Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[PhilyEc]

One hundred.

[magnus_orion]

What baffles me is that when I point out that BB is undermining your credibility (and, to use your words, potentially setting you up for a mislynch), you ignore the elements about BB and instead perceive it as me attacking you.

BB is undermining my credibility?
I humbly request you support this statement

BB is answering honestly and, from my POV, more or less correctly, about how I play.

You're the one who keeps pushing conversation down this route, resulting in this so-called "undermining of credibility"

Afterall, you've told us your obective right here:

4) To have all players thinking about the situation.

If this results in "undermining my credibility" without analyzing if I'm actually scum or not, doesn't that imply your objective is not to find scum, but instead get someone (namely me), to look scummy to people so you can get them lynched? (I want an answer to this.)

My, you do like to polarise things. Cases don't come simply in the form of stating "X is scum!" One might be tempted to think that the following posts...

I

LOVE

to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Reasons would be nice.

I don't know, I'm just sorta getting a gut "meh" on you. I don't fully understand it myself.

...might constitute a case, or as close to a case as it's possible to muster in the first 3 or 4 pages. You may have largely renounced your suspicions of Nocmen now, but from my point of view making my last post, he was clearly your top suspect at that point. Even though the vote may have been for pressure, it still indicates you found him suspicious enough to warrant pressuring.

Except I admitted that finding scum would be difficult at an early stage.

I was hoping for someone to encourage my falsely implied suspicion (basically that was on purpose) of nocmen, actually, because that would mean they were trying to encourage a nocmen lynch.
Instead I see something even more interesting develop. A small group of players (as opposed to a larger group) trying to discourage this, and that same group trying at the same time, to check how much people agree with me and how much people generally find me scummy (as opposed to in this game), as if to guage how well they will be able to undermine my positions in the future.

You misunderstand. The narrow set of options you provided was when you asked Nocmen to say who he thought was scum. Not who had done anything suspicious at that early stage, but who was scum. You effectively gave Noc two options: say someone is scum on a very limited set of evidence, or not call anyone scum ('anybody could be scum') and incur your wrath for supposed question dodging. When he gave some minor suspicions, you criticised him for not doing that straight away, when in fact the reason for that was the initial phrasing didn't give him the option to do so.

Yes, I was trying to guage both nocmen's reactions and people's reactions to it. (See above.)
I was hoping that more people would talk before the game reached this stage in questioning, so I could get more reads before explaining this, but, oh well.

[Nocmen]

What baffles me is that when I point out that BB is undermining your credibility (and, to use your words, potentially setting you up for a mislynch), you ignore the elements about BB and instead perceive it as me attacking you.

BB is undermining my credibility?
I humbly request you support this statement

BB is answering honestly and, from my POV, more or less correctly, about how I play.

You're the one who keeps pushing conversation down this route, resulting in this so-called "undermining of credibility"

Afterall, you've told us your obective right here:

4) To have all players thinking about the situation.

If this results in "undermining my credibility" without analyzing if I'm actually scum or not, doesn't that imply your objective is not to find scum, but instead get someone (namely me), to look scummy to people so you can get them lynched? (I want an answer to this.)

My, you do like to polarise things. Cases don't come simply in the form of stating "X is scum!" One might be tempted to think that the following posts...

I

LOVE

to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Reasons would be nice.

I don't know, I'm just sorta getting a gut "meh" on you. I don't fully understand it myself.

...might constitute a case, or as close to a case as it's possible to muster in the first 3 or 4 pages. You may have largely renounced your suspicions of Nocmen now, but from my point of view making my last post, he was clearly your top suspect at that point. Even though the vote may have been for pressure, it still indicates you found him suspicious enough to warrant pressuring.

Except I admitted that finding scum would be difficult at an early stage.

I was hoping for someone to encourage my falsely implied suspicion (basically that was on purpose) of nocmen, actually, because that would mean they were trying to encourage a nocmen lynch.
Instead I see something even more interesting develop. A small group of players (as opposed to a larger group) trying to discourage this, and that same group trying at the same time, to check how much people agree with me and how much people generally find me scummy (as opposed to in this game), as if to guage how well they will be able to undermine my positions in the future.

