Open 274: Game Over!

[BlakAdder]

Votecount

Hoopla (2): Da_Mafia_Godfather, Andrew94
ConfidAnon (1): Alduskkel
Andrew94 (1): Fenchurch
Nobody (4): Stefunny, Hoopla, ConfidAnon
With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch.

[Da_Mafia_Godfather]

Hoopla has made this game very difficult for town. She did that because she's scum.

[Fenchurch]

[ConfidAnon]

@Fenchurch: null on Hoopla ATM.

Mod:

You never answered my question about how long a person can be inactive before they are prodded.

Vote: ConfidAnon

. You just sort of joked around without kicking up dust (for the record, Hoopla joked around and kicked up dust) which strikes me as active lurkerish.

Meh. Game hadn't started yet. But good way to avoid RVS.

I like where Fenchurch vs. andrew94 is going.

Vote: andrew94

[Stefunny]

Stefunny, you were online browsing the forums several hours before actually confirming in this game. Why the delay?

Seems like RVS has taken off, I'm curious as to how Fenchurch Randomed my name? Your username looks familiar, do you frequent any other forums?

How, or why? Why is the same reason Hoopla pointed out; I saw you were browsing and wanted you to post.[/"Fenchurch"]
Sorry about that. I have a habit of following the conversation on my phone, but it's a pain to write on the forums from it. I get awful bored at work so I read along. It shows me as being on so it looks like I have been browsing the whole time.

My read on andrew is that he jumps to conclusions easily and sticks with them, I feel this might be common for him though, and may not necessarily reflect his alignment at this point. I don't think he gave much of a case for voting Hoopla but I do feel like she terrible reasoning for her vote either, and when questioned about her vote she gave reasoning that didn't make any sense and sort of avoided questions

and then

disappeared for an unspecified amount of time. So I sort of understand where andrews vote came from.
I get more of a scum read from Hoopla than I do from Andrew, but I feel it's way to early in the game to put Hoopla at l-1 especially while she is V/LA.

[andrew94]

It's not from any wiki, it just makes sense, and can be demonstrated in other games. And as I already said, I'm NOT sure Hoopla is town-aligned here, I consider it a null tell as to her alignment, because she has played before and knows what she's doing. But that doesn't stop it being pro-town: putting pressure on someone at the start of the game generates information which is helpful regardless of who does it. It's certainly not scummy, which is what you are trying to make out.

I'm not asking you to back off, I'm pointing out to others why I think you're scum.

i dont follow that logic. i think the act is not pro town, hoopla avoiding questions after being caught is definitely scummy and then your saying that hoopla is experienced etc, then wouldnt SHE KNOW your logic and purposely do it???

[andrew94]

@Fenchurch: null on Hoopla ATM.

Mod:

You never answered my question about how long a person can be inactive before they are prodded.

Vote: ConfidAnon

. You just sort of joked around without kicking up dust (for the record, Hoopla joked around and kicked up dust) which strikes me as active lurkerish.

Meh. Game hadn't started yet. But good way to avoid RVS.

I like where Fenchurch vs. andrew94 is going.

Vote: andrew94

i like where this fluff is going

[Alduskkel]

@ConfidAnon: reasons?

Slight town on andrew94 atm. His post #22 shows that he is paying attention to the game which is pro-Town.

Fenchurch's case is applying a double standard. andrew94 is scummy for having a crap case, but Hoopla is not scummy for it? All cases are kind of crappy currently.

[Alduskkel]

DMG: Why is Hoopla scum? What has she done to make "this game very difficult for town"?

[Stefunny]

Slight town on andrew94 atm. His post #22 shows that he is paying attention to the game which is pro-Town.

Um, I'm pretty sure good scum pay attention to the game too. Paying attention does not equal town.

[Alduskkel]

Town have to scumhunt, scum don't. So a given pro-Town player will probably pay more attention to the game in their attempt to scumhunt than an anti-Town player.

It's kind of like how lurking is scummy.

[andrew94]

explain

[ConfidAnon]

@ConfidAnon: reasons?

Slight town on andrew94 atm. His post #22 shows that he is paying attention to the game which is pro-Town.

Fenchurch's case is applying a double standard. andrew94 is scummy for having a crap case, but Hoopla is not scummy for it? All cases are kind of crappy currently.

The general vibe I got from his reaction to Stefunny's questioning. Rubs me the wrong way.

[Fenchurch]

It was just my dismayed face at DMG's defeatism.

Fenchurch's case is applying a double standard. andrew94 is scummy for having a crap case, but Hoopla is not scummy for it? All cases are kind of crappy currently.

It's not a double-standard. I have different expectations of a case and a vote right at the opening of the game, to those that come after. Is that not normal?

