Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[Javert]

This conversation is amusing enough that I feel no need to explain my vote at this time. Please feel free to act like this is highly suspect.

[Oso]

This conversation is amusing enough that I feel no need to explain my vote at this time. Please feel free to act like this is highly suspect.

Yer right Pardner, it's a knee-slapper fer shure....a real giggler

VOTE: Javert

[Oso]

Oh hell,

UNVOTE: HumblePoirot

VOTE: Javert

[Mute]

This conversation is amusing enough that I feel no need to explain my vote at this time. Please feel free to act like this is highly suspect.

...okay yeah...

Unvote, Vote: Javert

If my math is right this puts him at L-2.

[Mute]

EBWOP:
Sorry, got vote-counts in my games mixed up. He's at 3/7.

[Humble Poirot]

@ICEninja

, a couple of posts before you, Javert says he didn't vote magnus for being a lurker. You're implying he did nonetheless, when calling him hypocritical, right?

You voted people based on their name. That doesn't do anything to get discussion going. There are some things people do to get discussion going, such as bandwagoning, voting people supporting bandwagons, asking questions, reaction hunting, etc.

How do you bandwaggon without voting? How do you know he is not reaction hunting with his RVS votes?

Also, the only way Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy.

Do you think this adds anything useful at all to your vote?

@Mute:

Imagine Javert bussed his partner in such a fashion that you might think is an intent to break rule 3.4. Would the mod modkill him for that?

No. Because the mod would not be able to explain the modkill without outing the partner. That being said, mafia bussing is hardly playing to lose.

This conversation is amusing enough that I feel no need to explain my vote at this time. Please feel free to act like this is highly suspect.

Sigh. Being anti-town is not amusing. It doesn't help anyone.

Playing the I'm scummy-on-purpose-to-catch-scum doesn't work. It's not a smart way to act. By refusing to answer questions and being smug about it you're allegedly justifying any votes on you.

@Mute

:
Your math, as you noted, was wrong. He was not at L-2. He had only 3 votes on him. That's L-4

You just counted both your OWN FoS and Oso's vote correction.

The interesting thing, though, is the fact that you would vote him into L-2 without seemingly caring who were the 5 people who had voted for him and why. Am I wrong? You though L-2 was warranted?

[Prox]

I hate to start this way. Focusing on trivial matters like they're important so someone will say something stupid.

On that subject, it's easier forme to answer broad q's than to answer a list of questions asking the same thing.

[Humble Poirot]

Scratch what I said about mute counting his own FoS and Oso's vote It seems he is playing a 9 player game as well and 3 votes would make it L-2. That's what he meant when he claimed mixing up his games. Still, I question if he feels L-2 was warranted.

[Mute]

@Humble: Firstly, how are you dividing your posts like that? o-o
Second: Yes, I feel that putting him into a potential L-2 situation is justified, given how he's presented himself thus far. He is playing counter to a town win-con, by causing confusion amongst the town. If he decides to grace us with an answer for his reasoning and his statements, then I will rescind my vote for him. As it stands, he is at L-4 and I have corrected my math for that error, and am making it clear now math is not my forte.
Also, why do you assume I'd dismiss whom was voting for him? As it stands, the votes placed on him by Me, Oso, and ICE are because of his negative play.
Regarding the rule thing: Rules 1.2 and 1.5 I feel come into play with that.

1.2 Rule violations will be dealt with on a case by case basis. I am not afraid to modkill, should it be necessary, but I really don't want to have to.
--
1.5 My decision is final about whatever is going on in this game. This means that these rules may be amended if necessary to suit a situation I have not foreseen.

Ockham's Razor and all that jazz.



If I may direct a question towards you now:

Sigh. Being anti-town is not amusing. It doesn't help anyone.

Playing the I'm scummy-on-purpose-to-catch-scum doesn't work. It's not a smart way to act. By refusing to answer questions and being smug about it you're allegedly justifying any votes on you.

