Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Beefster]

The only kind of fishing I ever agree with is reaction fishing, which is essentially what my play revolves around in the early game. It's risky, yes, but it can sometimes get better information than being more... uh... passive.

[Mastin]

Ah, thanks.

[Yenros]

@ Mastin: Redcoyote is the mod, and probably won't be prodding himself.

@ Beef: I'm not sure if this is actually useful, but how could you forget who your vote had been on when that was what started everything on you?

@ Mute: You said that you didn't find Beef any more suspicious then anyone else though, wouldn't it be better to vote someone you actually find suspicious? I could actually understand you voting that way if it was closer to deadline and the town consensus. Also, Jay asked you about Lat, but you never explained your reasons behind Jay or Kayi either. Is it things that others posted and if so what, or something else?

[Trendall]

@ Trendall: When it comes to hammering, my personal thought based on my game and what I've read, I think you should wait until it's almost deadline to get as much discussion as possible. Of course there are exceptions, such as if discussion comes to a stop or the majority of town say we should end the day and hammer.

Agreed

I see Beefster's most recent vote as him trying to turn the bandwagon on him around to the most easy target, which seems to have become me over the past page or so.

I have not seen this. Explain.

The point I was trying to make is that it is all too easy for a scum player to go 'Oh look, Trendall's not posting much, I bet he's mafia'. I'm unquestionably quite a good target here, seeing as I am 'lurking' or whatever. I don't know if I'm necessarily the 'easiest' target, that was just poor wording on my part.

This is scummy.

Spoiler: Now I'm doing Sessions for SE's, too!

Why is it scummy, Trend? Because, if you're town, this should be your last concern. We all make mistakes. None of us are perfect; we all have our flaws. If you hammered town, so what? We lose a town player, but gain information from their lynch. True, we wouldn't hit mafia, but we are one step closer to that. A pro-town player should realize this. They shouldn't fear the hammer, because hammering is part of the game. Scum, however, do: scum fear the hammer, because of the exact reason you state: they fear that it'll make them look scummy. It doesn't, not anymore, anyway. Most players who are even semi-experienced realize that hammering is far from a scumtell in most cases. Reluctance to hammer, however,

is

. You're afraid to look bad. Townfolk know they are town, and tend to be a

little

more on the carefree side. Remember my tells? This was one of the most valid for a reason--I've found it's around 60/40 for work/not work. Unless you're constantly cautious, there is no pro-town reason to fear the hammer of a player who

might

be town--they might also be scum; you don't know, if you're town!
If you're scum, however, you do. You

do

know they are town, and that you're hammering town, and that you'll look bad. Therefore, what you did was a bad scumtell, Trendall.
That said, though, just because you don't want to look like scum, doesn't mean there aren't any valid reasons to NOT hammer Beefster. In fact, a very pro-town reason was already brought up in-thread by Yenros: for more discussion. More discussion--99% of the time--will be better than less discussion. Considering how far away the deadline is,

that

is a valid reason to not hammer. Had you said that, I wouldn't have thought twice of it. That you

feared

hammering him, however, is what made it catch my eye.

No. No no no no no. Anybody who skipped over this because it was in spoiler tags, read it, because it is basically a very subjective, speculative, opinion-driven argument made to appear legitimate by being placed under SE tags, which always throws up a huge red flag for me. 'Here's my theory on what's happening here, and my theory is right because I'm an SE' always comes off as scummy to me.

I'm town. Of course lynching a fellow town player is going to be a concern for me. I'd much rather lynch mafia, and even if I make a wrong decision I'd rather leave it until close to the deadline to allow for more discussion. I didn't say that I wanted to leave it until closer to the deadline in my previous post because I thought that that kind of went without saying. Obviously I was wrong. You can see from checking the other two games on the site that I am often reluctant like this. I was town in both those games. I'm a new player. I'm not a particularly good player. I'm aware that my decisions could totally screw the game up for the rest of the town, and that's why you will never ever see me make quick decisions like that, or at least certainly not this early in my mafiascum career. Although it might not seem like it from what I've posted so far, I'm still in the process of reading the game carefully, checking people's previous games, making lots of notes, etc. I don't feel like I've done everything I can to work out who the mafia is yet, so I'm not going to hammer on anybody until I've got that done. Again, you'll see that I behaved similarly in previous games. My interest is in making the best decision possible here, and if that's scummy, then I don't know what to think. I don't think cautiousness is a scumtell, and I'm fairly sure that if you did an analysis of a large sample of games to test that theory, it wouldn't yield any solid results. Whether somebody is cautious or reckless is far more likely to be defined by their playstyle and personality than it is by their alignment in any specific game. Feel free to prove me wrong, but either way, I don't think it's anywhere near a solid enough 'tell' to be listed under SE tags. Sorry.