I don't think he gave much of a case for voting Hoopla but I do feel like she terrible reasoning for her vote either, and when questioned about her vote she gave reasoning that didn't make any sense and sort of avoided questions

and then

disappeared for an unspecified amount of time. So I sort of understand where andrews vote came from.

Well, the opening of this game was kind of a replay of the marathon game that was linked to, where Hoopla gave the following explanation:

I have loose theories revolving around scum tending to be more cautious or actively seeking safe places for votes, but you don't get to unearth these motives often when games ebb and flow in the expected manner. Sometimes it pays to deviate from the norm and drag scum out of their comfort zone, because they don't have as many reference points to turn to when it's something they haven't seen.

To me this makes sense as a valid town strategy, especially for the start of the game.

i dont follow that logic. i think the act is not pro town, hoopla avoiding questions after being caught is definitely scummy

You say you think it was scummy, but you keep ignoring my point that it was the very start of the game. How do you expect anyone to come up with a solid case at that point? Can you not see the value in putting someone under pressure anyway, to see how they respond? What about in light of the above explanation that I've quoted?

[andrew94]

err

if so called strategy works, then there would never be a mislynch.the 'value' of putting someone under pressure could and would backfire. how would you know each individuals reaction to pressure.

WHY are you defending hoppla.
whats defeatism

@confi

@ConfidAnon: reasons?

Slight town on andrew94 atm. His post #22 shows that he is paying attention to the game which is pro-Town.

Fenchurch's case is applying a double standard. andrew94 is scummy for having a crap case, but Hoopla is not scummy for it? All cases are kind of crappy currently.

The general vibe I got from his reaction to Stefunny's questioning. Rubs me the wrong way.

master confidadon sir, but i am pretty sure stefunny did not question me

[Fenchurch]

err

if so called strategy works, then there would never be a mislynch.the 'value' of putting someone under pressure could and would backfire. how would you know each individuals reaction to pressure.

What?? You could say this about any scumhunting method. No strategy is guaranteed, and what works once might not work next time, but that

doesn't stop us trying

, or how could we play?

Defeatism is an attitude that all is lost and we might as well accept defeat, I was referring to DMG's comment that the game is apparently now harder for town, which I don't see at all.

[andrew94]

im also saying that hoopla knows you so well that she could purposely do that 'pro town action' for you to label pro town

[Fenchurch]

I've already said I don't consider it a tell. So your argument now is "that player did a pro-town thing, but probably only did it so that they would look more townie", which doesn't make sense, because the more obvious explanation for someone to do something pro-town is that they are town. If we start lynching the most townie looking players then we're playing the game backwards.

And you claimed earlier that it wasn't a pro-town action, but you've yet to explain why.

[Da_Mafia_Godfather]

DMG: Why is Hoopla scum? What has she done to make "this game very difficult for town"?

I might be alone here but apart from this question I have not the first clue of what to do. And that's Hoopla's fault. That's also why she's scum.

[Fenchurch]

I have not the first clue of what to do. And that's Hoopla's fault.

DMG, why is that her fault? What is your experience of playing mafia before, have you played on forums, in real life?

[Da_Mafia_Godfather]

I have not the first clue of what to do. And that's Hoopla's fault.

DMG, why is that her fault? What is your experience of playing mafia before, have you played on forums, in real life?

Its Hoopla's fault because she's the one that begun oddly which has put me out of sorts. I've played Mafia before on forums, yes.

[Stefunny]

I will say that I agree that Fenchurch jumped all over andrew for doing something that was fairly similar to what Hoopla did, but seems pretty determined that Hoopla doing it in a "pro-town" way. Especially since Fen is bringing up past reasonings for Hoopla's vote but still didn't respond to the fact that the reasoning Hoopla gave for her vote was NOT what Fen brought up but reasoning that didn't make sense with the chronology of the game. I understand that might be how Hoopla likes to catch scum off guard but why the lie about her reasoning then?

[Alduskkel]

Fenchurch's case is applying a double standard. andrew94 is scummy for having a crap case, but Hoopla is not scummy for it? All cases are kind of crappy currently.

It's not a double-standard. I have different expectations of a case and a vote right at the opening of the game, to those that come after. Is that not normal?

My point is simply this: given the information (available posts) at the time there were apparent inconsistencies in what Hoopla was saying vs. doing. andrew94 picked up on that.

Also, you seem to be implying that there was a significant time span between Hoopla's vote and andrew94's vote. It's only the difference between page 1 and page 2 (or page 3 depending on how you look at it).

The general vibe I got from his reaction to Stefunny's questioning. Rubs me the wrong way.

