Mini 518: Underground Mafia, The Nightmare is Over!

[Korlash]

You at least said why you were voting her. He only said "I agree."

your post had points such as "lazy and distorting analysis" and "bad reading and bad reasoning"

You also mentioned how "Anata seems to have attempted to color his(Sudo) actions in a favorable light."

Then finished with:
"However, for now I'll ride the gathering bandwagon. Anata has a lot that needs to be explained. At the least, lazy analysis is unacceptable. Three votes seems like significantly more pressure than two. "

these things here showed me A) Your vote was based on Certain things B) what things they were based on and C) That your vote was to get information on the things you talked about.

With those three points I feel your vote had a good chance of gaining info, while Mexal's vote did not add anything to the discussion. In hindsight, 3 votes is better to get her to talk seeing as how avoiding she is of the points Jitsu made, I still think Mexal should have added something...

[Jitsu]

Nothing is ever "clearly spelled out" in mafia. I mean with all the suspicion, paranoia, stupidity, and newbiness floating around nothing will always seem the same to everyone. Take the massclaim thing. Sudo clearly spelled out that he felt it to be a bad idea but being asked here it was... Yet a few people took that as some kind of scum trap for power roles or whatever. And this is basically what mafia boils down to, who can explain their point in such a way as to make people understand it the best they can.

I agree with you, to a point. Stating that something is clearly spelled out is always a relative term and is always modified by the fact that anyone can lie at any time for any reason. Plus newbie play and even simple misunderstandings can keep points from being understood. Still though, I am allowed to say that I thought the reasons were pretty clear if I feel that way. If you or someone else disagrees with that, then rebut my statement and we can discuss it. Just because it is a strong assertion doesn't mean it isn't true. And I do feel that the other players in the game understood at least the basic reasons behind the votes I mentioned, based on the comments that were made. And if you always shy away from strong language in your posts, it's much harder to pressure someone. At the moment, my vote is on her because I want to apply some pressure to her. I am always willing to consider any new information that comes up, but I haven't heard anything yet that makes me want to change my vote.

So, how about, instead of telling her how obvious they are, you explain it to her so that she does understand them. You cannot criticize people for not understanding something unless you have tried to explain it to them.

In real life, I pretty much agree. In mafia, I don't agree that is always a good idea. A major point of my argument is that she either didn't seem to read very carefully or she did and carefully chose what bits and pieces she commented on. I am trying to figure out what mixture of those two occurred. Explaining to her what

I

think the reasons for the votes are would rob me of any information I could get from her responses to my criticism. Anything she says, doesn't say, or even how she reacts to me questions/commentary is valuable information to this point.

If I felt she was a townie that didn't understand, I might be more inclined to explain, in order to help her. But I see her as potential scum, so I really don't feel I should let her off the hook that easily. If she still doesn't understand the reasons even after a more careful reread, she can say so, and I can decide what I want to say then. But even that tells me something. If I tell her what I think the answers are before she responds, any information I get from her is irrevocably tainted, and therefore, I cannot get a true read on it.

Maybe an analogy would be useful. Do you know the game show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" If you don't, it is a show where contestants try to answer multiple choice trivia questions to win money. Once during the game, the contestant can poll the audience to get their opinion on the answer for one question. All the audience members vote on what they think the answer is, and the contestant is shown the percentage of audience members that voted for each answer. If I think the correct answer is C, it makes a big difference whether or not I tell the audience that before I poll them. If I tell them I think it's C, more audience members are likely to vote C than before, especially if they are not sure themselves. Thus, I've possibly tainted the results. If I don't state my thoughts first, then I get a truer read on what the audience really thinks. Do you see my point?[/u]

[Jitsu]

^^ Sorry for missing tags in the post above.

[Korlash]

Well I never thought I woudl see a Millionaire reference in a game of mafia... Props for a first there...

As for your tainted info thing I get it. I understand your point I really do. I can understand how hiding info from a player in order to accurately judge their responses can lead you to better information.

But the downside of that is hiding info from a towny may get them confused, scared, or panicky and thus lead to false info on them. Which could spiral down into a very strong case against them that gets them lynched.

in my mind the line that divides both our views is pretty slim and has a lot of ifs and buts in it. I'm not fully against what your doing but I think overusing that strategy can do more harm then good in the long run. Especially to a player who is getting votes based on simple "I agrees" and what not.

For now all I want is to hear her explanation on a few things you said.

[Jitsu]

With those three points I feel your vote had a good chance of gaining info, while Mexal's vote did not add anything to the discussion.

Be careful. Giving a vote without a detailed reason can indeed be a scumtell, but an insincere attempt to agree by merely adding useless fluff can be too. It's wise to consider all the prevailing factors about the vote (such as the current context of the game, voting histories, the voting player's style, etc.) to determine whether the vote is good or suspect.