I missed when Trendall said his computer broke down. Going back to re-read. I'm finding

Trendall

's last post worthy of mention though. When did he suddenly become the "easiest target"? Too defensive when no one but Beefster has really attacked him in any way. I'd be an 'easier target' than him considering how many people find me scummy. Just sayin'.

This is addressed earlier on in this post. I meant that I was an easy target, not necessarily the easiest target. My fault for not wording it accurately enough.

I didn't say that my computer broke down, but post #110 is where I said that I had computer issues.

------------------------------------

I've gotta say, I'm going off the idea of a Beefster lynch a bit. I find it hard to believe that a scum player would act this out of the ordinary when the pressure's on them, especially on day one. I'd expect mafia to be trying to get votes off of themselves here, which Beefster doesn't seem to be doing. Instead, he's still relentlessly trying to get reactions out of people and work out who the mafia are. I originally thought that Beefster's vote on me was to try and get votes off of him and onto me, but I'm starting to realise now that that may not necessarily have been the case.

[Jay]

Sorry I haven't been active in the past few days, I've been pretty busy. Also, sorry again for making a short "I'm still here!" post, but I just want everybody to know that I'm not dead. I'll be rereading the thread soon and try to makes posts with more content.

[Jay]

EBWOP: 'Makes' should be 'make.' Stupid typos.

[Beefster]

FoS: Trendall

That post reeks of OMGUS and fluff. (Mostly fluff)

[Trendall]

I never understood OMGUS. If somebody is suspicious of me, I'm automatically meant to rule out the possibility of them being mafia, otherwise it's OMGUS?

[Neruz]

No, OMGUS is when you declare the person being suspicious of you as scum

because they are suspicious of you.

[Beefster]

Exactly- It's more about the reason. OMGUS is voting for someone specifically because they voted for you. It doesn't have to be the only reason, but it has to appear to be a contributing factor. I don't really see any good reason you're voting for me, and to me, it looks like you're coattailing off everyone else's reasoning and using that as an excuse for your real intentions.

It's okay to vote someone who voted you as long as that isn't part of the reasoning.

[Neruz]

Well it

can

be part of the reasoning, but only at either lylo or if you are confirmed town. Neither of those two qualifiers is in effect at the moment however.

[Trendall]

Exactly- It's more about the reason. OMGUS is voting for someone specifically because they voted for you. It doesn't have to be the only reason, but it has to appear to be a contributing factor. I don't really see any good reason you're voting for me, and to me, it looks like you're coattailing off everyone else's reasoning and using that as an excuse for your real intentions.

It's okay to vote someone who voted you as long as that isn't part of the reasoning.

I'm not voting for you.

I wasn't suspicious of Mastin because he was suspicious of me, I was suspicious of Mastin for disguising speculative theory under SE tags, which I thought was explained clearly enough in my post. I would have been wary of that whether it was me who he was addressing or someone else. That was the only reason, and it's not a particularly big FoS at all.

[Neruz]

Beefster is

really

sucking at working out who is voting for him. It's getting kind of rediculous...

[RedCoyote]

Prodding Lateralus

---

Vote Count 7

• Beefster

  (Kayi - Mastin - Neruz - Mute)
  
  

  Mute

  (Jay - Beefster)

  
  

  Kayi

  (Lateralus22)

  
  

  Jay

  (Yenros)

  
  

  Not Voting

  (Trendall)

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.
Current Deadline: Nov. 17th, 2010 at 12:00 AM (CST)

[Lateralus22]

responding to prod, will try to get something later

[Kayi]

I didn't have much time last time I responded, and I don't know when I will again. I apologize if I'm walling or if I'm addressing things that were addressed already.

@Mute - Aggressiveness is the least of my concerns. Your reasoning was pretty much "This is what I think and I don't care what you think about it." Not being able to defend your thought process comes off as scummy to me because it shows insecurity.