I can understand you wanting him to participate smartly in the game, but why the lack of pressure against him to change? It feels like all this post is doing is a slap on the wrist, "don't do that young man," and back to business as usual with the hope he changes.

You mention he might be bussing for scum, or he is trying to draw attention to himself. If his behavior will be detrimental to town in finding scum, I'd move for a policy lynch for that.

[DavidParker]

I will take this opportunity to emphasize two facets of our ruleset:

1.)

We are on a 14-day deadline on Day One, and a 10-day deadline for every other Day; and

2.)

There is no reduced majority rule, which means we must reach a majority in order to achieve a lynch each Day.

With that in mind, I do not think we should take kindly to lurking. We cannot afford to dawdle.

Vote: magnus_orion

. One scum down.

Cool. This is my favorite post so far. These are quick deadlines so let's be proactive in getting organized wagons/claims/lynches done. Javert wins town points for highlighting this fact.

1) What is everybody's timezone? Right now live in US central for the next 3-4 days, then I fly back to Australian time zones.
2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? Moderate experience. Some 15ish games offsite as joke/fun games. Some 15 games here.
3) About how often can we expect you to post? Is this consistent with your meta? Umm, I'll have splurges of activity and lulls in activity when I get swamped with work or because I'm travelling. You can probably tell by my activity where I'm at any given moment.



I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

He is moving us out of RVS even if it's by drawing negative attention to himself. Now get your votes off him.

I'll be looking at the various reactions to Javert to see which is most scummy.

[RobCapone]

1) What is everybody's timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're expecting a post from you, and it wont come until the wee hours of the morning.
2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? It helps my reads to know who are the pros and who are still learning.
3) About how often can we expect you to post? Is this consistent with your meta?

1. United States East Coast time
2. Been on site here just a few months, played elsewhere for over a year but the style there is nothing even close to this (MS is way more serious)
3. The early days on MS, I would easily out-post anyone on this site, but after complaints from people in just about every game I have played and work cracking down, I have scaled back. I should be able to post multiple times a day though

[manutdforev10]

1) What is everybody's timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're expecting a post from you, and it wont come until the wee hours of the morning.
2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? It helps my reads to know who are the pros and who are still learning.
3) About how often can we expect you to post? Is this consistent with your meta?

1) EST (Montreal)
2) this is my 2nd game here. i have played 5 games of a pathetic version where you just joke around, and i have played 2 on a different site.
3) I won't be posting incredibly much. I post when i have something to say, witch isn't terrible often, but i am nowhere near lurker.

[DavidParker]

Why are our 2 recent posters answering useless questions, but ignoring relevent discussion (the current wagon)??

Unvote, Vote: RobCapone

[ConSpiracy]

Anyways, I like to open up games with a few questions.
1) What is everybody's timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're expecting a post from you, and it wont come until the wee hours of the morning.
2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? It helps my reads to know who are the pros and who are still learning.
3) About how often can we expect you to post? Is this consistent with your meta?

1) GMT + 1
2) 1 newbie here and played several games on another site. That site was only more focussed on night and therefore very different.
3) Expect enough posts of me. I am not spamming, but not hopping in once in a while. I have the habit of making very long posts, though.

While still being at the RVS, Mute found it right to FoS.

On what grounds, a "gut feeling?"
Or do you, from almost nothing at all, have solid proof against him/her?

FoS: Javert

FoSsing in the R

V

S... Anyways, then we get this post:

Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?

That would be going against his wincon if he were scum...
Though, I agree this level of obfuscating (please tell me I've used that word correctly here, I've never used it before ) is counter to the town as well.

Javert, why are you voting for someone when they have yet to post, stating outright they are scum?

First he pushes forward a flaw in his reason of suspecting Javert. Second he asks a question why Javert votes in the RVS...
At last we got this post:

...okay yeah...

Unvote, Vote: Javert

If my math is right this puts him at L-2.

Voting him for not telling why he voted for magnus orion.

So let me get this straight. You guys are voting him for not wanting to explain his RVS vote. That is too easy for scum to hop on that bull shit wagon. Let's give some more attention to Mute.

