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

[Mute]

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.

---
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.

[magnus_orion]

@david: answer my question please.

@ mute:

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.

elaborate and explain why you think this is scummy please.

[Mute]

@ mute:

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.

elaborate and explain why you think this is scummy please.

Yay best defense I have is nothing but needless WIFOM at this point which even I don't fully trust. =_=

The reasoning I had then was a scum-ploy to oust their partner to favor a town-reputation.
This is flawed in every way so I dismiss it.

Other reasoning: keeping information towards a vote that came off as not random. What town-inclined reasoning would there be for that?
We have that reasoning now. True to my word I've dropped my vote.

[DavidParker]

@magnus: The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town. He was not playing as "apart" of the town, so he got wagoned. That's somewhat understandable. However, it was an undesirable situation, because I clearly saw the intent behind Javert's play, and while I didn't think it was necessarily respective of him being town, it was definitely not worth labeling him scum over. They were "valid" points, but they just weren't thought out points. They didn't look into the intent behind Javert's play, and while it was what some would consider bad play (hey a policy lynch was even mentioned so it must have been bad play), it definitely helped move the game forward. The intent behind Javert's actions was town-like, the means was scum-like, as said, I see it as a null tell, but it is a step forward for town in finding scum. To me, "diffusing the situation" was a matter of focusing the town on actual scum hunting, I mean someone was more than welcome to show how what Javert did was more likely scum than town, but no one actually did that. (And no one seems intent to do it now with all the unvotes, although I can understand why Oso wants to keep his vote where it is and I'm fine with that), in fact it's probably more likely that the people unvoting and backpeddling now somewhat are scum.

[Javert]

I do not want to waste space with the quote function, but I would ask that players give ICEninja's Post 47 a close read. When I first read it (and in fact, when I read it again), my mind was telling me "I do not believe a word he is saying."

I rather doubt that ICEninja would have eventually said "I was purposefully using hyperbole to try to see who else would vote Javert" if somebody had not called him out on it explicitly. Claiming to have a "solid" scum tell and then backtracking to say it was all intentional and harmless hyperbole to gauge reactions sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And now you are trying to explain it away as being the Surprise Cookie Inspector. Attacking a player with a bad argument and then explaining it away as purposefully using a bad argument is not sitting with me.

Furthermore, claiming to be "disgusted" by the policy lynch discussion feels like a blatant attempt to convey a "look-how-Town-I-am!" aura by taking what seems to be a righteous position.

I frankly am not buying this post whatsoever. It seems entirely like an explanation thrown together after the fact. My vote is staying where it is.

[manutdforev10]

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone. I don't think there is anything solid on him. I am not quite sure what to me of what is going on, generally I will vote on what makes the most sense to me.

Now, a lot of people will think I am lurking, but I am not. If I have nothing to say, i won't say anything. I am still inexperienced, so i am not great at knowing what to make of other's posts.

My best way of finding scum is finding the bandwagoners. I don't like bandwagons. I find if someone is constantly jumping on a bandwagon, I take extreme suspicion of him/her.

also, seeing the RVS is done :

unvote

[Jerbs]

My timezone is EST, I've played 6 or 7 games on MS, and I usually try to post at least once a day

It looks like things have started off without me.

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone.

How do you know policy lynching Mute will have him flip town?

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.

Lets see

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.

By generating discussion about random voting twice, I believe Mute is helping the game along

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.

What exactly did you do to intentionally advance the game? As Javert said

I rather doubt that ICEninja would have eventually said "I was purposefully using hyperbole to try to see who else would vote Javert" if somebody had not called him out on it explicitly. Claiming to have a "solid" scum tell and then backtracking to say it was all intentional and harmless hyperbole to gauge reactions sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And now you are trying to explain it away as being the Surprise Cookie Inspector. Attacking a player with a bad argument and then explaining it away as purposefully using a bad argument is not sitting with me.

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.

I second this. From the game that I played with manutd he kinda doesn't post much and follows the experienced players around. And I know Rob posts alot. However, his excuse does seem real

As of now, I have an imaginary vote on ICE. I'm just too damn lazy to actually count the votes and don't want to risk putting him in range of a quicklynch

[manutdforev10]

My timezone is EST, I've played 6 or 7 games on MS, and I usually try to post at least once a day

It looks like things have started off without me.

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone.