@Beef - I don't know how I missed post #192. It's disconcerting how little attention you're paying to the game. Seeing as we pretty much argued back and forth for two pages about your voting sequence, I don't get how you're able to forget that you had your vote on me before having it on Trendall. Specially after stating that you had become genuinely suspicious of me. The fact that you're at L-1 and don't even seem to remember why... Well, I don't know what to think of that. I just know it doesn't look good. At this point your attitude is simply anti-town.

@Trendall - I don't understand your reasoning. Town are as likely as scum to try to shake votes off at L-1 (cyber-survival instinct ftw.) Both parties are likely to keep acting in a way they think looks pro-town until they're lynched. What do you think on Beefster's barely paying any attention to the game at all?

@Mastin - I actually somewhat disagree with that SEssion you gave Trendall. (No, I wouldn't have read it if he hadn't pointed it out.) And I also think it's more of an opinion than actual game theory. Not so much the main subject of it. I noted that post (#175) for its uncalled-for defensiveness before. It still looks scummy to me. But what you said on your SEssion doesn't sound right. Both town and scum are worried of coming across as scummy, or they should be. Trying to not sound scummy is, on a town player, a pro-town thing to do. The problem is achieving it...

[Neruz]

@Trendall - I don't understand your reasoning. Town are as likely as scum to try to shake votes off at L-1 (cyber-survival instinct ftw.) Both parties are likely to keep acting in a way they think looks pro-town until they're lynched. What do you think on Beefster's barely paying any attention to the game at all?

Actually, this is somewhat meta, but in general town are

not

as likely as scum to try and avoid being lynched

unless

it is lylo. The reason being that if a town player is being lynched before lylo, that means at least one other town player thinks that player is scum, the lynching of that player will not lose the game for the town, so the town usually care less about being mislynched. The town also know that they are telling the truth (unlike the scum), thus there is no point trying to 'push' votes off themselves.

Being afraid of being mislynched as town before lylo is probably the single commonest newbie tell, it's also one of the most common

scum

tells. As you can imagine, this can cause all kinds of trouble, so it's a good idea to break yourself of the habit as early as possible.

[Jay]

...Wait, what does lylo mean?

I feel

really

stupid now, I'm not familiar with a lot of the terms you guys use.

[Trendall]

lylo - lynch or lose, a situation where you have to lynch a mafia, or else mafia wins.
mylo - mislynch and lose, a situation where you don't have to lynch, but if you do lynch incorrectly, the mafia wins

[Yenros]

I think I actually agree with Trend on Beef's actions now. Seems to me that, at l;east in theory, a town player that is likely to be mislynched would want to get out as much info for the town as possible before being lynched.

[Mastin]

For reference, Trendall misinterpreted my SEssion's intended meaning. I will elaborate when I have the chance. However, quick version:
-He didn't quite understand what I meant to say. (I will attempt to clarify my wording soon.)
-This isn't subjective. This is stuff I HAVE noticed, in many games. It is very objective. Hence, it is valid to me as a SEssion. If this was just my opinion, I would most likely not have made it a SEssion. I've found it to be true on an overall scale. It's a long, LONG explanation. Heck, I might need to create a completely new article on the Wiki for it. Needless to say, this'll take time for me to explain in detail. So, short version short, Trendall is incorrect in presuming this was merely a speculative opinion-driven argument. Would violate my principles as a player.
-Even if what I said turns out to not be true, I have stated several times in the past that I am human. I make mistakes. I've been encouraging the IC and other SE(s) to call out any of my SEssions they think are wrong, in case they ARE just my opinion, instead of something backed up. I'm--as mentioned--a SE, not the IC. I'm not as good as an IC. Not even close. If--even after clarification, even after I've gathered all the evidence I can--the SEssion proves to be inaccurate, I will admit it was incorrect and I made an error as an SE. However, I still believe what I said is, in fact, valid.

Again, I don't have the time right now to explain, but I will, later in the day. This is something which needs elaboration badly.

---

Have to leave, now. Just a note: deadline's two days from now. However, I would ask that anyone considering hammering wait until I have elaborated on the above as promised. (Not to mention, comment on the other posts so far, today.)