Giving a lot of weight to how good (or how long) the stated reason for the vote was and not considering the other factors can lead to incorrect conclusions. I'm not saying you did this, I'm just trying to point out something that may benefit the other players.

[Jitsu]

But the downside of that is hiding info from a towny may get them confused, scared, or panicky and thus lead to false info on them. Which could spiral down into a very strong case against them that gets them lynched.

That is true. And yes, I have considered that case. I don't like to hide info from the town unless I think I can learn something by doing so. Based on if/how she responds to our prods for information, I will be trying to gauge whether what you say above is happening or not.

Frankly, in this case, I really do not think that it is a big secret, because I feel the reasons for the votes were not that difficult to understand. Plus, this point (not understanding the reasons behind the votes) is only a small part of my overall criticism against her, so I don't think hiding that little piece of info is likely to lead to a false conclusion on its own.

[Korlash]

Quick question, Do you agree that the mere statement "I agree with what he said." is all the reason and explanation a vote needs? I can understand that some points you made were good, but by not giving any info or adding anything what so ever, Mexal can either distance himself from any point you made that someone proves false, or push his support for any point you prove even more. In a sense his reasons for voting are vague and allows him to jump on either side of any upcoming issue that spring forth from your points.

And I have not said anything Mexal did was a scumtell (another overused term in mafia) I just wanted to find the exact points he agreed with and WHY! I mean if you agree with someone tell me why, Unless your just saying that to avoid suspicion and cast additional pressure on another player. (Not saying that is what he is doing.)

Be careful. Giving a vote without a detailed reason can indeed be a scumtell, but an insincere attempt to agree by merely adding useless fluff can be too.

I don't see how that fits here. Not giving a reason just because you do not want to be adding useless fluff clearly means you do not think your reasons are good. So I cannot see why your bringing this up. is it to try and defend Mexal? Or is it to say Jer's reasonings were useless fluff? Or was it to say my reasonings were useless?

[Jitsu]

Quick question, Do you agree that the mere statement "I agree with what he said." is all the reason and explanation a vote needs?

I think it totally depends on the situation. If I think I have a good read on a player, understand their motives, and do not have any questions about their vote, I may not require anything more than an "I agree" reason. In this situation, I thought I understood what Mexal means, because he does call me on it if he disagrees. If you really do agree with EVERYTHING the previous voter said, there may really not be anything else that needs to be added. But if I don't have a good read on a player and I want information to understand their motives better, I will ask, just as you did. I didn't think you asking him for a clarification was a bad idea at all. You got him to state his opinion more explicitly and got him to commit to specifically agreeing with everything.

I don't see how that fits here. Not giving a reason just because you do not want to be adding useless fluff clearly means you do not think your reasons are good. So I cannot see why your bringing this up. is it to try and defend Mexal? Or is it to say Jer's reasonings were useless fluff? Or was it to say my reasonings were useless?

None of the three. Mexal certainly doesn't need me to defend him, as he is doing just fine for himself. I think Jer did add a few useful things. And I don't think your reasoning is useless either. I agree with you asking for a clarification.

I was just trying to point out that the presence or absence of a well-explained reason isn't necessarily telling by itself. I've seen many cases where "I agree" votes were cast by honest townies, and many cases where they were cast by lying scum. I'm trying to point out to my fellow newbies that I think it's best to step back and see the whole picture for each vote,

including

the reason. If you can't get a feel for the voter's motives for doing so, you should ask them.

Adding useless fluff can be bad for several reasons: (1) It makes your true points harder to find and dilutes your arguments; (2) It can give others a false impression that you don't really have anything useful to say; and (3) in a game where your enemies are trying to twist and exaggerate every word you say, sometimes saying too much gives them more openings to attack you. In a lot of my posts, I find the need to trim out fluff before I post. A tighter, more focused post is a lot more effective than a rambling fluffy one, but you have to include enough information to make your points. It's a fine line to walk. I personally like to try to explain my votes well, but I know not everyone plays like that.

[Korlash]

If only we could get such thought out posts from anata...

[NabakovNabakov]

Vote Count as of Post 283

Vote Count as of Post 252

Sudo_Nym (1):

GunglingerKB

Miztef (2):

curiouskarmadog, Abstract Actuary

Anata112 (3):

Jitsu, Mexal, jerubbaal

Not Voting (6):

Jayalay, Anata112, Korlash, oEJo, Sudo_Nym, Miztef

12 alive, 7 will lynch.

Jayalay has requested replacement. I'll get one here ASAP.

Otherwise, congratulations on postiness!

[Korlash]

yay for Postiness!

...

Do we get a reward? Medals? Cake? =DDDD

[curiouskarmadog]

and lengthy one's at that...need to read that last page or so.