I can understand you wanting him to participate smartly in the game, but why the lack of pressure against him to change? It feels like all this post is doing is a slap on the wrist, "don't do that young man," and back to business as usual with the hope he changes.

You mention he might be bussing for scum, or he is trying to draw attention to himself. If his behavior will be detrimental to town in finding scum, I'd move for a policy lynch for that.

1. Mute is voting Javert for stopping him playing negative. (No scum motive involved)
2. Mute talked about policy lynching him on the second page. (Subtly trying to get someone lynched?)
Well, that definitely deserves a vote.

VOTE: Mute

I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

I agree with that.

Why are our 2 recent posters answering useless questions, but ignoring relevent discussion (the current wagon)??

Unvote, Vote: RobCapone

Wow DP. Can you read my thoughts?

[Javert]

I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

He is moving us out of RVS even if it's by drawing negative attention to himself. Now get your votes off him.

Indeed. And the explanation for my vote should be obvious. Put simply, a comparison between two sorts of opening posts are useful here:

Post A

: Random Vote: X for random reason.

Post B

: Vote: Y. This player is scum.

Making it clear that your vote is a

random

inherently destroys any pressure your vote may have had. Scum reading the thread to see a random vote on them will never have a moment of panic (unless there are several "random" votes on them). However, if somebody starts out of the gate just calling that player scum, it is much more likely to illicit a guilty reaction from a guilty party. This is elementary.

Not explaining a vote the instant you make it is not scummy, and I would be amused to see any person voting for me try to argue otherwise. I was hoping - at the least - to see magnus_orion's reaction, but with David Parker's post I suspect any reaction I may have gotten has now been lost. So:

Unvote: magnus_orion, Vote: ICEninja

.

FoS: Mute

.

Mute, why do you feel the need to make two random votes that don't actually advance the game?

I do not like this question. It feels disingenuous, especially when you compare this comment to what happened next.

Essentially, ICEninja complains about Mute for making two random votes because random votes do not advance the game. But immediately afterwards, when I make a vote that is seemingly not random - i.e., a post that will likely advance the game - ICEninja jumps on me as if it is suspicious in Post 22. Basically, ICEninja took the only feasibly interesting vote in the game at the time and called it suspicious - indeed, he went so far as to call it one of his most "solid" tells. This is patently absurd.

1.)

ICEninja, if your tell is so "solid," can you cite me to a couple games that proved its "solidity" to you?

2.)

Furthermore, how do you propose I should have "advanced the game" when I join the thread, seeing nothing of interest that has happened so far?

3.)

Mute, why did you FoS me on Page 1 instead of voting for me? If you have enough reason to FoS somebody on Page 1, then voting them is obviously more justified than keeping your random vote. You only voted me after a couple other players shared your mentality. This hints at opportunism on your behalf.

[DavidParker]

I like to think I can.

I just re-read Mute's last post and in the context of the situation (Javert's wagon), he comes off very scummy. He's constantly trying to validate his position on the wagon, refers to the others on the wagon as well (ie: so that any attacks on the wagon aren't at him, they are just as much on the others on the wagon, so if the wagon fails or the logic to the wagon isn't sound, he's pinning the others as well), the way he mentioned them just didn't come off right in a town-like manner.

Also, using the rules/win-con to justify a vote is.. meh. You state he deserves your vote for playing against a town win-con, but you actually believe him to be scum?? At this point I sure as hell don't believe Javert to be scum. That's obviously subject to change, scum have motive to draw negative attention to themselves to help end RVS (ie: win town cred by appearing reckless), so the whole thing to me is really a WIFOM-filled Null-tell. Javert doesn't seem super-town but he is helping the town with his play. So, yeah, you said your vote is justified because of if he is following rules, his play must be scum because he's playing against win-con etc etc, but really you don't state how or why you think he is scum.

And before we go any further.