[Lateralus22]

did a quick skim, something better later.

btw Mastin when you explain why something is scummy of another person (in order to accuse them) that shit stays out of SE tags. not seeing how Beefster is being a pro town player trying to get all the information out either

[Mastin]

Here's my short post which I'll do before my explanation. (Speaking of which, if this gets too large of a debate for this game, remind me to make a MD thread about it when the game is over. We shouldn't do it while the game is ongoing.)
Yenros is right about Mute, though we're actually closer to deadline, now. (Two days.)

I'm unquestionably quite a good target here, seeing as I am 'lurking' or whatever.

Simple question, then:
What are you going to do to fix it, then?

I've gotta say, I'm going off the idea of a Beefster lynch a bit.

We're two days from the deadline. Got any other suggestions? I'm open to them.

I find it hard to believe that a scum player would act this out of the ordinary when the pressure's on them, especially on day one. I'd expect mafia to be trying to get votes off of themselves here, which Beefster doesn't seem to be doing.

By the way, this is another example of WIFOM. We don't know what Beefster is thinking. It could be that he wouldn't act that way, or maybe that's what he--as scum--is hoping for, so is taking a gambit.
Note that this case of WIFOM doesn't seem negative to me. Again, many arguments can be made WIFOM. Ack, exact words on this are escaping me. How about this: It's WIFOM, but not a scummy use of it. (I'm a little braindead, right now. Been sick the whole weekend, and I didn't sleep well last night. Sorry that I can't explain it better. I'm not sure I'm communicating my intended message, but can't think of a way to say it better.)

For reference, Neruz says here basically a huge part of what I was conveying with my SEssion. Fear of being lynched (before lylo--which in this game is a minimum of Day 3) is more a scum tell, than a null or town tell--and this applies to things looking really scummy, too. Fear of hammering, because it looks scummy. Scum don't want that. I've seen plenty of town people do it without fear.

Speaking of which, I think there's a slight need to make sure there's no confusion on a subject: "Reluctance to Hammer" is expressing willingness to do so, but being reluctant: to keep both options open. You could go either way on the matter. What was that scumtell? Wishy Washiness? I know there was a scumtell for that, though I don't remember its name. Basically, it's in the wording: scum will want to--as much as they can--take a neutral stance, so when the time comes, they can take advantage of their former-neutrality and choose whichever side benefits them the most, whereas if they committed to one, they couldn't change to the more beneficial one without looking scummy. Town players don't. They either will, or refuse.
"Refusal to Hammer", on the other hand, is flat-out stating you won't. It's a neutral to town tell, to contrast the Reluctance being far more a scumtell. Is it necessarily good for the town? No; in general, it actually tends to be anti-town to refuse to hammer...yet it's something VERY few scum will do. Simply put, it's something they fear doing. It's not only taking a stance which is impossible to reverse without consequences, it's ALSO an anti-town stance. (More clarification on terminology: "Anti-town" is something which works against the greater good of the town. It is not a scumtell to do something anti-town. Many players have anti-town playstyles, for example. They don't benefit the town, but it has no impact on alignment.) And scum don't want to take an anti-town stance, because--even though the two are separate (see my terminology clarification)--it puts them in the spotlight, perhaps permanently.
The other town (also neutral) reaction is to simply hammer, without reluctance.

A way to basically say it is, well, all players might have the same thought process on it. "Should I hammer, or shouldn't I?" Town players tend to post their conclusions--that is, "Yes, I should *Votes*", or "No, I won't." If they're undecided, they tend to not even mention it. (Well...okay, *I* don't.) Scum players tend to say, "Eh, I dunno, maybe..."--which a town player will think, sure. Thing is, the town players don't POST that.
I think, anyway. I remember seeing this before, somewhere, but I don't remember where. I think it was actually another player (possibly from ANOTHER source) who pointed out that scum players will say something which town players WOULD be thinking, but wouldn't say.

You'll note the lack of SE tags. I believe the above to be true, and if I researched it, would most likely be able to find more evidence supporting it. However, it's something I just now thought of. I have no backing for it. (The Relationship between Reluctance/Refusal/Insistence to Hammer is something I need to research more. Reluctance to Hammer, however--by itself--I consider part of a larger scumtell my SEssion attempted to explain. The fact that Trendall reacted this way means that I failed, obviously. [So, I will elaborate, once I post this.]
Is this making sense to you at all? >_<)

btw Mastin when you explain why something is scummy of another person (in order to accuse them) that shit stays out of SE tags.