You misunderstand. The narrow set of options you provided was when you asked Nocmen to say who he thought was scum. Not who had done anything suspicious at that early stage, but who was scum. You effectively gave Noc two options: say someone is scum on a very limited set of evidence, or not call anyone scum ('anybody could be scum') and incur your wrath for supposed question dodging. When he gave some minor suspicions, you criticised him for not doing that straight away, when in fact the reason for that was the initial phrasing didn't give him the option to do so.

Yes, I was trying to guage both nocmen's reactions and people's reactions to it. (See above.)
I was hoping that more people would talk before the game reached this stage in questioning, so I could get more reads before explaining this, but, oh well.

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

[Kairyuu]

Votecount 3:

Walnut(1):

PhilyEc

Dourgrim(1):

Flame

Isacc(1):

caf19

Flame(1):

Walnut

Riceballtail(1):

Beyond_Birthday

Beyond_Birthday(1):

Isacc

PhilyEc(1):

Dourgrim

Southland(1):

Riceballtail

Not Voting(2):

Southland; Nocmen; magnus_orion; Trumpet of Doom

With 12 players alive it's 7 to lynch.

Southland has picked up his prod, but has not posted in thread. He has until I can find a replacement to post, or he's out.

[magnus_orion]

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

how do you feel about walnut and caf19 in regards to what I did?

[Kairyuu]

MafiaSSK replaces Southland.

[MafiaSSK]

Hello everyone. First mini normal in a while. Rereading.

[MafiaSSK]

EBWOP:Amazingly PhillyEc is in this game too.

[Beyond_Birthday]

@Caf19:

I do percents or some such attack on everyone periodically. I am impossible to read on who I am hunting.

@PhillyEc:
You do ignore one thing: Magnus' overbearing pressure on players works slightly better on experienced scum than experienced town. Novices will almost always crack which can throw off his method, but it does work, only if one can read the minor nuances of the other player's response. Whether or not Magnus has this ability has yet to be determined, but I feel the approach is at least logical.

@Nocmen:
Did you really find Magnus' plan surprising? It seemed like a book opening to me.

[Nocmen]

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

how do you feel about walnut and caf19 in regards to what I did?

It seems to me that walnut is trying to generalize the game, trying to get as many others to comment as possible.
He also seems to be disliking your questioning a lot.
What I don't like is that caf seems to say a lot of what walnut does. Not much new to the table, IMO. However, this topic is getting a bit stale, I will admit.

@B_B: I really couldn't tell if magnus was trying to pull a gambit, or seriously pressure me into getting answers out of questions that didn't nessecarily have answers. Now it is the former though, and I'm not too surprised, but I do feel more confident with why he made the votes and actions he did.

[magnus_orion]

IMO. However, this topic is getting a bit stale, I will admit.

Yeah. I'll agree here. More people need to be in the posting of the comments.

Especially Isacc, whom I used to being a tad more talkative than he's being, but it may be due to homework and stuff, as expressed a few posts ago by him.

[Walnut]

BB is undermining my credibility?
I humbly request you support this statement

BB is the one who said

even if Magnus did attack someone in that game, it probably would have been largely ignored

Which immediately suggests that you are largely ignorable. I took issue with this, as it undermines your credibility. However, you seem keen to endorse his position:

BB is answering honestly and, from my POV, more or less correctly, about how I play.

Which results that

You're the one who keeps pushing conversation down this route, resulting in this so-called "undermining of credibility"

So no, you have misunderstood me. I have made no attempt to undermine your credibility, but instead attacked someone else for doing so.

If this results in "undermining my credibility" without analyzing if I'm actually scum or not, doesn't that imply your objective is not to find scum, but instead get someone (namely me), to look scummy to people so you can get them lynched? (I want an answer to this.)

