Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Llamarble]

@M=W:
Zinive hasn't really jumped on anyone, and Xine hasn't done so to the extent of you and Oso,
but like you and Oso they have mostly been aloof and reasonable.
It's hard to read because you've all acted in a basically pro-town fashion
but in a way that I don't think it would be difficult for a scum to emulate.
Essentially you're all playing pretty well but your playstyles mask alignment easily.
Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling,
Which provides additional opportunity to read us.

@Shattered:
You're welcome to sig that.

Now time to read Equinox's post.

[Equinox]

Well, shit. I knew this day would come. There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

MOD: Requesting a prod of PerArdua.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Zinive

I'm looking forward to reading everything Equinox has to say. If he has a significant wall to post on only 4 pages of info, there could be some really good analysis in there. I'd like to note how he random voted me on virtue of my tendency to post walls. This isn't scummy, but it is ironic.

Heh, the irony indeed.

I'm not going to summarize that wall anymore, as there isn't a need now, but... to summarize:

Zinive > FeRnAnDo > Xine > cruelty > Me=Weird > PerArdua

I believe Shattered Viewpoint is town. In Mini 1003, where he was scum, he was much more calm and "analytical," despite the lurking. In Open 233, where I replaced him as town, he displayed this sort of antagonistic behavior. I'm a little bothered that he's taken the antagonism to a different level in terms of intensity, but given his personality, I'd say he's town in this game.

The tone of Zinive's early posts bother me, and his later posts haven't done anything to dissipate that.
FeRnAnDo getting defensive over ICEninja's vote makes me wonder if he's just buckled under the pressure.
Xine's IoA post set my scumdar on fire.

[Llamarble]

@Equinox:
I didn't think Oso had been acting particularly antsy, and also don't think "being antsy" is necessarily associated with being scum.
I did feel that him giving any reason at all would raise the pressure of a small RVS bandwagon enough to hopefully get some kind of reaction.
The "soapbox" posts were mostly in response to previous posts, i.e. Xine mentioning me explaining myself despite not a whole lot of pressure.
I said that my list was a "tight pack," if that's what you mean by discounting it. I was just trying to be clear.
Cruelty then said it was ridiculous to make a scumlist on page 3, so I reiterated that I understood there wasn't much information but thought it might help.

I did rethink the case I made on Ice somewhat (and said so in a post earlier today).
I still feel that one of Ice and Shattered flipping scum would make the other more suspicious,
and the paragraph I attacked earlier still bothers me,
but I can understand better now how a town player could have written it.

[Shattered Viewpoint]

Shattered, is Nobody Special your account?

More the other way around, but yeah.

ICEninja, if you don't like my playstyle, nightkill me. Don't badger me to death in-thread. You'll just end up pissing me off and that won't end well for anyone.

This post is ugly and not just in its tone. Instead of analyzing or doing something to advance the game, Shattered Viewpoint places down a vote

out of spite

. Why did you ignore the rest of the game in favor of displaying this kind of antagonism? (Oh, yeah, I'm not taking this for an answer.) Where has ICEninja been rude, and why do you feel it merited a vote?

He hadn't; I was cautioning him not to glom onto me and pursue something that, in the long run, would be unproductive.

[AGar]

@Shattered Viewpoint:

BaM Rule #12:

If you do not post for the equivalent of a full game day (see rule 5) you will be modkilled. Further, you will be blacklisted from any future games using the BaM ruleset. Keep in mind that there are no replacements for flaking in a BaM ruleset game. Other circumstances requiring replacement are up to the mods discretion.

If you request a prod on a player, it will be done as long as it has been 72 hours since their last post. But I will not prod otherwise.

@Equinox:

PerArdua still has a few more hours, but if by 9 PM before I go to work he has not posted, I will issue a prod.

@Netlava:

Sorry, I managed to miss your question. See my response to Shattered Viewpoint.

