camn's temperamental - Mini 1232 - GAME OVER

[RedPanda]

answer to BBmollas question

1: i havent played forum mafia ever , i used to play mafia with my friends every weekend.
2: id never claim unless i was sure of a victory or if i was in danger of being lynched or nked.

[RedPanda]

It wasn't that serious of a vote. It was to put some pressure on Fishy, which clearly is already being done by four others.

Parama are you willing to bet on your mother's life right now that I am scum? Why or why not?

Unvote. Vote:BBmolla

your post seems to me like scum cracking under pressure

[Johhog]

I'm very sorry, forgot this game started. Content tonight when I get home from work and stuff.

[Fishythefish]

Haven't played since multiquote turned up. It is officially awesome.

@Fishy: Town are much more relaxed as the worst that can happen to them is getting lynched, and even so, their team still has a good chance at winning.
Scum are more on edge, them getting lynched hurts their team severly considering they are(in this setup I think) 33% of their team. That's the equivalent to 3 townmembers dying in one night.

The above knowledge applies to RVS mostly.

This seems totally wrong to me. Scum

might

be more scared of getting lynched, though I kind of doubt it - getting lynched day 1 is the worst possible thing to happen as either alignment. But even if they

are

, that would lead to them wanting to blend in. Getting serious early has two likely effects - getting things going and drawing attention to yourself (for examples of both, see this game).

I believe that I understood the question, and I definitely support its discourse.

You should not be so quick to make assumptions though. Not all of your town peers will feel too comfortable even in random voting stage. While it is ideal that all town should be willing to play optimally and be unconcerned with their lynch if it promotes the town win condition, that is not always the case. Some players will be anxious about "fitting in" with their fellow town regardless of whether they are scum or not. Now, I don't think this is a poor angle to pursue in ferreting out players with exceptional win cons, but please keep in mind that this is a diverse setting.

This seems to be saying "your scumtell isn't good, but carry on scumhunting based on it". I just don't see what this was supposed to achieve other than a post that looks like content.

Seems like I missed the RVS while at work

@Fishy that is a very weak reason to believe scum have day talk also (and I do realize the irony as I am committing the same crime right now) I don't like that you skipped RVS and immediatly jumped into a serious vote and then started either guessing about something only scum would know for sure and sticking by it so passionately this early on.

For that

Vote Fishy

My reasons for thinking scum have day talk

during the confirm stage

- it's in their example role PM and the mod told them to stop talking. Seems pretty sound. But why on earth do you want a RVS? It's the worst part of the game for scumhunting, and getting us out is protown.

That is fine however his was the first post of the game his read came from who confirmed last. I will gladly remove my vote if he can provide meta that he does that normally but from the two previous games of his I checked his first vote was not for who confirmed last.

I'm not doing your metawork for you, but you will find I have a townmeta (and maybe also a scummeta? not at all sure) of making serious votes early on, based on whatever is in the game. Sure, late confirming is at the weak end of that range, but when yours is the first post it's hard to vote seriously.

Of the votes for me, this is my least favourite. It parrots what someone else said about my reasons for thinking that scum could talk, but after I'd answered the question. It also parrots the line that skipping the RVS stage is bad, without further explanation. Bad points are bad, but repeating bad points is worse. Also the "it's only ok if you've got a meta of doing it" is pretty horrible - it's shifts the burden of proof. Instead of him having to actually explain why my serious vote was scummy, I now have to show that I've done the precise same thing before as town.

Yep, disliking BB's later moves. His vote on me sure seemed serious, when he gave an explanation of why scum act serious early on. To unvote when I had a big wagon is reasonable - quicklynchs are bad - but when pressed by Parama he defended with this instead:

It wasn't that serious of a vote. It was to put some pressure on Fishy, which clearly is already being done by four others.

Spoon's explanation seems OK. I can see how that post can be read as "here's a reason for voting Parama, and here's a cute observation that he asked to be voted for", and with that interpretation I'm more comfortable with it.

Zang is town because in 31 he showed a complex misunderstanding of the scum role PM. Easy to fake as scum, but noone ever has ever in the whole history of everything. Parama seems like town for 58 (but "he's defending me" bias probably plays a role here.

UNVOTE: VOTE: Lurconis

[kanyeknowsbest]

The best part about the new quote system is highlighting the specific parts you want to quote, like so:

This seems to be saying "your scumtell isn't good, but carry on scumhunting based on it". I just don't see what this was supposed to achieve other than a post that looks like content.

That is not at all what I was doing. I was trying to explore why it is a subjective tell. You can definitely catch scum by seeing who is having trouble fitting in during the random voting stage, but I wished to highlight for BBmolla why you have to take care in using that tell.

And I agree with you on Lurconis, but think BBmolla might be a better candidate at this time.