If, in fact, any player's credibility is undermined, it does not necessarily get them lynched, it is more likely for their arguments to lynch another person be taken less seriously. However, I suggest that you direct that question to BB- I refer you back to my as yet unanswered question to you in post #78:

What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

I am amused that you then say (paraphrasing) "I made a dumb attack on nocmen to see who would follow it" and are then surprised if people think it was a dumb attack

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

This is accepting of you. My first read of it was that he had launched a line of attack and when it was unsupported said "Oh, of course that was my plan all along".

I am definitely "generalizing the game, and trying to get as many others to comment as possible". Initially it was mainly noc, magnus and Isacc posting, then more of magnus, me, caf and BB, and I am aware of Trumpet of Doom, Dourgrim, the now replaced Southland (welcome MafiaSSK!) and others to a lesser extent being in the background. This is one reason why I am averse to getting into saying who is scummy looking this early, as we are only dealing with a subset of the players, and those who are posting are the only available targets. Look at the playstyle differences- magnus is all action from the start of the game, nocmen and I are active and asking questions but more likely to just register the answers and move on, BB admits to being bored by this stage- which, when it boils down, is what has been the bones of a lot of the discussion to date.

On that note, this kind of bugs me:

Well, I can't draw too much from what I see so far.

VOTE:Southland

Post please.

RBT- it is about your third post, and I recall BB calling one of them "the most useful post ever". To say that you can't draw much from what you see is a bit off as you have not contributed significantly yet yourself, and to vote someone for not posting when you are yet to post content is much the same.

[Riceballtail]

RBT- it is about your third post, and I recall BB calling one of them "the most useful post ever". To say that you can't draw much from what you see is a bit off as you have not contributed significantly yet yourself, and to vote someone for not posting when you are yet to post content is much the same.

For a mini, I've posted more in this game than I do on average. I prefer to let what I read mill through my thoughts instead of make hasty replies that may have partial or biased conclusions.

[Nocmen]

There's a whole lot of active lurking going on this game.

I, for one, am starting to get annoyed at it.

I'm suspicious of all of you who are posting things like "I'm bored" or making these short posts. It doesn't really help your case either that you're not contributing anything on your own to the game as well.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

[caf19]

I'm going to look at avenues other than magnus now, let's see:

I'm worried by the amount of people saying something along the lines of "I'm going to wait a while before accusing people". This isn't a useful position to take, as it allows scum to hang around without expressing any meaningful opinions before pouncing on whoever they think is the easiest lynch. I know it hasn't been the easiest ever start to a day, which I think is because nobody has done anything 'obvious' that we can all comment on, but that isn't an excuse just to sit back and cruise until something really obvious does come along. Some culprits of this, IMO:

- PhillyEc says "Lets see things develop a bit more before we bring down the heavy duty artillery". Fair enough, but some light artillery might not be amiss, as you haven't really scumhunted at all yet. You said you might go after lurkers, which isn't necessarily a strategy I would agree with, but you haven't actually done that, or anything else really. Active lurker.

- Beyond Birthday says:

I do percents or some such attack on everyone periodically. I am impossible to read on who I am hunting.

That doesn't seem to be a very useful method of playing - staying impossible to read doesn't really help the other members of the town. If we can't know what you're thinking, there's nothing to stop you simply hopping on whatever wagon takes your fancy later in the day. In other words, I hope that one of those occasions where you post your percents/whatever is coming up soon...

- Riceballtail, Southland has been replaced now. Got anywhere better to put your vote?

Those three are the people I have my eye on right now.

[preview edit: Nocmen has just posted something of a similar general sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly]
---

What I don't like is that caf seems to say a lot of what walnut does. Not much new to the table, IMO.

Well, yes, I did agree with quite a lot of what Walnut said; I noticed that myself while I was posting. I will state that I don't agree with Walnut's thesis that BB has been undermining magnus or setting him up. On the contrary, I feel BB has been quick to defend magnus.

[MafiaSSK]

There's a whole lot of active lurking going on this game.

I, for one, am starting to get annoyed at it.

