Mafia 74: Minimally Flavoured - Game over!

[Xylthixlm]

Post 81.

Being day one, everyone seems normaly suspicious, except Disciple Slayer who I am very highly suspicious of, and Egruntz who has only a wee bit more suspicion because he MAY be playing up newbie tells, but I am not convinced he is. Basicly what I was trying to say is that I feel he really is tring to help the town, but his actions bear watching. What I should have said in the above post is:

My highest suspicion is Disciple Slayer, and I will be keeping a close eye on Egruntz to see is he continues to play the clueless newbie

[hasdgfas]

The Cow has arrived and will be reading through the game and hopefully posting something soon.

[Phate]

Point taken.

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

still feel good with my gut vote on Mills currently

There is nothing wrong with going with our gut feelings. Sometimes, that is all we have to go on. However, it is very difficult to convince others that the gut feeling we may have is correct. Gut feelings are not random, SOMETHING caused them. If we make a statement based on a gut feeling, it would be helpful to try to figure out where it came from. The reason I bring this up is because a common mafia tactic is to use "gut feelings" as a screen to avoid having to post a real argument.

You are using six times too many words.

Snaps, you do use too many words

If my posts seem wordy, it is only because I want to be sure my point is clear and not misinterpreted.

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

Oh yeah, almost forgot!

Welcome to the game Hasdgfas.

[Mills]

still feel good with my gut vote on Mills currently

There is nothing wrong with going with our gut feelings. Sometimes, that is all we have to go on. However, it is very difficult to convince others that the gut feeling we may have is correct. Gut feelings are not random, SOMETHING caused them. If we make a statement based on a gut feeling, it would be helpful to try to figure out where it came from. The reason I bring this up is because a common mafia tactic is to use "gut feelings" as a screen to avoid having to post a real argument.

I didn't particularly want to bring it up since it would probably just be viewed as OMGUS but ckd's play has me a little worried too. He has only made 4 posts in this game.

The first post (#63) is what I like to call the spaghetti strategy in which he attacks a few people in the same post to see what will stick (much like flinging spaghetti at a wall to see what will stick). There was one other thing in this post that I didn't like but I'm doubt anyone else will find it scummy. He writes "Wow, what a scummy first post. I for one am not going to be voting for a no lynch." and this just has a scummy vibe to me. The second sentence in particular makes it feel like he is really anxious to play up that 'we must lynch' angle to represent himself as pro-town. That is more of a gut feeling of mine, however, and I base it on tone. As I said, I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree on that point since it is a personal feeling.

His second post (#66) is just a quick one to unvote the vote he made in post 1 (which I didn't mention since it wasn't particularly relevant I didn't think).

His third post (#130) is to vote for me on gut. I quote: "vote Mills, on gut for now." That's all he says.

His fourth post (#161) says: "still feel good with my gut vote on Mills currently".

And that brings us to the end of ckd's content. Now, I have never played with any of you before, including ckd, so I can't be sure what your usual playstyles are but I do not like the look of this playstyle. He has posted little of substance except some attacks on a few players, a quick uninformed (and later removed) vote on liamcool and an unexplained gut vote on myself. And I don't suppose anyone even picked up on his limited activity either. I feel like ckd is skating by, trying to stay low on Day One.

FoS: curiouskarmadog

I'm actually reconsidering my vote on DS now but I don't know if this is partly because DS has just disappeared from this game altogether and so looks less scummy as time passes. I will do a proper re-read before my vote moves anywhere in any case.

[curiouskarmadog]

In reference to my gut, I have found out recently (and can provide the game if you are really curious) that if I vote my gut right off the bat I have a better shot of hitting scum. The reason it is gut is because it is a weak case at best (we are still in Day 1 and know next to nothing) and not worth putting out there at this point. Besides if I did, people would say I was scummy because I was trying to stretch for a case. But look, Mills did anyway. At any rate, if I have time (have other games I need to update more thoroughly before this one) if you really want what gave me the vibe, I will post it. Mills's above OMGUS post adds to it.

[OhGodMyLife]

Unvote: Mills

I actually don't see the above as an OMGUS argument, rather I think mills makes a good point about CKD's input and general activity level. Certainly enough to erase my original suspicions that were the basis of my vote.

Phate, you started off the game announcing that you'd be V/LA so your absence is excused, but since returning you've done nothing but have a discussion about what constitutes anti-town and whether snaps talks too much. Trying to stay off the map?

Xylthixlm, you've been making me uneasy lately. Could just be your playstyle, but I'd like to hear more out of you that just one liners, and you've been way too focused on the way that snaps has been writing rather than whats actually going on in the game. Also this:

Sufficiently bad idiots can be antitown without being scum.

really struck me the wrong way. Lets leave the stupid people alone and go after the scummy people, shall we?