That's the thing: it wasn't a suspicion. I wasn't accusing Trendall. I said it was scummy. I said it was a scumtell, and that Trendall caught my eye. However, I still currently think Trendall is town. There's a huge difference between these terms. Anti-town, scummy, and scumtell are all separate. In the case of Trendall's post, it was scummy because it was a major scumtell. (Scumtells aren't always scummy, believe it or not. Similarly, a LOT of things can be Scummy without any scumtells.) However, while it's going to make me keep a closer eye on Trendall (suppose it could be a full-on GMEOHim), it was not an accusation. I think he's town. I need to keep my eye on him in case I am wrong, obviously, but because I currently think he is town, I posted it as a SEssion on how to improve his play as town to avoid looking scummy. As a SE should do when they see scummy people they think are town, not scum. Their job (again, this is just for me, obviously, as SE-->Lesser IC to me, personally) is to teach.
If I was suspicious of Trendall enough to think he was a serious suspect, it wouldn't have been a SEssion. But while Trendall has certainly moved up on my scumdar a little, he's still near the bottom. Hence, SEssion, not accusation.

---

...Oh, dear. That was suppose to be the *brief* post! >_<

[Beefster]

It's disconcerting how little attention you're paying to the game.

This is a null tell.

[Lateralus22]

I'm not saying you should ignore it, I just don't see what's the point on discussing this matter further. You said what I thought, I told you what it was.

I brought up something

new

, that's why.

What I'm trying to say is that I could very well say an opposite theory and back it up with a different game.

Alright, let's see you do that. I'm hearing empty claims about OH I CAN DO THIS AND THAT,

but I don't see you actually bringing anything up.

If you plan on doing this no bull shit explanations plz.

Exactly how am I dismissing scumhunt?

The one thing I've seen that makes me strongly doubt you is that, even when you seem to have found more in-game evidence to attack Beefster, you're just sticking to your gut and trying to explain it. I don't know what to think about that.

Could this be an a subtle attempt to dismiss gut reads? I think so. Am I misunderstanding your post? Btw I'd say the evidence is about equal, I would have been campaigning for your lynch more heavily if Beef bothered to read the thread instead of claiming early.

What I found interesting is your vote, taking into account that you said this:

Okay, could you tell me what exactly do you find interesting about that? What does interesting even mean? There is absolutely nothing wrong with guts reads and I did logically explain mine so I don't see where the absolute gut hate is coming from.

Could I ask you to quote my entire post next time, instead of just the lines you're addressing? Just to keep the context absolutely intact.

Perhaps, if it really is bothering you that much. I find that quoting entire posts add more clutter while single lines to be more concise. Have I taken anything you said out of context?

===========================================================================

Also, as I see that he said he is prepared to hammer beef without addressing my placing a vote on him.

"Shrugs" The accusations were made after my post, nor did I see anything wrong with it when I read it. Tone feels off on Mute. Actually it feels like I've been going on like 1/3ish of the players here so I'm gonna try and reevaluate that particular read from players >.>

Both town and scum are worried of coming across as scummy, or they should be. Trying to not sound scummy is, on a town player, a pro-town thing to do. The problem is achieving it…

This is ridiculous. Surviving is less important than lynching scum. Even if you get lynched you still win with your faction. If you are town then it should come off naturally as you scum hunt, scum have to fake scum hunting while town does it for real. If everyone's worried their image and not getting lynched, then there isn't any difference between the two except that's what scum does to win.

I think I actually agree with Trend on Beef's actions now. Seems to me that, at l;east in theory, a town player that is likely to be mislynched would want to get out as much info for the town as possible before being lynched.

I hardly consider Beef's "reaction hunting" votes to be getting as much information out as possible. It looked like a half assed attempt to do something. Something like this be a better effort.

Hey Beef, have you made a serious non reaction hunting vote the whole game?

Post #203 from Trendall feels a bit weird. Can you sum it up in a few sentences as it comes off unclear. I don't disagree with Mastin's theory though in general but I can understand where Trendall was coming from in this situation.

Post #204 Jay really needs to do something. What's your thoughts on everything going on?