This is very vague. Please elaborate, if you can.

I might be alone here but apart from this question I have not the first clue of what to do. And that's Hoopla's fault. That's also why she's scum.

Its Hoopla's fault because she's the one that begun oddly which has put me out of sorts. I've played Mafia before on forums, yes.

This is really lame. I don't see how Hoopla can possibly be sabotaging your ability to play. This sounds like just an excuse to park your vote somewhere and then not do anything else because the person you're voting for has somehow caused you to be unable to do anything else. Frankly if you're confused then it's your fault, you need to read and understand the game. It's not Hoopla's fault.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Hoopla]

Hello everyone, I'm back (and had a great time incase you were wondering).

I would like an opinion on this/andrew from everyone else please.

Andrew is probably town - his attack on me impassioned and persistent, and although it has come to the wrong conclusion, I think scum would be wary to tunnel so early in the game based on a perceived action. Fenchurch has faulted andrew for holding onto a poor case, but what makes it different now, is that he has received a decent amount of pressure from Fenchurch (and others less directly), yet still hangs on tight. This means either of two things; he is town and genuinely believes he has caught something, or he is scum and believes he can get away with his vote.

If he is scum, he is latching onto this tell, spinning a way of making it scummy and sticking with it. He would know his reasons are bogus, so he'd need to quantitively assess how strong such a tell would be - but the strength of a tell is weighed in two ways; how accurate it is, and how believable it is. As scum, the accuracy is wrong, but the redeeming quality of it being believable diminishes with every post that it is attacked and criticised, making it a less viable place for scum to leave a vote - particularly if such an attack incurs the risk of return votes.

It makes more sense as a town action, because genuinely believing the tell is accurate compensates for the (possible) negative limelight he receives for it, whereas a scum perspective doesn't have that chance of it being accurate to overcome the attention. I think his attack and follow-up arguments are difficult to fake.

~~

ConfidAnon has chimed in with mostly wishy-washy responses, which has been noted by a couple of players - I'm kind of surprised he only has one vote, as he looks like an obvious target for scum (if he is town). If anything the fact this hasn't been targetted much is a slight scumtell for ConfidAnon. Active lurking/wishy-washiness is a pretty universal scumtell within site meta, that it makes more sense for the pressure/votes CA has received/not received to come from 5 townies and 1 CA-scumbuddy than 4 townies and 2 scum not affiliated with CA. My read on him certainly isn't improved by his vote on andrew, which is weak and devoid of any real logic, and the one brief instance where he did try to explain it, he made reference to Stefunny's (non-existant) questiong of andrew. I'm sure he meant Fenchurch, but it shows a lack of attention for the game.

~~

This post from Stefunny pangs of honest inquisition;

I will say that I agree that Fenchurch jumped all over andrew for doing something that was fairly similar to what Hoopla did, but seems pretty determined that Hoopla doing it in a "pro-town" way. Especially since Fen is bringing up past reasonings for Hoopla's vote but still didn't respond to the fact that the reasoning Hoopla gave for her vote was NOT what Fen brought up but reasoning that didn't make sense with the chronology of the game. I understand that might be how Hoopla likes to catch scum off guard but why the lie about her reasoning then?

She is logically deducing a timeline and sequence of events that string together nicely - this post would have required at least one reread to do accurately which showcases an investment of time on her behalf. I think it's honesty stems from the fact I can clearly see the building blocks in this post that lead to her concluding thought - I think her interpretations are very reasonable. The post is grounded in logic, and although it is a fakable playstyle for scum to use (I do it myself), it's hard to do it well, and frankly, I think scum are less likely to invest the effort in producing a post that syncs logically, because they have less incentive to do so.

I was initially suspicious of Stefunny, but that has evaporated. Her reason why she didn't confirm straight away is believable. I think she's likelier to be town.

~~

I have neutral reads on Fenchurch and Alduskkel - on the last page Alduskkel has started to expand his game and ask better questions. His posting still contains an air of cautiousness about it, which makes me hesitant to declare a town read on him. I don't remember Fenchurch getting into such lengthy one-on-one debates with someone, she's generally a little aloof, posting commentary and asking questions moreso than attacking. Her defense of me is more than I expected, and I don't know what to attribute that to. Fenchurch is generally difficult to read, I think.

As for Da Mafia Godfather, he is just being Da Mafia Godfather.

I'm still in the process of sifting through information, so expect more thoughts from me again tonight.


VOTE: ConfidAnon

[andrew94]

yes confidanon is suspicious.
it would be foolish to let da mafia godfather a free pass
you seem pro town now
fenchurch is not for defending you like your her sister ==
and... wanna hear my strategy.