Vote: Xylthixlm

[Mills]

In reference to my gut, I have found out recently (and can provide the game if you are really curious) that if I vote my gut right off the bat I have a better shot of hitting scum. The reason it is gut is because it is a weak case at best (we are still in Day 1 and know next to nothing) and not worth putting out there at this point. Besides if I did, people would say I was scummy because I was trying to stretch for a case. But look, Mills did anyway. At any rate, if I have time (have other games I need to update more thoroughly before this one) if you really want what gave me the vibe, I will post it. Mills's above OMGUS post adds to it.

ckd, I know a lot of people have problems with gut votes, but I certainly don't. I like to make them too. Often I will give the reason and people will call me stupid and more often than not we will later find out I was correct. I know that the reasons are often a 'stretch' but I think it is important to give one anyway.

[Xylthixlm]

I'd like to hear more out of you that just one liners

Pretend I wrote a 20-line post and then summarized it for you.

Lets leave the stupid people alone and go after the scummy people, shall we?

I said what I have to say about the scummy people. Should I repeat it?

[The Fonz]

Xylthixlm, you've been making me uneasy lately. Could just be your playstyle, but I'd like to hear more out of you that just one liners,

Ask yourself: is it clear where Xyl stands on the issues, yes or no? Acknowledging that what you're attacking is fairly likely to be playstyle, and attacking it anyway, pings my scumdar in a having-cake-and-eating-it kinda way.

and you've been way too focused on the way that snaps has been writing rather than whats actually going on in the game.

Disagree: don't see how writing eight words on the subject is 'focussing.'

Something like this:

egruntz is trying very hard to be helpful to the town.

Sometimes a player that appears to be trying too hard to help the town, actually

is

trying to help the town. I get the feeling this is the case with Egruntz. There has been much make of his seeming "newness", yet he tells us he has played before. Mafia playing up newbie tells to gain a bit of FoI is ploy that has been used before.

Currently my highest suspicions are Disciple Slayer and Egruntz.

So in summary: You think egruntz really is trying to help the town, but you also think he might be mafia.

Is not 'focussing on how he writes' but drawing out the much more important point that Snaps wrote a nice paragraph on how he gets the feeling that Egruntz is genuinely trying to help the town, then lists Egruntz as one of his top two suspects anyway.

Also this:

Sufficiently bad idiots can be antitown without being scum.

really struck me the wrong way. Lets leave the stupid people alone and go after the scummy people, shall we?

Vote: Xylthixlm

You're voting him for holding a position i fully support. REALLY bad town players can be as harmful as scum. Though players who are actually that bad are rare, thankfully.

More to the point, simply because someone acts detrimentally to the town, doesn't mean they're

not

scum. The Rampages and Disciple Slayers of this world do sometimes get antitown roles.

That said, you shouldn't lynch them when there are actual viable scum candidates around.

Unvote, vote OGML

[Xylthixlm]

Sufficiently bad idiots can be antitown without being scum.

I have a request for more wordiness about this, so I'll justify it in more detail. I didn't do so at the time because the argument it was part of was nothing but a distraction; what's the point of posting a detailed analysis of something irrelevant? So I threw in my conclusion, and went back to looking for scum.

Feel free to skip the rest of this post if you aren't OGML.

First, definitions. I define "scum" as anyone whose win condition is mutally exclusive with the town's, including mafia, serial killers, and more obscure groups like werewolves or cults. I define "antitown" as anyone who will raise the town's chances of winning if they are lynched, regardless of win condition.

Someone who is a danger only because they could get themselves lynched is not antitown. In that case, all the town loses is a day's lynch; and the town would lose that anyways by lynching them, so doing so does not raise the town's chances of winning. Normal idiots fall in this category.

However, a

sufficiently

bad player - in the sense of bad for the town - can first lead to a mislynch of a townie, and then lead to a mislynch of himself. The classic example of this is someone who randomly lies and counterclaims a protown power role. In this case you're worse off than if you just lynched the idiot in the first place. No, this doesn't come up often, but it has happened.

Another case which comes up in some bastard modded games, but is not relevant here, is the townie who has a power which helps the scum. The consiglieri is an example of this.

In conclusion, it

is

possible to be antitown without being scum. The bar is rather high, but it's not impossible. I have no evidence that anyone in this game is that bad. I'd much rather lynch a scummy player than an insufficiently bad idiot who wasn't scummy. On the other hand, in the case of a tie, it's probably better to leave alive the person most likely to be helpful in the future.

[PJ.]