I'm suspicious of all of you who are posting things like "I'm bored" or making these short posts. It doesn't really help your case either that you're not contributing anything on your own to the game as well.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

You really think in a game where there is GIANT walls of texts you are not going to get active lurkers? Do you think people will all post the walls of text to 5 pages into the game?

[PhilyEc]

Yes, I was trying to guage both nocmen's reactions and people's reactions to it. (See above.)
I was hoping that more people would talk before the game reached this stage in questioning, so I could get more reads before explaining this, but, oh well.

This just means either you have a poor case and Nocmen is infact not acting scummy or else scum are afraid to jump in, wanting to keep their profiles low rather than getting involved.

I'd say Nocmen is town.

I do apologise about the lack of content but I never got a good grasp of the game from the beginning (just a ton of content from eager players, I perform better with starts easing into serious topics thus keeping up with them). I'll try harder but this what I'm doing for now.

[Dourgrim]

I've read the thread through a few times, and I've noticed a couple of things:

BB says in one post that he never plays the same way twice, and then later talks about his % method of scumhunting. These are contradictory, but this is minor. I'm more bothered by the "boredom" comment, although I know that's been beaten into the ground somewhat.

This brings me to nocmen, who I think is right to question active lurkers... but criticizing short posts themselves is foolish. Not everyone writes long posts as a regular part of their playstyle, and expecting everyone to post large amounts of content per post is unrealistic, not to mention difficult to read.

My suspicion right now is on magnus_orion, however. He was pushing pretty hard on nocmen there for a bit, and then when questioned himself backed off FAST, complete with apologies and phrases like "from my POV" and "I was hoping," which sound like backpedaling without conviction. Bad mojo, and worth pressing the issue on IMHO.

unvote: PhilyEc

vote: magnus_orion

[Nocmen]

This brings me to nocmen, who I think is right to question active lurkers... but criticizing short posts themselves is foolish. Not everyone writes long posts as a regular part of their playstyle, and expecting everyone to post large amounts of content per post is unrealistic, not to mention difficult to read.

I have no issue with short posts, some times people can get their point across in few words. It's some of the examples of short posts I have seen in here that really irk me. BB's "boredom" is the best example.

[magnus_orion]

My suspicion right now is on magnus_orion, however. He was pushing pretty hard on nocmen there for a bit, and then when questioned himself backed off FAST, complete with apologies and phrases like "from my POV" and "I was hoping," which sound like backpedaling without conviction. Bad mojo, and worth pressing the issue on

IMHO.

Emphasis mine. "OMG you used polite words+phrases! Must be scum."

Anyway, would you rather me be condescending and arrogant, or polite and civil? Both apparently make you suspicious, afterall. Do you suspect yourself? You used "IMHO" in your last post, afterall.

fos: dourgrim

Also, perhaps more importantly, you're condemnation of my actions is written in a manner seeking majority agreement, rather than interrogation. (otherwise I would have thought you town for the attack on me backpeddling) Do you want to figure out if I'm scum, or don't you? Scummy, IMHO. You're looking for a lynch, not for the scum. Why?

Walnut's last post makes me believe he is town. He suspects me for the backpedeling, but argues and presents points and questions against me directly.

Nocmen's praise and acceptancey post make me believe he is scum. Towny thing to do was what walnut did. Furthermore, he pushed my suspicions for walnut and caf19. But mainly, I really dislike when someone says, "Oh, okay then. That makes sense." In my experience, they tend to be scum.

fos: Nocmen

I am amused that you then say (paraphrasing) "I made a dumb attack on nocmen to see who would follow it" and are then surprised if people think it was a dumb attack

...
Yeah, well, it usually leads to stronger attacks, which is the most important bit. More discussion, more deliberation, more scumhunting, and the scum suffer.

What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

To provide a description of his feelings on the game adequetly. The results are... ? I dunno.

Caf19 continues to earn himself a "meh" status, as he has decided to ignore me for now.
@Caf19: what if I'm scum? Why can't you broaden your suspicions?

