Mini 493: Methodical Mafia - Game Over!

[Mr Stoofer]

I'm really enjoying this game. It's such fun when you see people posting who you know are doomed to die tonight or the next. Also, I'm enjoying figuring out the permutations of the effect of the lynch. Things like: "X shouldn't be trying to get Y lynched, because that will mean that..."

Anyway, here is a

Vote Count

Xdaamno: 2 (Glork, Erg0)
Mr. Flay: 2 (Simenon, VitaminR)
BrianMcQueso: 1 (CES)
Glork: 1 (distad)
VitaminR: 1 (Mr. Flay)

Not voting: BrianMcQueso, Nocmen, Xdaammo

10 alive means

6

votes to lynch!

[Xdaamno]

I often use the tell that Glork refers to as a basis for an early vote, but it rarely carries through to a lynch without further evidence. Of course, evidence comes through pressure...

Vote: Xdaamno

FoS: Mr Flay

, pending his response to VitR's response to him.

Elaborate on why you think what I said is a scum tell

at all

, because I still have no clue.

No.

I don't feel it has merit.

Okay. Why?

Burden of Proof?

Hmm, I thought I remembered another Erg0 tell I was going to add to this, but I can't find it.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

No. I said I'd lynch you a dozen times before I lynched BMQ. All it means is that I don't suspect BMQ as much as I suspect you. You're performing stuntman-like conclusion jumping.

"A dozen times" is pretty strong, Glrok. It suggests more than merely being more suspicious of me. The statement was inconsistent with your previous posts and there was very little reason for you to hold your opinion. I personally felt it was most likely you had simply meant Xdaamno, as that would be consistent.

FoS: Glrok

VitR, I think his belligerence was appropriate to the situation. You're not going to find scum by asking them nicely. Slight townie tell.
2. is a null tell in this game, I'd say. Day 0 has no clear goal (compared to normal Days).
3. does have merit. Scum tell.

In conclusion, Mr Flay is somewhat more likely to be scum, but not as much as BMQ, Scumster extraordinaire.

Burden of Proof?

Wrong. His question is absolutely justified. I wasn't saying there weren't any reasons to vote for him, but that I disagreed with the reasons put forward.

[Erg0]

I often use the tell that Glork refers to as a basis for an early vote, but it rarely carries through to a lynch without further evidence. Of course, evidence comes through pressure...

Vote: Xdaamno

FoS: Mr Flay

, pending his response to VitR's response to him.

Elaborate on why you think what I said is a scum tell

at all

, because I still have no clue.

The reason that it's a tell is that really served no purpose other than to visibly demonstrate how surprised you were at the night's results. If you'd gone on to express a theory or do pretty much anything else that would be fine, but as it stands the sole purpose of your post appears to have been to say, "Look everyone! I'm surprised!" I can't think of why you would think that you'd need to tell us that, unless you wanted to visibly distance yourself from the kill(s).

Hmm, I thought I remembered another Erg0 tell I was going to add to this, but I can't find it.

Thanks, that's ever so helpful.

I find it strange that you chose to answer me rather than Glork, considering he was the one that raised the point in the first place.

[Erg0]

I fail at tags. You get the idea.

I've now corrected the Tags - Stoofer

[Xdaamno]

I often use the tell that Glork refers to as a basis for an early vote, but it rarely carries through to a lynch without further evidence. Of course, evidence comes through pressure...

Vote: Xdaamno

FoS: Mr Flay

, pending his response to VitR's response to him.

Elaborate on why you think what I said is a scum tell

at all

, because I still have no clue.

The reason that it's a tell is that really served no purpose other than to visibly demonstrate how surprised you were at the night's results. If you'd gone on to express a theory or do pretty much anything else that would be fine, but as it stands the sole purpose of your post appears to have been to say, "Look everyone! I'm surprised!" I can't think of why you would think that you'd need to tell us that, unless you wanted to visibly distance yourself from the kill(s).

Why, would the town have been better of if I had

not

said it? It was merely almost-out-of-game speculation. You're a little paranoid if you feel someone has sinister intent whenever they express emotion, of all things.

Hmm, I thought I remembered another Erg0 tell I was going to add to this, but I can't find it.

Thanks, that's ever so helpful.

OK, so you're suggesting my post would of had more helpful information if I left that out? It's not going to do anyone any harm.

I find it strange that you chose to answer me rather than Glork, considering he was the one that raised the point in the first place.

Well, I apologize. Your post just caught my eye, that's all.

[distad]

I don't think 3 is a scum tell. The two quotes were taken out of context (I had to go back and look at them). Granted, we haven't heard from him yet on this, but in looking back, it looks like more of a response to myself and ojpower.