[Johhog]

Eh, got some time off. Maybe I can write some content now but I can't promise it.

[Johhog]

Hello everyone!

I'd like to ask everyone a few questions just to learn a bit about everyone's experience and philosophy. Now this isn't required, but I'd appreciate it and it'll help me read you earlier.

1 -

Experience

- What is your prior experience with Mafia? How many games have you played at Mafiascum? How many games have you played elsewhere?
2 -

Philosophy

- If you were a cop and got a guilty on night one, would you out the guilty that day(not knowing if there is any protection of course) or would you try to get more scum before outing?

I'll give my philosophy after I see some of yours.

Why do you want to wait with your own answers? My answers:

1) Um, 1 completed, 4 finished, 4 ongoing. Joined about three and a half months ago.
2) I would try to lynch the guilty without claiming,

maybe

crumbing (a bit risky though) and if that wouldn't work I would straight-out claim.

1. I joined a little more than a year and a half ago. I think i've played in about 30 games all on this site, mostly mini themes.
2. I would try to lynch him without actually claiming, if that doesn't work then I would claim.

Fishy- Unless scum can daytalk during the confirm stage, I do not see how it helps them.

Ugh, terribad. You've played 30 games on the site and you don't know that scum have pre-game talk?

Ok, I didn't think that included the confirmation stage.

ORLY?

Heavy FoS: Zang

Note: This was originally a vote, but an even scummier player emerged later.

@Sath: as explained above, since scum have daytalk during the confirmation stage it is to their advantage to have a longer confirmation stage. I imagine that occasionally this leads scum to confirm later than they otherwise would.

However, I think there's something better to vote on now:

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Twistedspoon
His vote for Parama gives an actual reason (buddying), which he then immediately undermines by saying he's voting because Parama asked for a vote. Smacks of not wanting to actually be involved in conflict. His comment to Haylen seems to do nothing but draw out the RVS further by trying to downplay the importance of what little content there is at this stage of the game.

I multiquoted this so I was obviously going to say something but unfortunately I can't remember what.
...
WAIT. I was going to say that I'm agreeing with your point about late confirmers.

Fishy- I don't think twistedspoon meant that he voting Parama because he asked for it. Instead, he's probably just refering to it.

Sathoris- The example role says they can talk in night 0.

And why didn't you notice this yourself?

His vote for Parama gives an actual reason (buddying), which he then immediately undermines by saying he's voting because Parama asked for a vote.

it's not undermining, it's an addition (hence why I said in retrospect)

conflict doesn't matter anyways; It's RVS. Who develops conflict over an RVS vote?

I agree with this, and Fishy's poor attempt at finding scum fails.

VOTE: Fishy

Something about this guy seems fishy(hur hur), mostly his degree of seriousness during RVS, which to me is always a bad sign.

Really? You're the fourth voter on a mostly random wagon without commenting it? And how is it a bad sign to be active during the RVS?

Zang is town for 31. Sathorsis might be town for 30.

Isn't it early to be declaring someone as town/scum?

@Fishy that is a very weak reason to believe scum have day talk

1. He didn't say that scum have day talk, only that scum can talk during confirmation.
2. How is the mod stating that scum can talk during night 0 considered a weak reason?

Not early. Reads may change, y'know, and you always have some reads when the least of content shows up.

Chair, are you only two people?

Oh and no reason for Fishy to be lynched this early, not in my opinion anyway.

UNVOTE:

Why did you then vote him in the first place? There's only

one

more vote on him since you're vote. Smells like he's wanting to get towncred.

FoS: BBmolla

I don't. But having five votes on someone on page three doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Not enough info yet.

VOTE: Johhog

Would you mind joining us Mr. Hog?

Uh-huh? You're back to the random voting stage again?

It wasn't that serious of a vote. It was to put some pressure on Fishy, which clearly is already being done by four others.

Parama are you willing to bet on your mother's life right now that I am scum? Why or why not?

Not that serious? Yeah sure, put some pressure on Fishy. I don't buy it the slightest. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and VOTE: BBmolla. He's giving me extremely scummy vibes.

Also, as stated multiple times before, leave Parama's mother the fuck out of this.

No, because my mother isn't as important as a mafia game.
I am pursuing a lead, simple as that. Who knows, I *may* change my mind later on, but if you're scum like I think you are, that seems unlikely to happen.

Agreed.

I believe that it should remain as is. It would be pretty bad for me to wipe away an example of what not to do and prevent all of you from learning from my mistake.

Maybe after everyone has taken note of it. You are taking notes, aren't you?

note to self: kanye is insane

I agree again.

Parama and Fishy is most likely town, Zang and BBmolla is scumspects.