How do you know policy lynching Mute will have him flip town?

i said that i didn't think he there was enough evidence to say he is scum, tough he is suspicious.

[ConSpiracy]

I do not want to waste space with the quote function, but I would ask that players give ICEninja's Post 47 a close read. When I first read it (and in fact, when I read it again), my mind was telling me "I do not believe a word he is saying."

I rather doubt that ICEninja would have eventually said "I was purposefully using hyperbole to try to see who else would vote Javert" if somebody had not called him out on it explicitly. Claiming to have a "solid" scum tell and then backtracking to say it was all intentional and harmless hyperbole to gauge reactions sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And now you are trying to explain it away as being the Surprise Cookie Inspector. Attacking a player with a bad argument and then explaining it away as purposefully using a bad argument is not sitting with me.

Furthermore, claiming to be "disgusted" by the policy lynch discussion feels like a blatant attempt to convey a "look-how-Town-I-am!" aura by taking what seems to be a righteous position.

I frankly am not buying this post whatsoever. It seems entirely like an explanation thrown together after the fact. My vote is staying where it is.

I am wasting space using quotes.
I have played my only game here on the site with ICE. His first vote struck me as really, really odd, not as ICE would do.
His "gambit" thing also wasn't something I would think ICE to do.
I am giving him a free pass for this, though. It would be unfair to judge him for 1 game experience. He has played this game many times so he has presumably gotten these situations a few time.

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.

First he is voting to someone anti-town. (Even mentioning policy lynch, which means not lynching him because he was scummy)

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.

Oh wait, he did find him scummy?
He didn't even know himself why he voted for Javert, i.e. mindlessly bandwagoning = scummy behavior.
Too bad I already vote for him.

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?

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.

So you are saying scum can easily get townpoints for ending the RVS. This doesn't make it a scumtell but a null tell, since both town and scum can do it. That means your vote is based on nothing. Not really good...

@manut(dforev)

Didn't Mute (and Oso in a lesser extend) bandwagon?

[manutdforev10]

i didn't see anything from him that looked like direct bandwagon. I define a bandwagon as an unneeded vote on someone with several on him/er.

[Oso]

..
[snip]
..
So you are saying scum can easily get townpoints for ending the RVS. This doesn't make it a scumtell but a null tell, since both town and scum can do it. That means your vote is based on nothing. Not really good...
..

I wouldn't exactly say based on nothing. More like based on how well screwed town could get in relation to a scum player who pulled it off. But it is nebulous, I'll grant that, and it goes to motivation which is much more easy to prove once there is a larger body of posts from the player in question to draw on.

Just popped to skim before finishing up work for the day but I will:

UNVOTE: Javert

I'm still twitching over him but my vote on him isn't going anywhere and all it may be is a twitch. Not going to throw him into the town category in my thinking but I will take him off the "want to lynch today" list. Mainly because in his last two posts he had opportunity and a decent base on which to counter-vote or pressure me and didn't. He pretty much ignored what I said in favor of his main suspect. If he were scum I would have expected a jab or two to set up a pressure/vote somewhere down the line, at least by the way I think.

Back later (this afternoon/tonight) when I can read the all posts that have been made today in depth and hopefully find someone voteworthy based on something other than just gut and possibilities.

[Javert]

I have played my only game here on the site with ICE. His first vote struck me as really, really odd, not as ICE would do.
His "gambit" thing also wasn't something I would think ICE to do.
I am giving him a free pass for this, though. It would be unfair to judge him for 1 game experience. He has played this game many times so he has presumably gotten these situations a few time.

First, please explain this in more detail. Why do you feel ICEninja's first vote was "really, really odd"? Why do you think the "gambit" is not something ICEninja would do? Feel free to link to your other game to draw comparisons.

But most importantly, why are you giving him a "free pass"? Perhaps it is better put this way: Would you give him a "free pass" if you had never played a game with him before? Do you think his posts are scummy? If you think ICEninja is acting differently than you would expect, why did not even ask him any questions about his behavior before giving him a "free pass"?

~

I am going to ask again that players read, and give their opinion of, ICEninja's Post 47. I currently find it to be the most interesting post of the game. I find it very difficult to read a Town intention into this post.