I used to be a full supporter of this but I have lynched Albert B. Rampage, Schismatized, Yougurt Bandit, and Battle Mage faaaaaaar too many times to do it again. I've lost a game due to an idiot counterclaiming a claimed Jester( we lynched the real jester thinking he was SK), but I've also lost a game because we lynched an idiot cause he was a cop that counterclaimed a scum, so point is Idiots can have pro town power roles too.

[The Fonz]

True, but here's the rub. I've also seen YogurtBandit, in particular, defended on the grounds that 'That's just how he plays' when he was scum, and ended up costing the town, several times.

[hasdgfas]

All right then. I have completed my reread and a couple of things jump out at me.
1: egruntz: I'm leaning towards townie at this point. No lynches are a terrible decision, but I think he seriously thinks it's best for the town, even though that may be wrong. He says it's his playstyle, and at this point I believe him. I'll be watching him closely because a playstyle like that throws up a red flag with me even if the rest of his posts look pro-town.

2: DS: This is the entirety of his posting

VOTE: OGML

Bandwagon to victory.

UNVOTE

VOTE: SNAPS THE PIRATE

Bandwagon to victory.

UNVOTE

VOTE: THE FONZ

More bandwagoning. Reasons to be given after Christmas.

I did a quick reread, and I'm not happy with how Bookitty jumped on egruntz for mentioning the term "No Lynch". egruntz wasn't really pushing for one, he just mentioned it. It seems like the sort of thing scum would do on day one: push for a mislynch on someone for nothing at all, really. So therefore,

UNVOTE

VOTE: BOOKITTY

Thank you, Elias. We need to keep these idiots in line.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present Exhibit A: numbskull at work.

LOLOLOLOL BURNT

These lesser individuals are quite fond of the word "lol" and have a habit of chaining them one after the other, in capital letters. Excessive use of "lol" is a clear sign of inferior mental capabilities. We really can't do much other than pity the fools.

@Bookitty: I was just bandwagoning. I thought there was something against The Fonz, but after a reread, there wasn't anything.

Mills has an easy task. All he has to do is stop being a first-class idiot and we will get along fine.

Bandwagoning, Bandwagoning, Bandwagoning, Bandwagoning by another name, calling Mills an idiot, calling Mills an idiot, defending the fact that all he did was bandwagoning while calling Mills an idiot.

This is unacceptable no matter who you are. You definitely have to take part in this, and shameless bandwagoning and calling someone an idiot as all you do just should not happen. That is how scum play.

vote: Disciple Slayer

Patch15: Where is that taking part in this game that you promised us 3 days ago?

Momentarily I will have my short summary of everyone else in the game.
Just my basic thoughts on them after my re-read.

[Phate]

Phate, you started off the game announcing that you'd be V/LA so your absence is excused, but since returning you've done nothing but have a discussion about what constitutes anti-town and whether snaps talks too much. Trying to stay off the map?

I don't really care whether you think my absence is excused. Having discussions about what constitutes anti-town = trying to stay off the map? You, without giving any reason, have made a total of eight posts. "Hi, Kettle; I'm Pot. You're black."

Why are you getting onto Xyl's case for bandwagoning? Bandwagoning provides information. If you're town, how else do you expect to get information on D1? If you're town, how do you expect to win without information?

Vote: OhMyGodMyLife

[hasdgfas]

Bookitty: Seem pretty pro-town. Jumped on egruntz, but it had good reasoning behind it. Argues with the Fonz a bit. Nothing scummy that I can see yet.

CKD: Post 1: a bunch of agreeing with others. After that, discussing the mis-tag, saying not to reference ongoing games, then a bunch of "Oh, my gut helps find scum." Maybe, but that doesn't help us. I'm leaning scum, but not my top suspect at all.

Dark Ermac: Joking, then saying that it's going to be a townie lynch on day 1 anyway so why not random vote (?!) I don't like that at all. After that, says that it's good to get rid of suspicious people. I agree, but that was not what you said the first time. The first quote was about random voting not being bad, then Mills says that DE is completely happy with a random lynch. He didn't say that at all. Weren't Fonz and Boo talking about straw-men earlier? Why didn't anyone else catch that?

liam: started talking about Mills being a Lyncher. There was no reason to bring that up. I think he's just trying to sow chaos.

FoS: liam

Besides that, there isn't anything in any of his posts that jump out to me as helping the town.

mills: Seems pro-town to me, but I don't like his comment about DE wanting a random lynch. straw-man logical fallacy. Besides that, I've liked what he had to say.

OGML: still neutral to me. I've liked some stuff, not liked some others.

panzer: same as OGML

Phate: seems to be lurking in plain sight. One liners and then jumps on OGML for jumping on Xyl. He's on my scum list too.

Sangy: lurking as well.

SensFan:

I'm LA from Christmas to New Year's, just an fyi.