That said, the "That sucked! Vote..." fits into Glork's non-active early-day post scumtell category...

[Glork]

No. I said I'd lynch you a dozen times before I lynched BMQ. All it means is that I don't suspect BMQ as much as I suspect you. You're performing stuntman-like conclusion jumping.

"A dozen times" is pretty strong, Glrok. It suggests more than merely being more suspicious of me. The statement was inconsistent with your previous posts and there was very little reason for you to hold your opinion. I personally felt it was most likely you had simply meant Xdaamno, as that would be consistent.

FoS: Glrok

It does not necessarily suggest that I am "more than merely more suspicious." It could suggest supreme confidence that BMQ is scum. If you'd like a similar, recent example, take this one, from Calvin & Hobbes:

I'd lynch PJ before I'd lynch Skruffs.

Then again, I'd lynch anybody but Glork before I lynched Skruffs. Dude's so obvprotown, it's not even funny.

You asked me to join a wagon on somebody I do not want to lynch right now, and I told you that I'd much rather lynch you than BMQ. It suggests a difference between my suspicion levels of you two, but that's far from damning as you suggest.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and I do not like it one bit.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Dude, what did I say?

"A dozen times" is pretty strong, Glrok.

Showing willingness to lynch me once before lynching BMQ would be a molehill.

Showing willingness to lynch me a dozen times is not.

[Erg0]

I often use the tell that Glork refers to as a basis for an early vote, but it rarely carries through to a lynch without further evidence. Of course, evidence comes through pressure...

Vote: Xdaamno

FoS: Mr Flay

, pending his response to VitR's response to him.

Elaborate on why you think what I said is a scum tell

at all

, because I still have no clue.

The reason that it's a tell is that really served no purpose other than to visibly demonstrate how surprised you were at the night's results. If you'd gone on to express a theory or do pretty much anything else that would be fine, but as it stands the sole purpose of your post appears to have been to say, "Look everyone! I'm surprised!" I can't think of why you would think that you'd need to tell us that, unless you wanted to visibly distance yourself from the kill(s).

Why, would the town have been better of if I had

not

said it? It was merely almost-out-of-game speculation. You're a little paranoid if you feel someone has sinister intent whenever they express emotion, of all things.

I think I've come from the wrong direction when explaining this. A long time ago (2005ish) JEEP did some statistical analysis on completed games and found that people expressing disappointment/surprise/elation at the results from the previous night are more likely to be scum. The explanation that I gave above worked backwards from this result to provide my interpretation of why scum do this. The fact that scum do this is statistically proven, and is not open to reasonable argument. The prevalence of this has diminished since the tell was published, since people have obviously eliminated this from their play. However, it does still happen.

Like any tell this isn't 100% reliable, but it does exist and it has been proven at least somewhat accurate.

Hmm, I thought I remembered another Erg0 tell I was going to add to this, but I can't find it.

Thanks, that's ever so helpful.

OK, so you're suggesting my post would of had more helpful information if I left that out? It's not going to do anyone any harm.

You're just casting vague aspersions without providing anything to back it up. How am I supposed to respond to that?

I find it strange that you chose to answer me rather than Glork, considering he was the one that raised the point in the first place.

Well, I apologize. Your post just caught my eye, that's all.

I accept your apology.

[Glork]

Dude, what did I say?

"A dozen times" is pretty strong, Glrok.

Showing willingness to lynch me once before lynching BMQ would be a molehill.

Showing willingness to lynch me a dozen times is not.

Again: Hyperbole.


And really, if I show a preference to lynch you, why wouldn't I show a preference to lynch you again (and again and again and...)?

[Simenon]

Again: Hyperbole.

Erm...

[Glork]

Again: Hyperbole.

Erm...

Hmm?

[Simenon]

I thought it was you who expressed willingness to lynch CES a dozen times over rather than lynching BMQ.

[Glork]

Yes. It was a statement of hyperbole, though I've been defending the message I intended to convey. I'm not sure what you meant with your "Erm..." post.

[Simenon]

nevermind, I misunderstood

[distad]

Although, I think that this game will be more centered on role claims and the disproving therein.

Stoofer doesn't. And, um, he designed the game. Also, with presubmitted lists it's

harder

to prove claims.

I just read back through and saw this again. What an arrogant POS. Part of me wishes he were still around to "discuss" this, and the other part of me is glad that someone fragged him. I must be missing something, though. Could anyone point out to me where Stoofer doesn't believe that role claims will be more important in this game? I keep seeing this as just his opinion.