[magnus_orion]

@magnus: The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town. He was not playing as "apart" of the town, so he got wagoned. That's somewhat understandable. However, it was an undesirable situation, because I clearly saw the intent behind Javert's play, and while I didn't think it was necessarily respective of him being town, it was definitely not worth labeling him scum over. They were "valid" points, but they just weren't thought out points. They didn't look into the intent behind Javert's play, and while it was what some would consider bad play (hey a policy lynch was even mentioned so it must have been bad play), it definitely helped move the game forward. The intent behind Javert's actions was town-like, the means was scum-like, as said, I see it as a null tell, but it is a step forward for town in finding scum. To me, "diffusing the situation" was a matter of focusing the town on actual scum hunting, I mean someone was more than welcome to show how what Javert did was more likely scum than town, but no one actually did that. (And no one seems intent to do it now with all the unvotes, although I can understand why Oso wants to keep his vote where it is and I'm fine with that), in fact it's probably more likely that the people unvoting and backpeddling now somewhat are scum.

Questions:
1. Do you think that scum could have (or may have) potentially take advantage of this wagoning to join the wagon?
2. Why is 3 votes "The town were all tunneling"?
3. By diffusing the arguments against a player that might have otherwise turned interesting results, do you feel that you may have wasted some opportunity to read that person?
4. How, exactly, have you focused the town on "actual" scumhunting?
4a. Is this (Focusing the town on actual scumhunting) a necessary/helpful thing to do? Why?
5. What exactly is "actual" scumhunting?
5a. Does wagoning a player for reactions qualify as "actual" scumhunting?
6. What is your read on Javert right now?

Feel free to answer in any format or order. Just please answer all of them.

Thoughts on ICE, post 47... I found this post difficult to decipher, but I think its broken into two parts: Part 1 refers to Javert and ICE's accusation toward him. And the second part refers to mute...
I have different issues with these parts so I separated them for convenience.
Part 1

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.

How exactly has the game developed "quickly and nicely"?
How has your vote served its purpose?
How has your vote served additional purpose (the "and then some" refereed to)?
Why do you get a town impression from Javert responding to your overly strong accusation?

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.

Part 2 is confusing because it is hard to figure out that he is talking about Mute here, and not explaining his unvote on Javert. At least, if my impression of it is correct.
This one raises different questions:
How are you not advocating the lynch of someone via a random vote with your previous vote on Javert, and your comments concerning mute in the above quote?
How exactly is advocating a policy lynch scummy? Do you believe that doing so is scum motivated?
How is advocating the lynch of someone for suggesting a policy lynch not also suggesting a policy lynch?

[ICEninja]

The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town. He was not playing as "apart" of the town, so he got wagoned. That's somewhat understandable. However, it was an undesirable situation, because I clearly saw the intent behind Javert's play, and while I didn't think it was necessarily respective of him being town, it was definitely not worth labeling him scum over. They were "valid" points, but they just weren't thought out points

I'd like to point out that while all of this is true, we get a better read of the people who were participating. Most players, now, have made at least one (and many of us have made several) posts that contribute to the discussion and can be used to get reads on players. I feel like I have a better read on Javert now because we built a wagon on him, and that is helpful to us.

in fact it's probably more likely that the people unvoting and backpeddling now somewhat are scum.

This I disagree with, not just because it incriminates me, but just on simple mafia theory. I view the votes made against Javert as what I call "anti-RVS" votes, actions to garner reactions and advance discussion. Regardless of alignment, I make these votes and back out on them just like I would RVS votes, because I don't usually believe alignment can be determined by what happens on the first 2 pages of a game, barring strange occurrences.

I rather doubt that ICEninja would have eventually said "I was purposefully using hyperbole to try to see who else would vote Javert" if somebody had not called him out on it explicitly.

This isn't exactly what I did. I feel like I was fairly clear in that I voted for you not with the intent of seeing who else would vote you, but to get a better read on you specifically.

Claiming to have a "solid" scum tell and then backtracking to say it was all intentional and harmless hyperbole to gauge reactions sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Actually, it sounds like I did something very similar to what you did. You stated that "magnus is scum", and voted for him. I stated that "Javert is scum and this is why", and voted for you. You unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of your vote was served, and I unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of my vote was served. You are somewhat hypocritical to be calling me scummy for this.

And now you are trying to explain it away as being the Surprise Cookie Inspector. Attacking a player with a bad argument and then explaining it away as purposefully using a bad argument is not sitting with me.