[Miztef]

Many players seem to be after anata at this time. While I agree that many of her posts are scummy, her lack of experience makes me consider how useful it is to attack her at this time.

I do not want this day to go by with only a fowl swoop and anata dieing. I think changing the attention to 1 or 2 more players is necessary before this day ends.

My reasoning is that, if anata is scum, she is almost sure to continue to slip up no matter who the attention is on (no offense to anata), and we will have a more confirmed scum anyway. As town, at least we give her a chance to make up for her mistakes.


Korlash has actually intrigued me over the last few posts. The "attack" on mexal seemed odd and, from my POV, illogical, as mexal's vote was perfectly acceptable in my books, as jitsu has pointed out with some of his latest posts. I acknowledge korlash was not trying to say mexal is scummy though, as he has pointed out, he was only looking for a reason behind mexal's vote.

My conclusion however, is that Korlash is trying to be a little too safe with his maneuvers, and I'm getting a more and more scummy vibe as time goes on for him.

[Korlash]

Well I will try and be less Careful with my posts then

If your trying to get people to begin looking at me again then all the more to you. In fact you should start it off. I think I have said everything I need to for my "attack" on Mexal, but if you have anything else you want cleared up all you need to do is ask. =D

[Korlash]

Well I actually didn't want to start anything new right now. still waiting on Anata and what not. But seeing as how you brought it up...

I do not want this day to go by with only a fowl swoop and anata dieing. I think changing the attention to 1 or 2 more players is necessary before this day ends.

Kinda funny coming from the second most voted person... Just an observation here... Could be nothing, could be him trying to get pressure off himself.

But you wana get the pressure back on me, go ahead and use that to start you off. I have nothing to hide.

[Miztef]

well, I think the problem I'm seeing is that besides myself and anata, there is little attention focused elsewhere. If I wanted an easy argument, I would probably go after anata as well.

It was honestly just a small argument against you korlash. It just seems you are able to slip out of any argument against you by saying "Well, I actually meant it THAT way, not This way that makes me look bad." Basically I'm saying your non committal.

btw... how did you manage to quote my name wrong? lol

Anyway, some other observations of mine:

Jistu - Awesome posts, keep them coming. Although an admitted newb, I love the way you post and how you condense arguments. You've moved up to my most pro-town player atm.

anata - please keep posting. This would be an extremely inopportune time for you to start lurking. I'd really like to hear your latest comments on the game.

... not too much else I don't think.

[Miztef]

sorry for the double post.

I just realized anata had said she won't be on until tomorrow. Scratch my "lurking" comments on her, my mistake.

[Sudo_Nym]

Well, the situation is interesting.

Unlike Miztef, I don't have a problem with Korlash calling Mexal for a reason, though that depends on motivation (a damn hard thing to sort out). I think Korlash just wanted to know what Mexal was thinking, as Mexie had been very upfront for the majority of the game, then goes to a very quiet "I agree" vote. I do think anata has been very scummy (and in newbie games, lurking gains scummy flavor that it loses as the players become more experienced), but I don't fault Korificus calling out Mexal for a seeming change in styles.

I don't think Mexal's change is significant, though. I would have expected more, based on what I've seen of him, but saying "I agree" is not scummy. I've done it myself in various games.

[Korlash]

Yeah, I too do not think what he did is scummy, and I feel justified in the answers I got from him. More or less I am glad I asked him because I am not left with any unknown hole on him.

Also @ Miztef: So because I do not admit my actions are intentionally scummy that means I am non committal? And FYI, be me mafia or town I would try to paint my comments in the best possible light. And if I am able to "slip out of any argument" then I have to either be a very good lier or have some damn good arguments. Maybe even both eh? =D

And I am sorry bout that quote... I have to admit I laughed when you mentioned it... In my defense the "X" and "Z" key are side by side... lolz...

Also I feel I should say some proverbial comment here... like... "Korificus says all mafias raise their hands!" =P

[jerubbaal]

And if I am able to "slip out of any argument" then I have to either be a very good lier or have some damn good arguments. Maybe even both eh?

Lynch all Liars. You still make no sense to me.

[Mexal]

Honestly, at this time, I'd lynch Miztef, Anata or Gunslinger. I think we should lynch one of them then re-evaluate where we stand tomorrow.

[curiouskarmadog]

speaking of gunslinger...

once the pressure piled on, he disappeared...

[Mexal]

speaking of gunslinger...

once the pressure piled on, he disappeared...

I noticed that as well. But then again, so did Anata.

[curiouskarmadog]

speaking of gunslinger...

once the pressure piled on, he disappeared...

I noticed that as well. But then again, so did Anata.

I dont have a problem with Anata much at this point.

[Mexal]

I dont have a problem with Anata much at this point.

Explain? What about Jitsu's post do you disagree with?