do it, if they're already sure that they want to vote for you and just ask the question to look good/to give you a chance to hang yourself or whatever/just to make sure. What will distinguish newb scum from newb town in this situation is wether when the question is answered they will unvote if the question is answered well. Town will unvote if the answer makes you less scum.

[dimaba]

@the warriormode-DDDP discussion:
Tone can certainly be a tell IMO, and if DDDP in his experience has defined a certain tone that usually signals scum I am inclined to believe that such a tone exists. However, so far DDDP has only exposed this tone in the words "good luck". I would expect a true scum tone to come out in more than one of the suspect's posts.
So, Danny, can you identify other parts of warriormode's posts that have this scummy tone?

I think warriormode is doing a fairly crappy job of defending himself, especially in post 98 where he seems to be steaming a bit from the discussion. The fairly obvious OMGUS-vote (post 73) doesn't do his case much good either.
One question that warriormode asked DDDP and which is yet to be answered is:

3) Super unsubtly tries to get me to move my vote off of him onto someone else by suggesting the value in a bandwagon. It's phrased innocuously but the intent is quite clear.

Reason #3- [...]How can you justify that I was trying to make you move your vote. I don't care if you have your vote on me. Especially with these reasons.[...]

So Danny, how do you justify that warriormode was trying to make you move your vote? Can you show us that this was warriormode's true intent and that this argument isn't a fairly basic attempt to interpret an ambiguous post to your advantage? Tone is something you can pick up from text on the internet, but intent is a whole other business.

[dimaba]

He suggested I move my vote to needle for a bandwagon, despite the fact that I had made no statements indicating that I thought bandwagonning was a positive activity or that I was suspicious of needle. Since there's no logical reason I can find for him to encourage me to take on an activity I had shown no inclination to partake in, it is far more logical that he was looking to move my vote off of him and a needle bandwagon was merely the excuse given.

He didn't suggest that, he asked you a question which you interpreted as having a deeper meaning. What I was asking you was what reason you have to believe that the question was really a suggestion. So, what was it?

@dimaba

: what made you agree that warriormode was scummy for such a weak case (in my eyes at least)? And why are you STILL following DDDP and buddying up to him (see post 99). Nobody likes a suck-up!

I'm sorry, what? Buddying up to him? Especially post 99... I did agree with DDDP that tone can be a tell, and I said that since DDDP is more experienced than anyone else here it isn't unlikely that he's identified a scummy tone. But I also said that giving one two-word example isn't proper evidence, and I also brought to attention the fact that DDDP had yet to answer one of warriormode's questions and mentioned that I don't believe in arguments based on percieved intent. In other words, I mention two things that I believe are fact and bring up three points that DDDP needs to answer to make a warriormode case worth voting for. I was on the fence about wether I should add to that that DDDP was being profoundly arrogant and annoying in post 87, but decided to go after him on content instead. Hardly a case for buddying I'd say.

[dimaba]

Because he asked "why don't you vote for needle", not "why didn't you vote for needle" the latter is a question seeking an explanation while the former is phrased in such a way to promote a certain action.

I disagree, but since my question was what convinced you that he was suggesting and not asking, I'll have to take that as an answer.

That leaves another question I asked you and which you have ignored:

So, Danny, can you identify other parts of warriormode's posts that have this scummy tone?

Would you mind answering that still?

Question to others: Does attacking a scum-tell that has just been applied to you (and with no argument) come off as scummy? (See: DavidParker's latest post).

No, both scum and town would do so.

I had a similar thought when I first read DavidParker's post, but now that it's backed not only by our IC, but by this Amished guy, and supposedly some evidence, I'm going to throw a vote that way as well.

I have two problems with that:
1) Why didn't you express that thought when you had it?
2) As you say, the scumtell is backed up by "this Amished guy and supposedly some evidence". Why did you not look up this Amished guy and the supposed evidence before immediately finding it credible?

Note: in all my criticism I am not denying that this scumtell might well be genuine, but following it so blindly without proper own research seems stupid. (Read viewtopic.php?p=2067031#p2067031 for the source of DDDP's quote.)

@DDDP I can see several specific arguments in DavidParker's post that you haven't bothered to respond to. If you believe all there is to his suspicion of you is a dislike of you playing style, you clearly haven't read his post very well. This, added to the fact that so far you have only responded to one of the two questions I asked you means that instead of asking us to do your work for you (presenting you with direct quotes) I suggest you take a bit more time to READ THE THREAD FOR CONTENT. Why did I emphasise that? This is why:

This means that warriormode is NOT reading the thread for content which suggests that in fact he's not looking for scum, instead just making arguments: a function of scum not town.

Hypocritical much?

[dimaba]

Throwing around votes to see how people respond is an appropriate way to scum hunt... right?

True. Also, fair enough on the rest of your post, it sounds genuine to me.

Oh and one other thing, sorry for saying that "following it so blindly seems stupid". I was slightly annoyed from something unrelated to mafia and I guess it shone through. I should've put that in slightly friendlier terms.

If I "ask" you "Why don't you go jump in a lake?" I'm not really asking a question I'm telling you off. If I "asked" you "Do you still beat your wife?" I'm not looking for one answer or another but instead to tar your reputation. Don't get confused by a rhetorical device just because it features a question mark at the end.