Amusing analogy. What did you attack magnus for, again? Funny, I recall you saying that there was no reason and you were just reaction hunting. I never said I purposefully used a bad argument. I simply used the best argument I could, given the information we had. The first page or two of the game rarely yields any information that we can use to truly find someone's alignment, in my experience. At least not until we have more back information.

I have played my only game here on the site with ICE. His first vote struck me as really, really odd, not as ICE would do.
His "gambit" thing also wasn't something I would think ICE to do.

You'll find that I play fairly conservatively as an IC, particularly during day 1. When I'm not being looked to for example, I tend to play more recklessly.

I am going to ask again that players read, and give their opinion of, ICEninja's Post 47. I currently find it to be the most interesting post of the game. I find it very difficult to read a Town intention into this post.

Once again, considering we played at similar games, this strikes me oddly. Speaking from a psychological tell, people often project their scummy play on to other people. It may be worth considering that he is scum, and seeing me as scummy for doing something similar to what he did, completely unconsciously.

1)How exactly has the game developed "quickly and nicely"?
2)How has your vote served its purpose?
3)How has your vote served additional purpose (the "and then some" refereed to)?
4)Why do you get a town impression from Javert responding to your overly strong accusation?

I added numbering to make responses clearer.
1) The beginning of this game was more random than most random voting stages entail, in my personal experience. It began fairly uselessly. Things developed in to deep and serious discussion very quickly, and that is exactly how I like it.
2) I feel like I got a better read from Javert based on his response to my vote for him.
3) Additionally, my vote has generated further discussion amongst other players. This helps my reads as well. I'll likely begin making full fledged cases earlier this game than I normally do.
4) It wasn't just how he responded to my overly strong accusation, I felt like Javert (at the point of saying that, his more recent posts have piqued my interest somewhat) had very town motivated actions overall.

Part 2 is confusing because it is hard to figure out that he is talking about Mute here, and not explaining his unvote on Javert. At least, if my impression of it is correct.

My apologies, I should have made this more clear. Yes, the first part was about my unvote of Javert, and the second half was referring to why I've found Mute scummy thus far.

How are you not advocating the lynch of someone via a random vote with your previous vote on Javert, and your comments concerning mute in the above quote?

Not all votes are cast with the intention of lynching a player. I was not advocating Javert's lynch.

How exactly is advocating a policy lynch scummy? Do you believe that doing so is scum motivated?
How is advocating the lynch of someone for suggesting a policy lynch not also suggesting a policy lynch?

I believe that advocating a policy lynch on page 2 has no possible way of benefiting town. Scum, as I've already stated in an earlier post, can gain from this.

[DavidParker]

Questions:
1. Do you think that scum could have (or may have) potentially take advantage of this wagoning to join the wagon?
2. Why is 3 votes "The town were all tunneling"?
3. By diffusing the arguments against a player that might have otherwise turned interesting results, do you feel that you may have wasted some opportunity to read that person?
4. How, exactly, have you focused the town on "actual" scumhunting?
4a. Is this (Focusing the town on actual scumhunting) a necessary/helpful thing to do? Why?
5. What exactly is "actual" scumhunting?
5a. Does wagoning a player for reactions qualify as "actual" scumhunting?
6. What is your read on Javert right now?

Feel free to answer in any format or order. Just please answer all of them.

You are annoying.

1) Uh, duh.
2) By town, I am just referring to the general public in this game, not referring to town-aligned players tunneling on him. Everyone was just hunting him after the incident.
3) No
4) These questions are getting more and more generic and annoying. I've been highlighting what's actually relevent, putting things in context, deterring discussion about MD (ie: policy lynching etc), and focusing on players reactions and intent in their post, just general analysis.
5) ...
6) No strong read as town or scum right now. Until I can see the bigger picture it's hard to say, but he's not the lynch for today.

Those questions were retarded. Can you please refrain from such broad questions which really just annoy me. I mean I did only spend a whole 30 seconds responding and didn't even try put any thought into my answers, but really that's just killing my desire to post more in this game and be more active. I'd rather you call me scum and attack me for something than this kind of nonsense.

[magnus_orion]

@ICE:

It wasn't just how he responded to my overly strong accusation, I felt like Javert (at the point of saying that, his more recent posts have piqued my interest somewhat) had very town motivated actions overall.

