Mini 425 Generic Western Mafia- Game over!

[Raffles]

/confirm

[Raffles]

Vryklan will post here very soon. I sent him a msn saying so. Please don't replace him just yet.

[Raffles]

Game on!

Vote: Vryklan

because I know him in real life.

[Raffles]

*hicough* what?

Oh yeah!

So like.... uh what was i saying?

say what?

[Raffles]

"Don't ask questions, just DO IT!"

~Bernard Black

[Raffles]

Not to burst your bubble but

Vote: Guardian

For making by far the longest post to come in the next couple of pages.

[Raffles]

Speed lynch Raffles!? :X.

Joke?

IGMEOY: Guardian

[Raffles]

Oh get over it, it's a random reason as any. However, my second post is more of a serious note.

[Raffles]

I

G

ot

M

y

E

yes

O

n

Y

ou

In the way it was presented, somewhat, but really first day is there any better way to select someone than random die roll? Have you participated in games where people actually show tells first day? If so, or if I'm just terribly flawed in this logic, very soz and please explain

Yes there is, and we discuss, discuss and discuss! If not finding an actual scum by catching them red handed, we can at least know who is more likely a scum and who is more likely a town. The more increased the chance that scum is killed, the better voting strategy.

Yes people do often show tells on first day, I'm still not allowed to talk about it though because non of the games (barring marathon day) I've participated in has finished. Newbie 304 is the first game I was in if you are interested, day 1 lynch scene is on page 16.

[Raffles]

Unvote

I feel great that we are out of random voting stage on day 1 at possibly a record time. But I have a sinking feeling we are going to go back to it once other 6 people appears. Anyway...

The bad thing about random-lynching on the first day is that you would have practically nothing to go on the second day either. If you could make a random lynch on D1, what to stop the mafia from making a random NK N1? Then you would have to do the same for D2. It just doesn't work.

[Raffles]

Typically, Day 1 on mafiascum.net lasts until at least page 6 - and that's for newbie games with 7 people.

Really? I'm yet to play in a newbie game where D1 ends on a single figure no. of page...

[Raffles]

How are we out of the random voting stage? As you said, we still have half of the players that haven't contributed yet. That's no reactions to go on for 50% of our players.

Ah cmon, FoS would be the last thing I would expect for trying to get the game out of random voting stage. It's like me giving you a cake and you punching me in the nose. There's no reason why game should continue to dwell in the random voting stage, if anything get it out as quick as possible to get some discussion going.

(Usually this is normally done by bandwagonning but I thought I'd try a more positive approach)

If we get enough discussion going, then there'd be plenty for late comers to analyze and we won't need to go back to random voting.

[Raffles]

Well if the others random vote then there is nothing to analyze, even if we tried to analyze random votes, there would be strong WIFOM leaning strongly to "random" side (as the name dictates). If we give them stuff to analyze then we can analyze them back. I thought seeing as we are here we might as well provide a bit of material.

As for unvoting, it's something I do when we are out of random voting stage. I know we were still in the random voting stage, but to seeing as you came up with some questions, I thought it might be a good opportunity to take the lead to unvote and announce that we

are

out of the random voting stage.

There are no advantage to continue random voting on and on, I can't stress that enough. It's a waste of time.

[Raffles]

Easy, it's not even been 24 hours since the game officially started.

[Raffles]

page 2 is random votes.
How many to lynch day 1?

Have you read page 2? There's

loads

of writing!

I think it's 7 to lynch for 12 players.

[Raffles]

Vote:Guardian

Because A speed lynch request is always suspisious.

I'll second that

I also think that guardian isnt 'new' at all and could well be a very good player with either a) two accounts or b) has just played lots in real life but not online. New players hardly ever jump in with loads of posts right from the off.

Whilst speed lynching is always suspicious, there are so many things that are flawed in this statement.
First of all, a nitty gritty out of the way
1) As far as I'm I aware, actively using two accounts goes against the rules of the forum.