WE WILL NOT BE POLICY LYNCHING

. Nor do we want to be discussing anything to do with policy lynches, the discussion itself is a huge distraction. Right now we should be focusing on Mute being a twitchy little scum who jumped on an easy wagon, and is just trying to cover his tracks. Then we have lurker/fence-sitter scum RobCapone who we should be focusing on after he ignored everything that has happened except for the useless question stage of the game.

P.s. I know manutdforever also ignored the happenings of this game, but he is by far the less experienced player and has almost no mafiascum experience. I still find it scummy he ignored the Javert wagon but less condemning. Rob, on the other hand, there is no excuse for as a "seasoned veteran". Also, as a

newbie

he may have just been following the example of the

experienced

poster before him.

So yeah. We are not talking about a policy lynch. We are talking about the Javert wagon. Reactions to it. Lack of reactions to it. And if you think Javert is scum then state why, apart from not playing to a town-win con (hint: blatantly not playing to a town win con is the same as not playing to a scum win con as it makes you a huge lynch target, so the reasoning behind using that to vote javert is.. well non-existent)

FoS: Mute

I'd rather be voting Rob at the moment. His lack of reactions is far worse than Mute's poor reactions and explanations given our short deadlines.


Preview edit: nice to seeee you here Javert

[DavidParker]

Sorry for ruining your little "ploy" but frankly I wasn't that interested in magnus's reaction and don't think it would have been as revealing as you are making it to be. It may have been interesting to see whether he bandwagoned you or not, but I could see him doing that as town or scum. As it stands, it was more important to diffuse the situation and get people off your back.

So yes, Javert's play while not being a town tell in my eyes, was definitely a move that benefited town (YEAH I KNOW CONTRADICTION)

[DavidParker]

Also that first line in my mini-wal was directed at Conspiracy, you snuck in between our posts Javert :/

[Edgerobin]

Vote:Edgerobin

for making me want to drink wine.

There's a WIFOM joke in this somewhere...

1) What is everybody's timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're expecting a post from you, and it wont come until the wee hours of the morning.

GMT+10

2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? It helps my reads to know who are the pros and who are still learning.

I'm an alt - I've been onsite for over a year. And I won't be telling you who I am, so don't bother asking.

3) About how often can we expect you to post?

I should average about 1 post a day.

Mute, why do you feel the need to make two random votes that don't actually advance the game?

ICEninja, why do you feel that making two random votes should be questioned?

With that in mind, I do not think we should take kindly to lurking. We cannot afford to dawdle.

If people lurk, we should ask them why they are lurking. If they are bored or something, then they should leave. We shouldn't waste our precious time chasing lurkers. Question and probe them by all means, but don't get into the "lurking is scummy" spiral.

@Edgerobin: Have you played forum mafia before? Here? Elsewhere? Are you familiar with MS's ways?

See above - I'm an alt.

On the Javert issue - I guessed before reading Javert's post #39 that he was faking a serious vote to get reactions. I'll say explicitly that this is good play; obviously, it only works because most people will random vote giving it an element of surprise.

Now, to look at reactions to Javert:

I don't like ICEninja's vote so I am going to

Unvote, Vote: ICEninja

. This is because in his #22 ICEninja says:

You voted people based on their name. That doesn't do anything to get discussion going. There are some things people do to get discussion going, such as bandwagoning, voting people supporting bandwagons, asking questions,

reaction hunting,

etc. However, simply making random votes for random reasons do nothing of what you said.

and yet, despite this, he makes inflamattory descriptions of what Javert did, saying:

Also,

the only way

Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy. I too, as indicated by a comment made earlier in this post (that is now obsolete but I don't feel like deleting for transparency reasons), believed he voted a player for reasons of not posting yet. Simply declaring a player scum without "if" is

one of the most solid scum tells in the game, I'd say. I don't usually make serious votes like this so early, but...

Vote Javert.

I've bolded the hyperbole.

For a player who knows that reaction-hunting is a good way to start, it's odd that he not only wouldn't even appear to contemplate that Javert might have been reaction-hunting - and even odder that he'd use excessive language.