This is basically a side step of what I asked. Explain why you felt like Javert had town motivated actions overall. Be specific.

@DP:

You are annoying.

Your constructive criticism is noted.

Those questions were retarded. Can you please refrain from such broad questions which really just annoy me. I mean I did only spend a whole 30 seconds responding and didn't even try put any thought into my answers, but really that's just killing my desire to post more in this game and be more active. I'd rather you call me scum and attack me for something than this kind of nonsense.

I apologize for the inconvenience. I was merely trying to give you the opportunity to dissuade me from my current line of thought with your own interpretation of the events in question.
Very well,

Vote: Davidparker

David has shown an over reactive concern over the 3 votes put on another player, upon whom he had a null read, rather than allowing his read to be potentially substantiated by the reactions of the player in question, proceeded to attempt to dispel the wagon against the player. This is concerning, since it suggests David is more concerned with the attitude of the town as a whole, and how it behaves and reacts to certain actions (and suggests David seeks to control these aspects to some degree), rather than the alignments of individual players. This is an attitude which suggests scum motivation behind David's actions, especially considering the underwhelming amount of pressure on Javert at the time. His attempt to bring order to chaos I believe to be a result of his attempt to bring the game to a point where it can be predicted and controlled effectively, so that he may better fulfill his scum win condition. In particular, I believe this to be contrasted to a more town motivation, which would seek to see how Javert responds to the pressure being applied, in order to better gauge Javert's alignment, and the alignments of the players wagoning him, especially when he believes scum may have been prepared to take advantage of this situation and reveal themselves somewhat by joining the wagon (narrowing down suspects, of course, always being an important consideration for a pro-town player).
Alternatively, david may have seen this as an opportunity to behave in a manner he believed to be "pro-town" by diffusing an argument between townies. This is telling because he remains uncertain of Javerts alignment, but does not desire a wagon against javert for reaction purposes, and has in fact resisted the formation of such a wagon. Also considering his resistance to answering questions, it is difficult to imagine how he expects scum hunting to be done, having ruled out the two most generally used options.

[jimfinn]

Vote Count D1 #1: Deadline is here
With 13 alive, it is 7 to lynch. Majority is required to lynch. (as clarification)

ConSpiracy (0):
Edgerobin (0):
Mute (4): RobCapone, Prox, ConSpiracy, ICEninja
ICEninja (2): Javert, Edgerobin
Oso (0):
manutdforev10 (0):
HumblePoirot (0):
magnus_orion (0):
Javert (0):
RobCapone (1): DavidParker
DavidParker (1): magnus_orion

[DavidParker]

Much better.

[DavidParker]

My "concern" was because the 3 people voting him were for all the wrong reasons. They were completely oblivious to Javert's intentions. They were not going to pressure Javert at all.. Javert knew fully well he would attract negative attention, whether he's town or scum he was going to be attacked for what he did, we weren't going to learn much because the pressure on him was always going to be negated by him simply pointing out the obvious - he was just reaction fishing. The situation wasn't that 3 people were voting for a null read of mine, it's that they were voting for him for all the wrong reasons. They were going after an easy wagon on someone who was in reality helping the game progress.

People in this game seem to overvalue "reaction fishing" as a scum tell. You don't learn much from player reactions if they know what attacks are coming there way. It's only really when you catch them off guard, or they miss something altogether that it can become useful. All I did was make the response Javert was going to make himself in the situation. There was more important issues to go after, the 2 lurker-posts who answered pointless questions but didn't comment at all on Javert's wagons.. I mean that was just downright scummy and by far the scummiest thing in the game so far when it happened. I felt it was beneficial for town to divert the attention away from Javert's wagons and focus on the intent behind Javert's action which was to move the game forward, I was merely pointing us in that forwardly direction.

Questions are useful in some forms, ie: when making accusations. In general I hate questions I'd rather the game ran more as a debate, but I do generally answer questions (okay that's not entirely true if you know anything of my meta, but this game I will make it true).. But I will post my dislike for any, what I perceive as, pointless questions.