That is his entire contribution this game

elias: prod Sens plz

-k, im on it.

Snaps: First post is FoSing people for not random voting, but after that I've quite liked his contributions.

Fonz: From what I could tell, he lost the argument with Bookitty. Some good, and some bad after that.

dragonsprincess: Also lurking. She hasn't posted since December 28th.

Prod here too please

- requested replacement because people were picking on her ( )

Xyl: focusing WAY too much on egruntz. That may be good sometimes, because sometimes it's necessary, but I haven't seen the need here. Besides that, I haven't really liked the rest of his posts either.


So, that's the basics. If you want me to go more in-depth, I can, but I wanted to make sure that I got my thoughts on everyone out there before going too in-depth on any one person.

[Mills]

Dark Ermac: Joking, then saying that it's going to be a townie lynch on day 1 anyway so why not random vote (?!) I don't like that at all. After that, says that it's good to get rid of suspicious people. I agree, but that was not what you said the first time. The first quote was about random voting not being bad, then Mills says that DE is completely happy with a random lynch. He didn't say that at all. Weren't Fonz and Boo talking about straw-men earlier? Why didn't anyone else catch that?

mills: Seems pro-town to me, but I don't like his comment about DE wanting a random lynch. straw-man logical fallacy. Besides that, I've liked what he had to say.

I don't really see where I have straw-manned to be honest. To me, saying that we should vote randomly is equivalent to saying that we should lynch randomly. I don't see how they are different things at all. Could you please elaborate on the differences as you see them?

[The Fonz]

And THIS is why no-one jumped over mills. Same reason I didn't like people jumping on Egruntz.

Oh, and had-whatever your name is, grow a pair and make a case on someone.

[hasdgfas]

Fonz:
I did. Disciple Slayer. He hasn't done anything this game except bandwagon and insult Mills. Don't tell me that that's good play, because it isn't. Please don't insult me by misrepresenting my play.


Mills: We have discussed random voting already. Random voting can get you reactions and help you find things to place less random votes about. You straw-manned because you stated that DE was suggesting we random lynch, but he never actually said that. I didn't jump on it because it seems like a simple mistake, and I just wanted to point it out.

[Mills]

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

I know what random voting is to start a game and that it is useful to lead to an informed lynch.

That isn't what I thought DE was suggesting. It seemed to me like he was suggesting let's all vote randomly to reach a random lynch. He wrote "

Consider it this way.In any mafia game where the mafia aren't retarded, there's going to be a townie lynched on the first day. We might as well random vote rather than not vote at all.

" He is explicitly tieing the concept of random voting to a (random) lynch. I do not think I was incorrect to say what I said.

[Xylthixlm]

Mills, that isn't what you said in post 192.

[hasdgfas]

Because there was a discussion with egruntz and others who didn't random vote because either they didn't want to, or, in egruntz's case, he didn't want to random vote or lynch day 1. From what I could gather, his statement was to egruntz saying that random voting is better than not voting.
He never said anything about random lynching. Random votes eventually lead to a lynch, sometimes a townie lynch, and that is what I gathered from DE's statement.
Apparently we each gathered something different from that statement. He never said anything about random lynches, and it seemed like you were trying to link him to a very scummy position that he never actually took.

[Mills]

Mills, that isn't what you said in post 192.

Yes - I apologise for not explaining correctly in the same post. It's an issue of

context

. In the context of resigning ourselves to a townie lynch on day one and subsequently voting randomly to achieve lynch (which is what I believe DE said), I would say that voting randomly is equivalent to saying that we should lynch randomly. I do not think I was straw-manning in such circumstances.

[Mills]

Because there was a discussion with egruntz and others who didn't random vote because either they didn't want to, or, in egruntz's case, he didn't want to random vote or lynch day 1. From what I could gather, his statement was to egruntz saying that random voting is better than not voting.
He never said anything about random lynching. Random votes eventually lead to a lynch, sometimes a townie lynch, and that is what I gathered from DE's statement.
Apparently we each gathered something different from that statement. He never said anything about random lynches, and it seemed like you were trying to link him to a very scummy position that he never actually took.

DE said: "In any mafia game where the mafia aren't retarded, there's going to be a townie lynched on the first day. We might as well random vote rather than not vote at all."

That argument makes no sense if he isn't saying it from the point of view of random voting and random lynching being equivalent (ie. suggesting that we vote randomly until lynching occurs).

In the first sentence, DE says a townie will very likely be lynched.

In the second sentence, he is saying that it would be preferrable for this to happen via random voting rather than no lynch occurring.

I can see how we have both understood different meanings from DE's post but I do not think that my understanding is incorrect. Please think about it more carefully. I'm sure you will see what I am saying.