Contrast that with Poirot:

Time to end RVS for you, buddy. If you are joking about magnus_orion, then state so clearly. If you really think magnus_orion is scum, then state why, if it doesn't relate to your "lurker awareness policy", to give it a name.

Who shows he was actually thinking about possible motivations, rather than going for an easy target on weak logic and strong rhetoric.

Oso and Mute also are suspicious to me for their votes for the similar reason that they joined a growing wagon without showing any pause and reflection on Javert's possible motivations.

Playing the I'm scummy-on-purpose-to-catch-scum doesn't work. It's not a smart way to act. By refusing to answer questions and being smug about it you're allegedly justifying any votes on you.

I disagree.

It has to be done carefully. It has to be so scummy that scum will attack it, but not so scummy that somebody who is genuinely trying to analyse people might mistake it. That said, it is probably has a risk of getting false positives on newbies - but so does basically everything.

I hate to start this way. Focusing on trivial matters like they're important so someone will say something stupid.

On that subject, it's easier forme to answer broad q's than to answer a list of questions asking the same thing.

There had been many serious posts by the time you said this. Why do you not want to share your opinion on them?


I think Mute's 33 is also bad. He still hasn't explained why Javert's play is scummy (he really now just seems to be saying that it's scummy because he thinks it is antitown - hence him pushing a policy lynch). I'd basically echo what DavidParker has just posted.

I'd happily vote either Mute or ICE right now, and Oso gets a

FoS

[Oso]

..
Oso and Mute also are suspicious to me for their votes for the similar reason that they joined a growing wagon without showing any pause and reflection on Javert's possible motivations.
..

I can see the reasoning behind that line of thinking and, for the most part, I agree with it.

I did post asking Javert for a clarification of his vote on magnus and the brevity of his response, combined with his flippant response when asked again about his magnus vote, is what prompted my vote. And it will remain on Javert for the moment. Here is why:

Who doesn't get lynched Day 1?

How many times does someone who comes under scrutiny early Day 1 ever get looked at seriously again until the endgame (without some sort of PR tagging them)?

Given that people tend to get Town Points for ending the RVS, who actually has the greater motivation to deliberately end the RVS instead of letting it end organically: Town or Scum?

@DP

..
I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

He is moving us out of RVS even if it's by drawing negative attention to himself. Now get your votes off him.

I'll be looking at the various reactions to Javert to see which is most scummy.

Are you unwilling to even consider that Javert did what he did as a way to get cover for a couple of game days as scum rather than as a townie fishing for reactions?

As I said above, my vote remains. I have nothing solid to say Javert is doing what I think he's doing other than intuition and gut at the moment. But that is enough for me to keep my vote on him for now.

[magnus_orion]

ugh.... these deadline rules are a real pain.
Questions...
1. Est
2. see sig
3. I've been posting less frequently lately. As far as I'm aware I don't have a consistent meta as town or scum.

Javert's thing that he did would clearly draw suspicion, and has no guarantee that it would diffuse. So that's a slight town-tell...

I most concerned about this statement from davidparker though:

As it stands, it was more important to diffuse the situation and get people off your back.

Why?

... points that have been raised against mute are valid...

[RobCapone]

Checking in real fast on lunch break

@ DP - I had just woke up and had about 3 to 4 inches of snow/ice to clean off my sidewalk and car, plus I had to get to work

I was just responding to the questions cause those were easy and don't take any time

You won't get much content when I'm at work either, I'll respond to the going ons sometime tonight

[ICEninja]

Excellent. This game has developed quickly and nicely, and is now fully developing in to real discussion. I will

unvote

now, as my vote has served its purpose and then some. I got a town impression from Javert responding to my overly strong accusation.

I've bolded the hyperbole.

Yes. The hyperbole was intended.