[Sathoris]

VOTE: sathoris for being one of the last to confirm and then in post 32 saying he would run the numbers to figure out who to vote and then posting again 40 minutes later and not voting.

'Running the numbers' didn't mean what you thought it did.

Why would you do this? I mean, you're so sold on me being scum, why could you possibly change your mind on me?

Trying to paint Parama as a flip-flopper for when he unvotes you? Not the best defence in the book.

I see we're shifting towards BB and Lurc. I too found Parama's post about BB very effective. A tad too damning in my eyes, but to each his own. When I saw the first votecount I immediatly thought there was scum on the Fishy train. BB must've thought the same and unvoted in the hope of not showing up in a damning place in VC analysis.

Concerning Lurc, far too much attention on the daytalk bit. Looks like scum trying to transform his weak attack in to a genuine suspicion.

One must die, but which. . .

@Lurc, even if my post was about RVS and I didn't place my vote. What's your basis to make it voteworthy?
@BBmola What was the point of your last post? People change reads all the time, especially in day one.

[camn]

Quick votecount. no time for formatting!

Parama

- 1

( twistedspoon )

Haylen

- 1

( PeregrineV )

BBmolla

- 5

( Parama kanyeknowsbest Chair RedPanda Johhog )

fishythefish

- 2

( Zang Haylen )

Lurconis

- 1

( fishythefish )

twistedspoon

- 1

( Lurconis )

NOT VOTING:

( Sathoris BBmolla )

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.
Deadline is WED, SEPTEMBER 14th, 9am MY TIME.. . Or whenever I get around to it.

[Zang]

Unvote

I will gladly remove my vote if he can provide meta that he does that normally but from the two previous games of his I checked his first vote was not for who confirmed last

Could the scum talk during confirmation in those two games?

as far as the mod confirming they had day 0 talk I really don't see that I thought her remark was a joke referencing the people above saying stuff other than confirm

What about the part in the sample mafia role PM?

but anywho I like how you give a reason for your vote then give another reason immediately after, like your first reason wasn't sufficient (hint: neither are, at least for a serious vote). it's like you're trying to find a reason for voting me seriously, but failing. also that's scummy if you don't get it.

It wan't a reason though.

1. it wasn't L-1, why unvote?

It's past RVS, does he have to be at L-1 for someone to unvote.

This just looks like scum hopping off a mislynch wagon.

Why would scum want to hop off of a mislynch?

What you did is called "relieving pressure." When votes start leaving the wagon, others are less likely to join it and those already on it are more likely to leave. If you believe someone is scum and unvote them before L-1 (and only then because you want to prevent a quicklynch) you will quickly be toppling their wagon and destroying your credibility

He never said that he thought he was scum.

Ugh, terribad. You've played 30 games on the site and you don't know that scum have pre-game talk?

How does me being in 30 games have anything to do with this game?

ORLY? Heavy FoS: Zang Note: This was originally a vote, but an even scummier player emerged later.

Why is that scummy?

And why didn't you notice this yourself?

Because I didn't read the example role closely enough.

Not early. Reads may change, y'know, and you always have some reads when the least of content shows up.

I disagree. Yes, you have some information early in the game that might indicate their alignment, but that doesn't mean you should declare them as that alignment. For me at least, I take time to get more information and read more of there posts before I even say that I think they might be that alignment.

Reads do change but that doesn't mean you can call somebody town for one post and scum for the next.

[Fishythefish]

Zang is very much defending spoon and BB. Don't really know what to make of it. This part of that is just plain wrong:

What you did is called "relieving pressure." When votes start leaving the wagon, others are less likely to join it and those already on it are more likely to leave. If you believe someone is scum and unvote them before L-1 (and only then because you want to prevent a quicklynch) you will quickly be toppling their wagon and destroying your credibility

He never said that he thought he was scum.

The following clearly show BB thought I was scum:

VOTE: Fishy

Something about this guy seems fishy(hur hur), mostly his degree of seriousness during RVS, which to me is always a bad sign.

@Fishy: Town are much more relaxed as the worst that can happen to them is getting lynched, and even so, their team still has a good chance at winning.
Scum are more on edge, them getting lynched hurts their team severly considering they are(in this setup I think) 33% of their team. That's the equivalent to 3 townmembers dying in one night.

The above knowledge applies to RVS mostly.

[Sathoris]

That doesn't clearly show BB thought you were scum.

@Fish Why is it important to you that BB thought you were scum?

[Fishythefish]

Because he later said his vote "wasn't that serious".

I read the first quote as saying that I'm scummy (what else does "fishy" mean here?), and that that's because I was serious during the RVS. Then I specifically asked why that was a scumtell, and BB replied with an explanation as to why being serious during the RVS is a scumtell. To me, that makes it totally clear that BB thought I was scummy - and makes his backtrack on that scummy.