[PhilyEc]

Nocmen's praise and acceptancey post make me believe he is scum. Towny thing to do was what walnut did. Furthermore, he pushed my suspicions for walnut and caf19. But mainly, I really dislike when someone says, "Oh, okay then. That makes sense." In my experience, they tend to be scum.
fos: Nocmen

Sounds like you suspect him for agreeing with the suspicions of someone you suspect. Painting up the foregrounds towards a later reason for a mislynch? Is you scum? >:3

[magnus_orion]

Painting up the foregrounds towards a later reason for a mislynch? Is you scum?

No, I'm not scum, I've already answered that question.

Anyway, this tell is the one I least like to argue, since it is least likely to convince people, but has been most accurate in the past.

...
Which is probably why BB said I can't convince people.

[Dourgrim]

Emphasis mine. "OMG you used

polite

vague and non-committal words+phrases! Must be scum."

Fixed.

Anyway, would you rather me be condescending and arrogant, or polite and civil? Both apparently make you suspicious, afterall. Do you suspect yourself? You used "IMHO" in your last post, afterall.

fos: dourgrim

Um, what? I'm VERY OK with polite and civil... matter of fact, I tend to go after people who go out of their way to be rude as a policy because I believe rudeness in mafia games should be discouraged. And, for the record, "IMHO" isn't vague; it's an acknowledgement of the preceding statement being opinion rather than established fact. In this case, it literally translates to "In my opinion, this point is worth applying pressure with a vote."

Also, perhaps more importantly, you're condemnation of my actions is written in a manner seeking majority agreement, rather than interrogation. (otherwise I would have thought you town for the attack on me backpeddling) Do you want to figure out if I'm scum, or don't you? Scummy, IMHO. You're looking for a lynch, not for the scum. Why?

Um, what? I found something I believed was telling, and I exercised my only tool for applying pressure (a vote) and noted said fact. I didn't go out of my way to ask for others' opinions... I explained my point and use of vote.

[caf19]

Caf19 continues to earn himself a "meh" status, as he has decided to ignore me for now.
@Caf19: what if I'm scum? Why can't you broaden your suspicions?

I felt a bit better about you after your explanation of what you were doing with Nocmen, and I also felt that line of discussion was coming to its natural end. Time to consider other things.

If you're scum? Well, I'm sure I'll find you out eventually if you are. As for broadening my suspicions, that's exactly what I was doing by looking at some other people. Solely focusing on you would be a more narrow-minded method of scumhunting, surely.

Post 119 is somewhat strange in general, though, as it constitutes another flip of opinion back to suspecting Noc again. In accordance, it appears that your previous retraction of Noc-suspicion was a 'test' to see how people reacted, with the correct response being to suspect you for it... so the suspicion of Noc was a test, and then the non-suspicion of Noc was a further test? How am I to know that this most recent FoS of Nocmen isn't another test, as opposed to being genuine this time? Constant application of these 'tests' basically puts you in a position where you can change your opinion to anything you want, in the vein of "Oh that last post was actually a test and you failed!" I would prefer a more transparent approach from you.

[Beyond_Birthday]

There's a whole lot of active lurking going on this game.

I, for one, am starting to get annoyed at it.

I'm suspicious of all of you who are posting things like "I'm bored" or making these short posts. It doesn't really help your case either that you're not contributing anything on your own to the game as well.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

Hm... I don't think my posts have been generally short. Your attack on me is generally unfounded, but if a "bored" comment bothers you that much...*Smiles wickedly before cutting into my arm in a kind of writing*
*As blood pours down my flesh, I turn to Dour*

@Dour: My percents are a method of attack, not a play style. My mafia game might be flawed, but my town game is still strong.

*turns to caf19*

Who I'm hunting is difficult to read. I dunno if I'm easy to read or not. I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

*Still writing in arm, turns to Nocmen*
One second...

*beat*

Done.

*Shows writing carved into arm*

OMGUS Vote Nocmen

*Collapses*
Ow...this hurts...so not worth it.