@All:

Votecount inbound

[AGar]

One of you woke from a nice nap and joined the others, who were sufficiently undecided once again. The paranoid stares has ended, and things were back to the drawing board as high noon came and went.

Votecount 1.4

cruelty (2)

- Me=Weird, Xine

FeRnAnDo (0)

-

ICEninja (2)

- Oso, Llamarble

Llamarble (1)

- cruelty

Me=Weird (0)

-

Netlava (1)

- ICEninja

Oso (0)

-

PerArdua (0)

-

Shattered Viewpoint (1)

- FeRnAnDo

Equinox (0)

-

Xine (0)

-

Zinive (2)

- Llamarble, Equinox

Not Voting (4)

- netlava, PerArdua, Shattered Viewpoint, Zinive

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch.

Three players

are the current wagon leader(s), at

L-5

Deadline is October 29th, 2010 @ 11:59 PM EDT

[Shattered Viewpoint]

It's suspicous because

he

joined a forming wagon too quickly, and yet not a big case because since zinive's started he has played 8-9 mafia games i don't believe he would make such a newbish move like joining a wagon on page 2 expecting 4 more votes. clear?

Preview Edit: I kinda agree with that, Netlava. but later on game some 'top 3 scum' lists could be nice.

Who does the bolded 'he' refer to? Please, try to quote whatever you're answering if you aren't crystal-clear in your response (as above). I have no idea what this refers to, other than the obvious wagonning thought.

I can't see where anyone asked you about zinive and a wagon, so I can't really put this post in context.

Also, please post more.

[AGar]

@All:

Also, something of note. I will be with LA this weekend. I will get a votecount in each day, but if a lynch does occur, be patient. I will get in here to at least lock & flip.

[ICEninja]

Is this your first game under the BaM ruleset?

It is indeed. I was quite disheveled when I noted the day lengths, but am relaxing a bit now that more of the players are contributing.

What were your reads on the active players when you voted for FeRnAnDo?

I hadn't yet really found anything amongst the active players that, at the time, merited my vote. I felt like because the game days are so short that I shouldn't be spending a significant amount of time without my vote doing anything. In terms of who I suspected the most at the point of making my Fernando vote, it was probably Zinive, though in retrospect cruelty could have warranted a vote.

I for the most part really liked Equinox's post. He seemed to buddy up to me a bit, but I'll not be too bothered by that being that I had already defended myself from the points he countered.

Equinox, did you notice my case on Net? You touched on almost every significant event, but the only thing I saw you referring to Net was a point against him. Judging by how you didn't include him on your possible scum list, I'm going to be inclined to believe that you disagreed with my case. If you disagreed, why did you not bring it up?

[Netlava]

M=W, yes I find it better to focus on one player at a time.

Ice, I have already responded to your "case."

---

ONE VOTE after fernando posts does not mean he has suddenly stopped lurking, nor does it mean I have to immediately move my vote. And once a player has lurked, that player has lurked. Being more active afterwards does not change the fact that he WAS lurking.

FTR, I would consider the following players lurking:
fernando, perardua, cruelty, and me=weird. Equinox just started posting today and Xine has been getting by. IMO, it would be stupid of me to draw conclusions at this point when nearly half of the players haven't posted that much. I think it's a major mistake to only scumhunt among the active half of the town, and ignore the other half, expecting them to eventually up their activity.

Anyways, I will post some thoughts on some players later.

[Netlava]

Btw, let me add that activity is one of the more reliable scumtells.

[Equinox]

Equinox, did you notice my case on Net? You touched on almost every significant event, but the only thing I saw you referring to Net was a point against him. Judging by how you didn't include him on your possible scum list, I'm going to be inclined to believe that you disagreed with my case. If you disagreed, why did you not bring it up?

I saw it. I was going to wait to see if Netlava would respond further, and I see that he just did.

I have something I need to take care of first, so I'll have to put a rain check on this.