I can accept that he may have played this game in real life. The fact that he suggested speed lynch testifies it, which is a common trait on day 1 in real life games. But saying new players won't jump in with load of posts from the beginning is just wrong. In fact, this also testifies that he never played mafia online, or at least on this site. Suppose he played this game on similar site and is a scum, he'd show a far more lurkish trait and try to blend with the crowd. I'm not saying this happens most of the time but for the majority, it is the case. The fact that his first post was something of that length is a proof that he never played it online, therefore no basis to accuse that he is a scum.

There is no proof he actualy rolled a dice to pick raffles, it's just too much of a coincidence that he had already had a go at raffles and then "oh look the dice picked raffles"; i dont believe it for a second.

In fact if i was making up a random d12 result 11 is the number i would have gone for too which reinforces my point.

Yes there is, look at his first post. His quotation is something you can do by clicking "post reply", then clicking "dice" option. I've never figured out how to use it because I think random voting through dice or random.org is far too sterile for my taste. But I know it's there. And he could have picked this up from reading through any old game.

Vote: Vryklan

for coming up with crap reasons to bandwagon on Guardian. I expected better.

[Raffles]

I was thinking while I was typing.

EBWOP (Edit By Way Of Post)

I'm not saying this happens most of the time but for the majority, it is the case

should read

I'm not saying this happens all the time but for the majority, it is the case

[Raffles]

Putting the third vote on someone is as good a reason as any for being random voted.

But why random vote? There are already so much material to go on.

[Raffles]

Alright, it's just that most forums ban alt. accounts on principle that banned people just comes back.

[Raffles]

I'm defending guardian because for now, I thin he's a town. He's also a newb, and I'm telling everyone to be careful on their judgement. What newbs do is very similar to scum tells.

[Raffles]

Don't get too complacent there, by me saying someone "is town", I mean that person is just as likely to be scum as everyone else. I do have slightly raised suspicions for Vryklan, along with people who are random voting at this stage, but that's it for now.

IGMEOY: Avinyl, DLMF

[Raffles]

A newb speedlynch is a scum's favourite tactic for D1. Exactly because newb tells and scums tells are so similar. A newb under pressure will react badly, even more compelling "evidence", = mislynch (or correct lynch by luck). This is why I'm telling to be careful of scums subtly nudging to lynch a newb.

I hope that answers Peter's question. This is why I'm appearing to defend Guardian so vehemently, even though I'm not trying to.

And speaking of which, I just found someone that fits the discription.

Because this was in the evening, i was tired, and i hadn't time to read. I also feel that it is better to random vote someone than to not vote at all.
However, Slight Finger of Suspicion: Guardian for appearing so town-like.

Exactly the sort of "nudging" that I'd expect from a scum. Why? His reason is Guardian "appearing so town like". This falls into one of the logical fallacies "too townie".

Too townie (for more info, look in the wiki) - Accusing someone for being a scum because the person appears too townie.

e.g. The guardian appears too pro-town. He must be a scum.

This is not valid reasoning, take a look at flip side of the coin.

e.g. The guardian appears too scummy, he must be a town

The second statement makes no sense at all. Therefore there is no reason why first one should. Luring town into a failed logic doesn't do well in my book, as my vote on Vryklan show.

Unvote, FoS: Avinyl, Vryklan

[Raffles]

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... Too_Townie

This explains it better than I do.

[Raffles]

Ichigo? Do we have a strawberry fetish here?

(Ichigo = Strawberry in Jap)

[Raffles]

The game being closed, there must be a few simple roles.

However, let's get on with scum hunting and not oust power roles.

[Raffles]

I still have no real idea who the mafia is... someone claim?

Shotgun!

Combined with this very good catch by gorckat and Vryklan claiming shotgun (mafia I assume) in post 108, Unvote, Vote: Vryklan!

Calling shotgun is a way of claiming the passenger seat in a car before it fills up and you get cramped into the back with 3 other people

Vrynks you tit. I was about to question a vig claim.

[Raffles]

Aye, it's pretty difficult to get any word in when Guardian, Raffles and Peter V are dominating the discussion.

Gut feeling says I should stick with my original vote though.

Well nobody said you can't put your thoughts into the discussion. What are you gonna do, go back to lurking?

Go on!