You seem to also overestimate the ability of town players to discover and figure out player alignments in the first few pages. You're quite right in that I'm not entirely focused on figuring out player alignments on a constant basis, I'm seeing how players react to each other, looking into their intentions, and looking at the game as a whole. With only 1.5-2 pages of actual discussion, I find it hard to believe that anyone feels strongly that they know who is scum and town at this point. I have 2ish moderately-weak scum reads and 1 strong town read, and 2ish weak town reads. But really, my posts are intended to get as much information that can be useful in discovering scum just not a post by post basis which a lot of people seem to do.

[magnus_orion]

You, in turn seem to underestimate the value of reactions to wagon formation and the capacity for this to develop tells. Also you're unnaturally assuming in terms of Javert's intentions. Once again I feel a town player who didn't have a read on javert would be more concerned with letting javert answer for himself, especially if you felt you were giving the same answer he would've. An inconsistency in his response and your expectations would be a telling thing.
Of course, you wouldn't really be looking for that sort of thing if you were scum, you'd be more concerned that you'd be able to stifle anything you perceived as unreasonable (and thus less controllable and less predictable), and appearing pro-town by discounting "poor" reasoning.

[ICEninja]

Explain why you felt like Javert had town motivated actions overall. Be specific.

Specifically, I'm referring to his ISO posts 3 and especially 4 where Javert seems very intent on bringing the town to a productive state. His reasoning for placing his original vote was, in my eyes, town motivated, and his vote on me, while misguided, appeared to be likewise placed by someone with town motivation. I'm not saying he's town, as while I've stated you can't determine that someone is scum from the very beginnings of the game you likewise can't declare someone overtly town this early, but it helps me in narrowing down good scum hunting targets for day 1.

I'm very interested in your case against David, as I've felt his actions to be town motivated. I'm reconsidering things from a different perspective, but likewise I find his response to be fairly compelling. I don't, however, feel like the points about the questions are terribly valid. I'm curious to see what David is going to be doing with his vote over the next few pages.

To be honest though, right now I feel like it is most likely that scum is in the shadows right now. I'm very interested, for example, to see what Rob has to say about the "going ons" tonight. Prox, as I stated earlier, also seems to be saying nothing about the actual discussion. We're at a stage of the game where we still really don't have reads on very many players, and I'm a bit worried that scum might just let these heavy accusations fly by, hop on the wagon after some good cases have been made, and slip through to day 2 without being noticed much.

[RobCapone]

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

Unvote, Vote: RobCapone

ok I am not going through now I am home and have time to read through. I am posting my thoughts as I go, I am not reading and going back.

1. so what was the purpose of asking AND voting, do you feel they need to be together? You can't just ask and wait for my response? you can't vote and just give that as your reason?

2. What makes that wagon relevant when it isn't even a wagon yet, I don't consider it a bandwagon until more than half of the required number to lynch have voted(example if it takes 7 to lynch it doesn't become a bandwagon to me until there are 4 votes)

3. I did find his original statement to seem like it was a lurker vote, he later says it wasn't. At this point I will believe him because it is day 1 and the game hasn't been open long enough to have anyone considered lurking. Now his declaration that this person IS scum and not "I think he is" or some variation does raise a red flag but since I was about to leave for work and I felt he had enough votes on him for pressure, my vote wasn't going to add anything to the issue. I am not just going to vote somebody until

I feel

they are scummy. I will make my own case for my vote and not just vote because they are the biggest wagon.

that being said it is obvious we are out of RVS so I will remove my RVS vote

Unvote

[Humble Poirot]

Well, first of all, I'm glad to see Javert is not an anti-town player after all.

Second, This game is very interesting and I feel I need at least a free hour to take a good look an analyze everyone. A lot going on in several directions. Nice

Third, Majority requiring a lynch is going to be a problem. A very big problem.

Mute's initial pursuit of Javert strikes me as genuine. While I didn't agree with some of his views I think he is consistent with what he says and does. I feel similar about Oso whom I thank for being always radically different from what I expect .

@Prox. You have yet to do or say anything relevant. You ignored Javert's situation at it's inception instead of defending or attacking anyone. What do you think about events so far? Who's scum, so far, in your opinion?

@Rob: Expecting your views as well. I hope you can spare some time soon.

@Conspiracy: I often struggle to undertand what you're saying. You might want to read back your sentences to yourself to try and make them as clear as possible.

@manutdforev10: So, to avoid your suspicion, all scum has to do is avoid bandwaggoning?

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone.

How do you know policy lynching Mute will have him flip town?