[Equinox]

Last visited: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:51 am

PerArdua just replaced into a game on Wednesday.

WTF are you doing, PerArdua.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: PerArdua

[Oso]

Spent most of the day when I wasn't working re-reading the thread.

UNVOTE: ICEninja

I was re-reading mainly to get supplementary evidence against him. He might still turn out to be scum, but it won't be for the reason I was pushing. Won't go into huge detail (unless you folks want it) except to say that what I thought was scummy action started to look more and more like a player trying to legitimately get people to post.

Back in a couple of hours (or tomorrow morning) with thoughts and a vote.

[Equinox]

I have something I need to take care of first, so I'll have to put a rain check on [my opinion of ICEninja's case on Netlava].

Delayed until tomorrow. My energy is sapped, and I still have a paper to write.

[Xine]

Cruelty: Is What level of information sharing to you feel comfortable with? I ask because your current vote is related to that.

Equinox: Hi there, nice wall
That’s fascinating about PerAudua, I’m gonna go check that out

ICEninja: do you suppose aggression is a scum tell

Netlava: I notice you are riding a fine line between active and not. 4 posts in a row, but total less content the one average post from anybody else, for example. Interesting place to be considering your opinion about activity as a scum tell.

[Equinox]

EBWOP: As a courtesy warning, I'm busy all day on Friday, so I'll only post if it's something that doesn't require rereading. If I don't finish Friday, my business will carry over to Saturday morning. Therefore, Saturday evening is the earliest you can expect the results of any promised rereads.

Luckily, my reading list for this game is short and I can deal with it tomorrow. In case other people ask me for stuff, though, be aware of the above. Thanks.

[Xine]

It does look like it's true of shattered's meta that he is probabbly town in this game

[Llamarble]

The Perardua situation is really strange.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice he's logged in recently?
I see no reason for town to act like that.

On people saying meta -> Shattered is town:
If somebody has a meta as distinctive as being obnoxious as town and calm and helpful as scum,
They probably established it so that they can take advantage of people putting too much faith in it.
If you're going to say he's town, do so based on the merits of his play this game.

[cruelty]

i think that it's reasonable to have 2-3 suspects. confirming that you believe somebody to be town (without a good reason, such as a wagon building against them, a weak case against them etc) isn't really beneficial at any point.

[Oso]

VOTE: Llamarble

Here's why. An outright contradiction and some contradictory behavior.

Earlier I said if I ever thought Llama was scum, it wouldn't be because of his vote on me. But his vote on me does highlight one set of contradictions so I have to use it as a starting point.

Post #11: He votes me. The vote itself is not scummy but that makes him number 3 on the wagon (as big at it got).

Post #32:

I also thought that the 3rd vote was scummy

since this is most of the times the point where random voting can turn into a bandwagon. The reasoning given for why also doesn't satisfy me. Oso is talking currently adding pressure now just seems odd.

Sure Oso was talking, but at the time of my post it was all sweet nothings and a random vote.
A few votes hopefully gets people to produce useful game content like examination of the motives of the people of their bandwagon.

Zinive is the third player to go after me. (Opportunism)

He tries to add to the reasoning against me so it looks like he's not just following the most promising lynch (Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a common scum technique?)
But his added reason seems very weak to me. (running into the "scum say things they don't believe" situation again)
The fact that he doesn't vote me after stating suspicion and adding a reason makes it seem like he wants to lay low and avoid looking opportunistic.
(Scum want to avoid notice while pushing the town toward false lynches; stating suspicion and not voting lies in this vein.)

He(Llamarble) was third on my wagon, as Zinive pointed out, yet somehow Llama thinks that Zinive being Number 3 to simply voice suspicion him is somehow more damning that casting an actual vote in the third spot. He(Llamarble) does give some supporting reasons why Zinive's suspicion might be considered scummier yet he goes and does this:

Post #84

..
I haven't picked up any substantial further nastiness from Zinive's recent posts (though I still haven't heard nearly enough from him), so I'll go ahead and
Unvote; Vote IceNinja
I think but am not certain that this is the

third

vote on Ice.