[Raffles]

I don't count the d12 roll against him. We know each other, and we would both know we would vote each other for a laugh. That's what he meant by the emphasis of 11.

However, this on the other hand:

I see your point. If I was/am a power role, though, I would be saying the same thing at this time in the game .

What did I tell you about claiming and ousting the power roles?

FoS: Guardian

[Raffles]

Whilst gut feeling is perfectly acceptable (some players have great nose for who is a scum), random and gut are two different things.

Random - as name dictates, totally

random

. No influence from the game whatsoever, just a name out of a hat.

Gut - Based on how the game progressed, and what the subject has posted, you get the vibe that he is scummy.

You can't put the two together.

[Raffles]

Mod

: Prod Ichigo please.

A little more perticipation from Avinyl is also appreciated.

[Raffles]

Vryklan's having log on problems.

[Raffles]

No, I'm talking to him right now, and he says he is having log on problems. It basically won't let him log in.

[Raffles]

Vryklan, give me your brief analysis on people in this game.

[Raffles]

Okay so we know that Vryklan was not lurking, I still don’t see good explanation why Vryklan still has 4 votes on him.

VRK’s reason

[quote=”VRK”]
1. The first one is, I believe, a random vote from the beginning of the game. The others stem from Vryk not answering Gorckat's question in post 107 and then disappearing for 3 days (read: Lurking).

2. My vote is a pressure vote, and if his explanation to Gorc's question in 107 is answered to my satisfaction, I'll remove it.
[quote=”Gorc”] Setting aside that Guardian did use the dice tag, I fail to see how the number you would select proves that Guardian chose it deliberately[/quote] [/qupote]

First point is void. I answered it.
[quote=”Raffles] I don't count the d12 roll against him. We know each other, and we would both know we would vote each other for a laugh. That's what he meant by the emphasis of 11. [/quote]

2nd point is sort of a valid as a pressure vote stand alone. But you did say if the first question is answered you’ll remove the vote.

Mustafa’s reason

[quote=”Mustafa”] I don't count the d12 roll against him. We know each other, and we would both know we would vote each other for a laugh. That's what he meant by the emphasis of 11. [/quote]

Since your reason is same as VRK’s, I’ll expect an explanation from you as well once you get back.

Avinyl’s reason

[quote=”Avinyl”] Putting the third vote on someone is as good a reason as any for being random voted.[/quote]
Very old reason. I expect a better reason at this stage.

Guardian’s reason

[quote=”Guardian”] Well he knows Raffles IRL... And maybe he is a mafioso and would want Raffles out of the game. Combined with this very good catch by gorckat and Vryklan claiming shotgun (mafia I assume) in post 108, Unvote, Vote: Vryklan![/quote]

We have explained the shotgun too, this is no longer valid either.

I need explanation on why they still have the vote on Vryklan, since non of these are valid, save maybe pressure voting. I got a gut feeling that there is a very good chance that there is at least one scum on this wagon.

Of the four, I find Guardian suspicious the most. His reason is very stretchy, Vryklan explained himself on “shotgun”, yet he still hasn’t unvoted. His first part of wanting me out doesn’t really makes sense. And I also noticed that Vryklan has his vote on Guardian. I refuted his reasons, yet he still has kept the vote on him. I’m adding the consideration of scum-distancing. It would be interesting if Guardian actually turned out to be a scum.

Vote: Guardian

[Raffles]

And I'm not understanding the reasoning leading up to the vote on Guardian...could you rewrite it all a little more coherently?

Of the four, I find Guardian's reasons most lame, especially considering it was posted at the most latest of the four. He is an active player, his points have been refuted, but his vote is still on Vryklan. As a side note, Vryklan Guardian could be distancing, but this is a far-fetched and merely a consideration at back of my mind.

[Raffles]

However as Raffles cleverly noticed I havent retracted my vote on Guardian and this is because I remain unconvinced of his innocence. In fact I'm sure i put an FoS on him as well...

You should never be convinced of anyone's innocence unless in extreme circumstances. That's not a reason to keep a vote on someone.

[Raffles]

Okay I'm going to have a restricted access starting immediate until 16th. I may or may not be able to post once a day. I hope you don't find a need to replace me.