Not at all what he said. You seem to be paying little attention. Mute was the one who suggested a policy lynch on Javert for being Anti-town. Manut didn't suggest one on Mute.

@Jerbs: Do you have a scum-suspect?

@ICE: You are, so far, the scummiest player in my opinion.
Why didn't you answer the questions I asked you?
You refused to consider the possibiliy of a reaction seeking strategy by Javert and went all the way to support a vote (which you called serious) with a flawed additional argument (that only scum would know another players alignment... bussing accusation?).

The alleged justification that you were just testing Javert feels pretty forced. Specially when Javert's bandwaggon and line of questioning just got unpopular.

Added to that, your attack on Mute seems horribly opportunistic. Hopping from, what once was an easy vote, to what NOW seems an easy vote.

Your responses are not void of logic but I consider that a trait of someone who knows how to carry out a discussion. The main problem I see, is that you seem to force explanations and change attitudes according to the situation you find yourself in. You try to politely shove off David's and Javert's inquiries. But, as they get more incisive, you start throwing back covert punches, that suggest a platform for a future vote (one that you can't afford to pull right now, because Mute is the easier wagon at this point).

Once again, considering we played at similar games, this strikes me oddly. Speaking from a psychological tell, people often project their scummy play on to other people. It may be worth considering that he is scum, and seeing me as scummy for doing something similar to what he did, completely unconsciously.

Once again Implying Javert is scum without actually stating it or doing anything about it. All this happens while ICE sits on Mute's wagon for "suggesting a policy lynch".
This looks like scum asking permission from the town to attack a player. If town agrees, then he will proceed. Otherwise, too risky.

I believe that advocating a policy lynch on page 2 has no possible way of benefiting town. Scum, as I've already stated in an earlier post, can gain from this.

Forgive me if I sound sarcastic but... What A bold statement! Scum can gain from a policy lynch! It's like saying scum can gain from a mislynch. A non statement.

The real question, @Ice, is: Do you think Mute is scum? What about Javert?

I'll have to give the whole magnus/david debate a good read later. So far though, considering their last posts, I'd be willing to believe this is a healthy town-town fight.

I'm going to proceed and

vote: ICEninja

now. He is, so far, the scummiest player of the game. That being said, there's still quite a few players that I can barely read based on what they've done.

As a compensation, here you go, Ice:

Name	TimeZone	GMT
edgerobin	GMT + 10	10
ConSpiracy	GMT + 1	1
HumblePoirot	GMT – 3	-3
Jerbs	EST	-5
magnus_orion	EST	-5
manutdforev10	EST	-5
Mute	EST	-5
Prox	EST	-5
RobCapone	EST	-5
DavidParker	CST	-6
Javert	CST	-6
ICEninja	PST	-8
Oso	PST	-8

[Humble Poirot]

This is a whole post I wrote yesterday (for Mute) but never posted. I meant to post it the following morning to allow for some discussion but, heh, never came to it.

To divide posts into logical boxes use the AREA tag.

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.

This relates to me thinking you counted 4 votes on him. 5/7 is L-2. If you had counted 4 votes on him your lack of attention to other votes seemed reckless. Do you understand what I'm saying? If you failed to notice you were counting your own bolded Fos and Oso's re-vote then there was something wrong with your eagerness to get him waggoned.

Anyway, it's all moot since I then realized the way in which you had mixed up the count.

I don't really see how Ockham's razor applies to this discussion. To me, it seems obvious that the mod won't modkill someone in the event of a bus. It's a valid tactic.

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.

I don't think pressure can only be expressed with votes. If that were the case, I'd be unable to pressure several people at the same time. I'm not about to go all frenzy on one event when there's so many people who haven't even posted.

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.

I think you're reading me incorrectly:
First, my talk about bussing was in direct relation to Ice's argument that Jarbes was either hypocritical or knew who scum was (making himself scum) and your subsequent argument that bussing might cause a modkill. I denied the validity of your statement. My position is that I don't even care if he is bussing. We do not have enough information, at the moment, to make that kind of associations.

I like to think of policy lynches as deterrents for anti-town playstyle. Similar to nuclear weapons, in a way. Their mere existence will help you avoid bad scenarios but it's use is not actually desirable but in the most extreme scenarios.

[jimfinn]

As clarification, bussing will NOT result in a modkill.

Thanks. --jim