There is that three again. Before anyone gets the idea I hate the number three, it's not that it is the third vote or suspicion but rather he feels strongly enough to call and vote another player on being the <insert whatever number here> to voice a suspicion yet has no objection to being <insert whatever number here> himself.

Major contradiction in what he(Llamarble) has said when compared to what he's done.

Next.

Post #44

..

The exchange between Shattered and Ice feels a little bit more like artificial distancing to me than legitimate back and forth.

Both have made accusations that seem unlikely to get the other into real trouble while showing some animosity for each other.
If one flips scum I'll be suspicious of the other.

Post 79

..
My take on Oso's case vs Ice:
Supposing Ice is scum, even if the plan Oso described hasn't managed to lynch a lurker,
he has at least found a pretty low-risk vector for contributing and looking pro-town.
On the other hand, it's not false that town should be concerned with lurkers given short days.
Thus the issue from my perspective is more the degree to which Ice relied on the short deadline to produce posts.

While he mentions the short deadlines a lot, he doesn't spend much time actually pressuring lurkers until he votes Fernando.
He also discusses enough other topics that mentioning the deadline doesn't feel like a crutch.

I do still think his interaction with Shattered was strange on both ends.
I'm surprised Ice didn't come down harder against Shattered for some of the more ridiculous things he said.
Ice said the funny sounding "You'd better impress me extremely quick with some very insightful analysis."
But followed up by defending himself against an accusation of "trying to hard to go into analysis" and then leaving Shattered alone afterward.

[Side note:The underlined was the thought that was the tipping point for me deciding that my case against ICEninja was probably a bit far-fetched. Up until I read another person saying it, the little voice in the back of my head saying I'd strung too many improbable things together was being pretty much ignored]

First paragraph, "You could be right, but you could wrong.." basically, but still pushes the possible connection between ICE/SV in the second paragraph with the option of adding my argument at any point when he says this

"....he has at least found a pretty low-risk vector for contributing and looking pro-town.

"

When he says this (Post #100):

@M=W:
Zinive hasn't really jumped on anyone, and Xine hasn't done so to the extent of you and Oso,
but like you and Oso they have mostly been aloof and reasonable.
It's hard to read because you've all acted in a basically pro-town fashion
but in a way that I don't think it would be difficult for a scum to emulate.

Essentially you're all playing pretty well but your playstyles mask alignment easily.
Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling

,
Which provides additional opportunity to read us.

The bold part. That is where I believe the contradictory behavior is. He's voting, pushing a case and even making connections based on person who he implies is town, right along with him.

@Llamarble. Why are you voting and pushing hard on someone who you think is town?

[Llamarble]

How do I do links?
@Oso:
I don't specifically care about the number three. If only scum ever voted third, it would be impossible to lynch scum without their buddies' help.
Being in the middle of the formation of a wagon may imply a scum is hoping to push a lynch while avoiding suspicion with an earlyish vote.
It may also imply a town player has become suspicious of someone and believes they merit a vote.
In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.
When trying to distinguish between the two, I look at the context.
If you look at my post 32 (quoted by oso) I gave reasons why Zinive's statement was one where being in the middle looked scummy.
Thus it's not a contradiction for me to find his middle vote scummy and make middle votes myself.

The entire paragraph from my post 100 containing the statement about me and Ice is a discussion of playstyle in answer to a question from M=W.
Obviously, if a person always uses the same playstyle the fact that they're using that playstyle is a null tell, so I don't imply Ice is town in that post.

I think that resolves both of the situations where you thought I contradicted myself.

[Zinive]

Zinive, you don't have your vote on anyone yet you've made a few statements suggesting you suspect people. Are you waiting for an opportunistic time to vote?