[Raffles]

Few of my honest (I say honest because some are rather blunt) thoughts from reading since I left. I'm writing this as I read so I'm sorry if some points are repeated.

FoS on Raffles, for being overly aggressive in scum hunting.

Can I ask why that is such a bad thing?

If both are scum, they voted/fos each other early on as a distancing tactic.Now both are confident the other is town (raffles post 33 and vryklan post 9)

Isn't it more plausible that since we are best mates in real life, we were voting each other for kicks? Post 33 is still pretty much first page of the game. I find it amazing that you can deduce my current stance on Vryklan from that post.

I'm posting to show im not lurking, but have no information at this time to contribute. Everyone is bringing up logical points, and I am unable to tell who I should trust. I'll try to come up with something by tonite.

Translation:

I'm lurking, but I'm posting a filler to stay off the lurker-list. I'm lazy and can't be bothered to find anything to comment on, let alone make an analysis. I can't form my own opinions, I'd much rather go along with what others are saying. But as it stands, there's no general direction of flow, so I'm staying out of this.

For scum, this is the essence of the game. How do you appear town when you have opposite goals? You have to put on your "town" face, and this is harder than you might think.

Wrong

Good vanilla town players don't care if they get lynched. They speak the truth and do their best to logically out scum. This is the difference.

and wrong.

For the first one: Is it any concern of the scum what happens in the day? Some nice mafioso might look out for their fellow scums, but most just gets on with it. What has day got to do with their objectives? Just so long as they themselves don't get lynched, all is fine. Scums have night kills. They don't need lynching to kill. Then a good scums just forget that they are scums themselves and get on with scum-hunting as they would do normally.

For the second one: Townies

should

care about being mislynched. Assuming a game with no vig, if townies are only ones getting lynched then how the hell are you going to kill the mafias? It sounds obvious, but lots of people seem to miss this point.

hippocrit

Oh man am I the only one who is dirty-minded?

The death of a scum player is significantly more important early game than the death of a town player. At this point town shouldn't be scared of death, whereas Scum are.

Okay the first part I agree with, but the second? Wouldn't scums be scared of being lynched

all the time

? I don't know about anyone else but I have never seen a reckless scum.

I agreee with Peter's stance on regarding the revealing of information. However I think there's a balance you have to strike. You can't expect the town to pick up on

all

the scum tells. Also, a better skill is to develop a discussion and accuse inconsistencies.

[Raffles]

Peter seems like very good scum to me, he is appearing very pro town and asking just the right questions. he's almost being too perfect of a townie, and it rasies my suspicions, but its mostly a gut feeling.

Raffels, i know it seems im lurking. but there are so little scumtells to me, i can't comment with any kind of content. the downtime kicked the shit outta my attention span as well, if it wasn't bad enough.

Again, as soon as there is a spotlight on Peter, (i.e. some flow) you join in...

[Raffles]

Of course the scum care about what happens in the day. It's in a scum's best interest to get a townie lynched during the day, and then get another kill at night. If the scum don't "put on their town face", then they can't hope to appear to be scum-hunting, and therefore kill their chances of getting a win.

No. Say there was no discussion. It's always a random lynch. Then the odds will

always

be in scum's favour, because there is

always

more scums in any given ongoing game. Then all scum should care about during the day is not getting himself lynched.

Manipulation becomes important in later days, when scum cannot go and lurk.

[Raffles]

But there is a discussion and a bloody long one at that. So its not a random lynch its a lynch in the townies favour hopefully so if the scum sit back and don't care they will find themselves on the lynch list quickly.

Still, this is still a hypothetical situation. But suppose everyone could act a perfect townie, and they do so. Then the lynch choice would be no better than choice made without discussion. There would be nothing to go on. Therefore scums would act a perfect townie, and leave the NK to whittle away the town.

[Raffles]

I would put Lurking as 3). The typical order I usually see would be

1) Acting scummy - note the definition: inconsistency and/or scum-tells
2) Unhelpful townie - "This person could be a townie but he is acting unhelpful to the town, so we won't lose out much even if he was a town"
3) Lurking - I've not seen anyone gets lynched just solely from lurking. This is usually a side dish with either 1) or 2) as the main course.