I understand the rhetorics involed and yet I still disagree. There's a difference between your examples and the sentence used by warriormode. Warriormode used a two-part phrase: "If ..., then why...". This structure is used to signal a percieved contradiction, regardless of wether the person using it is personally affected by the answer. Had he just said "why don't you go vote for needle" things would have been different.

Compare:
Suggestion - Why don't you become a vegan?
Signalled contradiction - If you're a vegan, then why do you have your fridge filled with meat?

The signalled contradiction could be used by anyone who opens that fridge and is surprised at seeing meat, regardless of wether that person thinks the meat should be removed.

Not in the slightest, I believe my summation of his arguments is relatively correct. If you or he believe it to be incorrect in some case then bring the issue forward and I'll willingly discuss the specifics.

Here's what I think is the most important part of David's post that you need to address:

Now, end of page 2. THe part i dont like about DDDP is he isn't getting things moving and some proper discussion moving! I feel he should be encouraging people to vote.. less than half of the players have used their vote at this point.. RVS is a great way to get some early weak bandwagons (that will usually fall later) and good discussion and wagon analysis happening. But he has put down a vote then been happy with the way noone else has voted.. Doesn't seem to be working under a town agenda to me!

This is certainly not merely bellyaching about your playing style, it is about wether the most experienced player around is trying to help the town forward or not and about wether that is possible under a town agenda.
I'll leave it up to David to highlight anything else in his post that he wants answers to.
I will also count the question I asked you about warriormode's tone as unrelated to your playing style, as it applied directly to the strength of your case against warriormode.

-unrelated- Where has warriormode gone off to? It's been over 3 days since his last reply?

[dimaba]

As far as my reads on everyone else, I have nothing to be honest. Everyone seems to be playing in similar styles.
I'm targeting DDDP because hes the only one that stands out to me.
A lynch is better than no lynch, so lynching you or diambawould be fine by me, but not one I would support.

You have no reads, but there are some lynches you would support and others you would not? Everyone plays in similar styles but DDDP stands out? That entire post is self-contradictory...

------
Okay, now as for what my favourite lynch option is...

I see three viable candidates. First, there is warriormode. Now at L-2 after Danny moved his vote back onto him, has contributed little to nothing. I did a quick ISO and saw one post where he voted for seth (for the potential consequences of not liking long posts) that could be considered scumhunting. It could also be what seth suggested at the time: an attempt by scum to twist his words. He has also failed to adequately defend himself against DDDP's case, which had plenty of holes in it. In other words, he is a poor player who doesn't seem to have tried to help town find scum.
(p.s. I am not going to continue the discussion I was having with Danny about his warriormode case right now, as I don't feel that explaining why I think he's wrong will do much to sway opinions at this point and we really need to get a lynch in in time)

Second, DDDP at. I don't like his style and I didn't like his case. Some of his responses have had an unpleasant tone that just gets under my skin, and his refusal to answer questions is really annoying. Wether or not the questions are worth answering is up for debate perhaps, but if useless questions are being asked the least he should do as our IC is to help new players ask less useless questions. But well, at least he's not afraid to make enemies. He has scum potential for making a weak case against warriormode and conjuring up a convenient magic scumtell against David. Yes, we've seen that people have been lynched correctly on this scumtell but we haven't seen if this also applies with the less experienced players in the newbie games and we haven't seen all the times that it has failed. More scum potential for his plain refusal to answer questions (slows town down and allows him to conveniently ignore criticism by dismissing it as irrelevant) and the lack of encouragement for other players to scumhunt early in the day.

Third, DavidParker, now with only one vote on him. He started off very well with a thorough analysis of the thread, making a case on DDDP that though still not entirely convincing was stronger than that made on warriormode. However, his level has dropped off quite a bit in the responses to further posts. Here's what I have to say about a few of his recent posts:

An alliance? Sounds like something of a sort of scum agenda.

Why?

For someone who has used "tone" as an argument and reason to vote someone this game, your posts strike me to have a somewhat desperate and scummy tone to them DDDP. This "desperation" is not only shown in your town but by you trying to form this alliance it seems. Just my view on your last couple posts.

Why?

Warriormode is just flailing around... Not like a scum would though. I don't support this lynch.

Why?

It seems that he is trying insanely hard to make it look like every post by DDDP strengthens his case, without providing any proof or explanation of why it does. I don't see town doing that, as town have no particular interest in making a player look scummy.

Of the three, I want to go for warriormode. From what I've seem of him, he has taken a moderately scummy approach of defending himself and attacking no others. As a consequence, even if he flips town his mislynch will not be nearly as big a loss to town as a mislynch on David or Danny who both seem to be far better players. But, more importantly, I think warriormode will be the most informative lynch. You will have noticed that Danny has continually been on warriormode's tail and that David's first action upon joining was to attack the person who had been going after warriormode. Add to that David's "flailing around" comment that defends warriormode but cannot tell us why, and I'm 90% sure that David and warriormode are on the same team and Danny and warriormode are not. In other words, warriormode's flip will give me my prime suspect for day 2.

unvote

vote: warriormode