[Zang]

Voting especially in the RVS does not neccesarily mean he thinks you are scum and fishy usually means suspicous or strange, not scummy.

[Sathoris]

Scummy =/= scum

[Fishythefish]

@Zang: If you call someone fishy, and say that something they did is a bad sign, you are clearly calling them scummy. Particularly if you then say exactly why you think that bad sign is a scumtell! I really don't see how you can read the two quotes in 85 and say that BB wasn't saying I was scummy.

@Sathoris: that's true, but it doesn't change much. BB still made a serious vote, and then backtracked on it later. And now Zang seems to be saying that BB didn't even say I was scummy.

[Zang]

A bad sign does not automatically means he thinks you are scum and the only reason he explained why that bad sign is a scumtell is because you said it is. You used the word scumtell and he didn't.

[Fishythefish]

I used the word scumtell because I thought that was the obvious interpretation. If I was wrong about my interpretation, he would have corrected me. Instead, he explained why it was a scumtell - which makes it totally and completely clear that's that what he meant originally.

My interpretation of his original post and his response to my question is that he thinks being serious in the RVS is scummy, and that I did that, and so that I'm scummy. What is your interpretation?

[BBmolla]

Scummy =/= scum

This.

[Parama]

hi parama are you scum

-implosion

yes now help me drive this mislynch

Vote: BBmolla

-Misder

Fishy can sit on Chair over in the town corner.

No, because my mother isn't as important as a mafia game.
I am pursuing a lead, simple as that. Who knows, I

*may* change my mind later on

, but if you're scum like I think you are, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why would you do this? I mean, you're so sold on me being scum, why could you possibly change your mind on me?

I say I *may* change my mind, which doesn't mean I will, and I usually don't. There is *always* the possibility that I might, though.
@Fishy: tbh, Lurconis looks more "stupid" than "scummy" for the things you've mentioned.

but anywho I like how you give a reason for your vote then give another reason immediately after, like your first reason wasn't sufficient (hint: neither are, at least for a serious vote). it's like you're trying to find a reason for voting me seriously, but failing. also that's scummy if you don't get it.

It wan't a reason though.

I agree. It was TRYING to be a reason. But it failed.

1. it wasn't L-1, why unvote?

It's past RVS, does he have to be at L-1 for someone to unvote.

BB admitted his vote on Fishy was for pressure. Then he proceeds to unvote, which relieves pressure. L-2 is not the same as L-1 anyways, and L-3 is much less pressure than L-2 - honestly, there's no "measure" for pressure but I'd say with each vote it's exponential.

This just looks like scum hopping off a mislynch wagon.

Why would scum want to hop off of a mislynch?

C'mon Zang, I know you're not new here. Vote Count Analysis. The stigma that comes with being on a mislynch wagon. Sneaky scum like to push wagons that they aren't joining, though usually that helps town catch them more than anything.

Scummy =/= scum

But scummy = good lynch. You don't lynch players that look like town, you lynch players that look like scum. Stop fallacying it up in here >_>

Scummy =/= scum

This.

BB: "Being scummy doesn't mean I'm scum, so stop voting me just because I'm being ridiculously scummy. Please? :<"

[Johhog]

Ugh, terribad. You've played 30 games on the site and you don't know that scum have pre-game talk?

How does me being in 30 games have anything to do with this game?

Pre-game talk is the site meta, so you should assume that if you didn't read something else.

ORLY? Heavy FoS: Zang Note: This was originally a vote, but an even scummier player emerged later.

Why is that scummy?

Because you're trying to look like innocent town not knowing about pre-game talk.

And why didn't you notice this yourself?

Because I didn't read the example role closely enough.

Fair enough I guess.

Not early. Reads may change, y'know, and you always have some reads when the least of content shows up.

I disagree. Yes, you have some information early in the game that might indicate their alignment, but that doesn't mean you should declare them as that alignment. For me at least, I take time to get more information and read more of there posts before I even say that I think they might be that alignment.

Reads do change but that doesn't mean you can call somebody town for one post and scum for the next.

For me, because reads change, I'm honest and list who I think is town and scum in my head. Do you think something bad can come out of this?

[PeregrineV]

Heading to work meeting right now, but will be back later to address stuff.

[BBmolla]

Scummy =/= scum

This.

BB: "Being scummy doesn't mean I'm scum, so stop voting me just because I'm being ridiculously scummy. Please? :<"

You're absolutely misunderstanding the context. Just cause Fishy was scummy doesn't mean he's scum, not at this point in the game anyway. If his scumminess stacks up, then the possibility is there.

[Sathoris]

Heading to work meeting right now, but will be back later to address stuff.

Not playing lurkscum again are you?

[kanyeknowsbest]

Zang, please see me after class. That post of yours could have been a lot better.