[Raffles]

But anything to contribute?

[Raffles]

I would go for the latter. It is a bit off-topic for a distancing to be honest.

Mod

: Any news on replacements?

[Raffles]

Oh goody, I take it you are replacing Ichigo?

[Raffles]

I'm in an agreement with musfata here, the fact that Guardian think townie should be afraid of dying is very much a mafia theory which is only vaguely related to context of the game. (I'm sorry if it is a bit of a coarse overview, I started skimming the argument after halfway through) It will certainly give us no help concerning determining one's alignment.

[Raffles]

@Occult: Why is Peter looking less scummy? Does that imply you are finding guardian more scummy of the two?

[Raffles]

and the significance of that is...?

[Raffles]

Guardian: Long posts are never bad. Bad are those that who can't be arsed to read it.

We have too many lurkers in the game, and we've sort of run out of things to discuss. What do you say we start flushing lurkers out?

Unvote, vote Vryklan

[Raffles]

You say his posts are content free, but given last week or so, you and Guardian haven't given us much to go on either.

[Raffles]

Even if he's having internet problems or

if he is replaced

, he's given nothing good.

Let's just hypothetically assume he is a town and just couldn't be arsed. How do you know his replacement isn't going to offer anything good?

[Raffles]

John, you missed the point of my post. What I was implying was we should wait for the replacement rather than lynching lurkers. If anything is dangerous, it's lynching lurkers precisely because you have nothing to go on, and what you are taking is a pot shot.

@Thesp - How on Earth did you determine all that in one go?

[Raffles]

But giving us no reason is a very anti-town play. Anti-town play would be detrimental to the town at later stage, regardless of the alignment.

Unless he was drunk,

Vote: Thesp

[Raffles]

(1) Since you think that failing to give reasoning is anti-town, please show reasoning that justifies your position that failing to provide reasoning is anti-town; and
(2) Show that scum are more likely to fail to give reasoning. Some of what I've seen shows the opposite. (Also, often townies do anti-town things as well, do they not? Showing (1) may be irrelevant, if it is also the case that townies are more likely to do action X, even if X is unintentionally harmful.)

Eaaasy.

1) You came up with quite a lot of bold statement. Basically you walked in, started pointing fingers to assign antagonist roles. When questioned for reason, you flat out refused to give any. This confuses your bog-standard town. What is he doing? Does he actually have a read on anyone? Or is he a scum who just used a blatant WIFOM on us? During the night, cop investigations are used on you, when they could be better used for targets like lurkers, who are really hard to tell their alignment. And if you are town, this is a waste of investigation that could be prevented by showing a less anti-town play. During the day, we are going to take whatever you say with a pinch of salt. What if you actually had a good investigation? The previous anti-town play would backfire on you on your credibility.

2)I repeat this many times... you are getting the whole concept wrong.

Scum => anti-town ("=>" means implies)

Anti-town =/= scum

Anti-town = Good lynch

The last statement is true because at later stage of the game, it is detrimental to have an anti-town townie. If it is to get to lylo situation, a anti-town townie could throw a town side completely off. The bottom line is this. Lynching anti-towns should be up there with lynching all liars.

By the way, do you realize that question 2) you've thrown at me is an utter thick concoction of WIFOM?


And the above argument is just presuming if you are town. If we presume you are scum then we got even better reasons to lynch.

[Raffles]

Mod

[b/]

Did the scum get a chance to talk pre-game?

Although they normally do in most games. I can't imagine how this one would be any different.

[Raffles]

Argh

Mod

, see the post above.

[Raffles]

@Thesp: Yes... a typical raw reaction to what you wrote would be "WTF?". I'm not sure how much information you can gain from that.

Tell me why you disagree.

If you really want to know, the argument you presented is a variant of too townie/scummy argument. It's a branch of WIFOM, and you laid it out in plain daylight.

You asked a question, and you FoS without waiting for a response? And at such a pathetic reason?

[Raffles]

No one's anywhere near close to lynch yet.

Peter, what's your take on all this?