I feel like it is perfectly reasonable to question making two random votes. One completely random vote (I.E. voting someone because of their name) is inherently completely useless to the game. Two is doing something useless again. I've stated previously what things a player can do to advance the game, with both myself and Javert (and some others) having done some of these. I simply wanted to know if he was random voting for the purpose of having fun (completely innocent) or, more tellingly, if he was random voting because he though he was helping the game along. By random voting and claiming he was attempting to advance the game, I get the impression that he is trying to make himself look as if he is doing more, posting more, etc. than he really is.

Furthermore, I am absolutely disgusted by his consideration of policy lynching on day 2. David said everything I feel about that, essentially. I'd feel inclined to vote mute for the policy lynch suggestion alone as lynching someone based off of a random vote is not town motivated at all, and helps scum by causing confusion, robbing town of a lynch, and proceeding to night without having sufficient information gained. Everything else just makes me want to vote him even more.

Vote Mute.

We need some real content out of manut, Prox, magnus, and Rob.

[Mute]

Post A

: Random Vote: X for random reason.

Post B

: Vote: Y. This player is scum.

Making it clear that your vote is a

random

inherently destroys any pressure your vote may have had. Scum reading the thread to see a random vote on them will never have a moment of panic (unless there are several "random" votes on them). However, if somebody starts out of the gate just calling that player scum, it is much more likely to illicit a guilty reaction from a guilty party. This is elementary.

Not explaining a vote the instant you make it is not scummy, and I would be amused to see any person voting for me try to argue otherwise. I was hoping - at the least - to see magnus_orion's reaction, but with David Parker's post I suspect any reaction I may have gotten has now been lost.

Now was that

really

that hard? Don't you think a simple "I don't want to give the scum more info than they already have" would've been at all helpful, without ruining your plan to garner a reaction from him?

Unvote

But your post does make sense. Seeing your reasoning now, yes, but then it was incredibly unclear and came off as scum for me.

3.)

Mute, why did you FoS me on Page 1 instead of voting for me? If you have enough reason to FoS somebody on Page 1, then voting them is obviously more justified than keeping your random vote. You only voted me after a couple other players shared your mentality. This hints at opportunism on your behalf.

While we all felt you were scummy, it was for different reasons. I felt you were scummy with that vote as there seemed to be no doubt in your mind he was scum, and were obstinately refusing to post anything else.

I just re-read Mute's last post and in the context of the situation (Javert's wagon), he comes off very scummy. He's constantly trying to validate his position on the wagon, refers to the others on the wagon as well (ie: so that any attacks on the wagon aren't at him, they are just as much on the others on the wagon, so if the wagon fails or the logic to the wagon isn't sound, he's pinning the others as well), the way he mentioned them just didn't come off right in a town-like manner.

Also, using the rules/win-con to justify a vote is.. meh. You state he deserves your vote for playing against a town win-con, but you actually believe him to be scum??

uhm.. duh? playing against a town win-con would only leave playing to a scum win-con.

At this point I sure as hell don't believe Javert to be scum. That's obviously subject to change, scum have motive to draw negative attention to themselves to help end RVS (ie: win town cred by appearing reckless), so the whole thing to me is really a WIFOM-filled Null-tell. Javert doesn't seem super-town but he is helping the town with his play. So, yeah, you said your vote is justified because of if he is following rules, his play must be scum because he's playing against win-con etc etc, but really you don't state how or why you think he is scum.

And before we go any further.

WE WILL NOT BE POLICY LYNCHING

. Nor do we want to be discussing anything to do with policy lynches, the discussion itself is a huge distraction. Right now we should be focusing on Mute being a twitchy little scum who jumped on an easy wagon, and is just trying to cover his tracks. Then we have lurker/fence-sitter scum RobCapone who we should be focusing on after he ignored everything that has happened except for the useless question stage of the game.

Fine. Given his motives there's no reason to now.
It's agreed that my using a policy lynch this early on was bad play either way you look at it.

[DavidParker]

And if you think Javert is scum then state why, apart from not playing to a town-win con (hint: blatantly not playing to a town win con is the same as not playing to a scum win con as it makes you a huge lynch target, so the reasoning behind using that to vote javert is.. well non-existent)

FoS: Mute