Interesting question and if you mean if I would vote for them when a bandwagon starts then yes if the deadline draws close.

The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.

The logic Llama used was partly one I have stated previously against him. This simply means I can understand why it appeared this way.

A question it is, then. What's your stance toward Llamarble?

I think his scum hunting is genuine and therefor I lean towards town.

While I can see not wanting to push lynches on lurkers purely on policy, I disagree that we shouldn't focus on them. This ruleset deals out very harsh punishments, and Oso makes an excellent point: People with relatively uninteresting roles (e.g., Vanilla Townie) are more likely to lose interest, and if we don't push posts from these people, we're going to get very damaging modkills.

The ruleset deals with lurkers through mod kills. I don't see why we should use up a day to lynch someone that gets most likely mod killed anyway. It feels like a waste to me. This doesn't mean I like lurkers and that we should just leave them be. If there is a chance to make one or two lurkers post more frequently then please go ahead. ICE has mentioned several times how crucial it is to post and if they did not get it by now I assume they won't change there behavior if we keep repeating the need of frequent posts.

All right, answer me this question: Do you see pro-scum motivation behind SV being as antagonistic as he's being?

Now that I know shattered is nobody special (whom I have played with already) I assume this whole think is just a show. This means he knowingly decided to play in a way that does help when being scum. This does not mean that I think he is scum nor that he is town. He is pretty much neutral for me right now but I could vote for him based on a policy to vote for players that actively try to confuse/annoy the town.

[ICEninja]

Mod, has a prod been sent out to PerArdua?

Ice, I have already responded to your "case."

You brushed my case off. You didn't answer my statements about the antsy vote at all and completely wrote it off as not being important. You said you stood by the idea that my "excuse" was still invalid. By the way, since it seems like I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that my activity level would be lower, I meant that my quality of analysis might not be up to my own personal standards. I don't believe I said anything about quantity of posts.

If you're going to say he's town, do so based on the merits of his play this game.

This is absolutely true. If someone is making alternate accounts, they usually do so with the purpose of muddying their own meta. You simply cannot rely on meta reads in cases like this. Sure, it can give you a gut read or a slight leaning, but don't let this dissuade you from believing he's scum if a case is made against him.

i think that it's reasonable to have 2-3 suspects. confirming that you believe somebody to be town (without a good reason, such as a wagon building against them, a weak case against them etc) isn't really beneficial at any point.

Come on, cruelty. That statement is all you had to say? It refers to an old argument that wasn't even really all that comment worthy. It was such a worthless post, which considering your posting, is definitely saying something. You're so fixated on the fact that he put a scum-town list, yet I see people do this all the time.

Also, consider this: if a town puts a town-scum list, it helps scum. If scum does it, how does it help scum? Scum already has that information. You can call someone anti-town for it, but not scummy.

Furthermore, how can town have accurate town reads so early in the game? How does that help scum anyway? This just feels like your entire case against him is confirmation bias that doing this is bad, therefore you're scum. I don't like that at all.

Oso I see your case against Llama, but I think a lot of it is context. Just because he was the 3rd on your wagon and he attacked the 3rd on another wagon isn't by itself scummy. However, Llama's unvote revote without any explanation whatsoever is pretty bad. I'm not convinced, but this case does somewhat deter my town read on Llama.

At the moment I'm still suspicious of Net, but my suspicion of cruelty is definitely rising. I'll be switching my vote soon if cruelty's posts don't improve.

To do a link you put [ url=

link here

]

text you'd like displayed here

[ /url ]

[Oso]

See, I knew that the number three would get the main focus. Would have happened no matter what position was actually used.

Main point of the first half of my votepost on Llama wasn't that the vote/suspicion was the third spot but rather he felt using voting or casting suspicion at at certain point was off enough to add to a case on another player and indicates that player might be scum. Yet he doesn't apply that same standard to himself.