[Raffles]

Sorry, missed it. But speak for yourself. You never said why you disagree with this
[quote="Raffles]Anti-town = Good lynch

The last statement is true because at later stage of the game, it is detrimental to have an anti-town townie. If it is to get to lylo situation, a anti-town townie could throw a town side completely off. The bottom line is this. Lynching anti-towns should be up there with lynching all liars.[/quote]

statement.

(2)

Show that scum are more likely to fail to give reasoning. Some of what I've seen shows the opposite. (Also, often townies do anti-town things as well, do they not?

Showing (1) may be irrelevant, if it is also the case that townies are more likely to do action X, even if X is unintentionally harmful.)

What you are telling me there in red is this.

-Scums can be more logical than a town. Therefore if you see a illogical town, don't automatically assume he is a scum. He could be town.

This is unacceptable as the argument here is one of "Too scummy" argument. This argument gives scums free reign to spout out logic that is about as watertight as a net, which case you would have no idea how to hunt out a scum. Speaking of which, I have a question. If this is still your theory, how do you propose to hunt out a scum?

[Raffles]

Thesp, in case you are getting worried, I did a whole big rebuttal than the damn thing logged me out. I'm going to bed now, I'll do it tommorrow.

[Raffles]

@Thesp - Sorry this is late. I'm panicking because of dawning realiation that I don't know shit for exams. But I'm going to keep this blief so I can get back to working.

Scum-tells don't exist. Wiki testifies to this. Wiki tells you that tells should be taken as a guideline at best. And no one has updated mafia-tells until 2004. In my view, scum tells are so unreliable at catching a scum you might as well not use it. It's like a car that is almst guaranteed to break down on every journey it makes.

Then the best the town can do is to cooperate with each other until there comes a point the scums has to do something anti-town because it conflicts their interests too much. This is where rules of thumb like "LynchAllLiars" come from.

I'd like to have gone into a little more detail but I don't have time. That's a very condensed argument of what I wrote couple of days ago.

[Raffles]

Whole basis of scum-tells are based around people making certain types of mistakes. I've seen plenty of people making scum-tells when they are town. And as much as you can blame this on individual, if the whole premisis of lynching someone is based on using scum-tells, then this is not a very efficient strategy, riddled with mislynches. Then the better strategy would be to make the conditions unfavourable to scums, by townies acting to conflict the scum's interest, until they fall off like a piece of scab.

[Raffles]

If listing suspicions, you should narrow it down to two players at most and present a decent case.

I'm unable to do this at least until saturday though. I'm trying to keep up but it's hard without hardly being able to perticupate.

[Raffles]

I don't think scum estimates are any indication of alignment in this game. The rule of thumb in mini (and in most games) and this especially being the "normal" is 25% of the population is scum. Guessing the number of scum in this game is not significant.

[Raffles]

Where did I say it was addressed to you?

[Raffles]

@Thesp: If that is "way" off base, I don't know how you can justify "scum-tells". At least it's more reliable. I'll give you a reply to "something proven by science" later. Especially since they are bit more like granny's 2 cents.

[Raffles]

Been prodded, sorry people. It's been a particularly busy and sensitive time for me. I promise to up the participation, especially after today's exam when I'm finished with everything and sure to get bored.

I've scanned through since my last post. I don't think Vel Rahn Koon is scummy enough to warrant a lynch. Just a quick thought to let you know.

Does anyone have particular anything that you want my opinion on? I'll look through after exams.

[Raffles]

Sorry, I didn't foresee the consequences of signing up for lots of games mean after I've been away, I have to catch up in all of them! Will be back with something soon.

[Raffles]

Thesp, what struck you as weird about deathsauces behaviour?

*******************************************
Day 2, Second official vote count:

mustafa15 (3): CrashTextDummie, Thesp, Peter Venkman
DeathSauce (1): gorckat

Not voting: mustafa15, DeathSauce, TeamQuiggan, Paradoxombie, Occult, Raffles

10 alive, 6 to lynch.

[Raffles]

Mod

I'm sorry, this is way later than it should be but I'm asking to be replaced. I have never been so busy and I can't pay attention to all the game they deserve.