I still think that claims will be fairly large in this game. The variable is certainly that "random" kill, but I think it's more likely SK than mafia. I just don't envision the collective scum entity having more than one kill.

[Erg0]

PLEASE NOTE: I have taken a number of steps to ensure that claims will have very limited value in this game. You have been warned.

That looks pretty conclusive to me. Your post did help me to crystallise my thoughts, though - I speculated before that the random kill could be a non-methodical role or a mod device to discourage claims. It didn't occur to me at the time that it is probably a combination of the two.

Tags corrected - Stoofer

[distad]

Ah. Well, thanks Erg0. I must have missed that. Many apologies, Stoofer. I still think that it would have been nicer for Seol to do what you just did. I will remember to avoid him in games from here on out.

[VitaminR]

I don't think 3 is a scum tell. The two quotes were taken out of context (I had to go back and look at them). Granted, we haven't heard from him yet on this, but in looking back, it looks like more of a response to myself and ojpower.

In what way? I read back and I don't see what you mean. Could you quote me the posts you think Mr. Flay was responding to?

Ah. Well, thanks Erg0. I must have missed that. Many apologies, Stoofer. I still think that it would have been nicer for Seol to do what you just did. I will remember to avoid him in games from here on out.

You'd be missing out.

The "dozen times over" things seems blown way out of proportion. I don't think it's that significant.

[Xdaamno]

I think I've come from the wrong direction when explaining this. A long time ago (2005ish) JEEP did some statistical analysis on completed games and found that people expressing disappointment/surprise/elation at the results from the previous night are more likely to be scum. The explanation that I gave above worked backwards from this result to provide my interpretation of why scum do this. The fact that scum do this is statistically proven, and is not open to reasonable argument. The prevalence of this has diminished since the tell was published, since people have obviously eliminated this from their play. However, it does still happen.

Fair enough, that is most likely true. While I feel this case differs in that the 'results from the previous night' were very unusual and thus I was hoping to spark some speculation, I can't defend against that. I can only say, as a scum tell, this time it was wrong (But obviously I can't prove it).

[BrianMcQueso]

Since we have lost two investigatory roles, then we must rely on scum tells and player behavior to determine our lynches. Erg0's post 209 is rather eloquent in explaining the circumstances on the "commenting on results" scum tell. Xdaamno seems to have been aware of the tell's existence (posts 167, 172).

Xdaamno's surprise seems to have stemmed from the

flavor

of the nightkill, rather the fact that there was a second one. I would believe that "randomly slain" is simply flavor and denoting a kill as "random" should not be interpreted as the killing player had no choice over their target. I believe that we have a vigilante (as part of the town, they are inclined to kill "methodically"), and the anti-town (and thus anti-methodical) mafia kill "randomly". Nevertheless, it is a rather confusing way to be going about things, and I can understand where Xdaamno's mixup stemmed from. In addition, Xdaamno is not alone in his surprise (distad, post 191).

All in all, I'm not seeing Xdaamno's day-starting comment as a scum tell.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

BrianMcQueso, why would a vig kill Seol? This is not a logical vig target at all. And I strongly doubt the mafia would be given that level of control over the endgame. Mafia + "random" SK makes more sense.

Glrok, after I explicitly made my objection known, why did you ignore it? I never implied I had a problem with you being more suspicious of me than BMQ.

Again: Hyperbole.

Where does this "Again" come from, Glrok?

And hey, what is hyperbole used for?

to create a strong impression

*gasp*
Just like what I've been saying! Showing willingness to lynch me a dozen times is a strong statement! Which is inconsistent with the rest of your posts.

Unvote, vote: Glrok

[Nocmen]

I'm back, sorry about my absense, but I broke the cord to plug my computer in to the power, and couldn't get another one until today. Reread ASAP.

[Glork]

Glrok, after I explicitly made my objection known, why did you ignore it? I never implied I had a problem with you being more suspicious of me than BMQ.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Again: Hyperbole.

Where does this "Again" come from, Glrok?

Oh, I thought I'd mentioned it being a hyperbolic statement earlier.

And hey, what is hyperbole used for?

to create a strong impression

*gasp*
Just like what I've been saying! Showing willingness to lynch me a dozen times is a strong statement! Which is inconsistent with the rest of your posts.

First of all, it's only sometimes used "to create a strong impression," as indicated by the word "may." Your selective quoting has been noted. Secondly, I was going for the "Intentional exaggeration" definition given by Dictionary.com so as to create dramatic effect.
However, if I want to concede the "strong impression" point, I'd assert that I wanted to create a strong impression that I suspect BMQ less than I suspect you. So there.