Mini 1140 - Mafia Mishmash...Game Over!!

[Regfan]

Sorry, that was horribly worded, what i meant to say was: If you don't think the questions and the responses to that question were relevant wouldn't you just ignore them. Then if someone were to bring them up for a case you would know that they're attempting to push a cash via unreliable evidence and be able to view that as a scum-tell?

[Magnetic]

Huh. I didnt even know that this game started already.
Skim-read through, saw a guy scaling people from 0-100. That's interesting, I would like to keep this guy alive until the end so that we can see some funny business with numbers.
There were also questions addressed to everyone.

1. What's your time-zone
2. Have you played with anyone in here before, if so what was their play-style like? (Remember you can't mention ongoing games)
3. Do you prefer being town or mafia generally?
4. How often are you likely to post?
5. Do you generally like leading or following?

Answers:
1. I'm in Korea. Japan is right next. Am scared atm. Dunno what all the terminologies are tho.
2. I played Andrew. Was in his game where he moded.. Claimed Mafia Roleblocker, died Day 1. Have a laugh go see andrew's C9++ game.
3. I love being Town. Security guys.
4. Whenever I'm online I at least post 2 times. When there's someone to play some worded ping-pong with me, I post a lot.
5. I like following. I loved "Following" the movie too.

Vote: Surprise

You hate RVS? Here's a surprise for ya. Soz for the fucking bad punning.

[Magnetic]

Also, I would like to add something to Vollkan's scale of scummy levels.
Unless you are a Cop and had a successful night check getting a guilty result or positive result, I would like to see to it that you never place someone on 100 or 0. There never can be 100% sure something. Got that?
But for me, Ima genius motherfuck so I can say someone's 100% scum or 100% town. K?

[vollkan]

Honestly, I ALWAYS consider refusing to RVS to be at least a little scummy. Not enough to suspect someone on it's own, but still a point to look back at in the future.

I should say, refusing to partake of rvs is a little scummy because it prevents us from getting a read on that person. "I refuse to partake of RVS" is a nice way of saying "lurking time!"[/quote[

I have three problems with this:

First

It seems that your reason for disliking refusing to RVS is that it amounts to a form of lurking, by avoiding giving people an opportunity to get a read.

The trouble with this is that you are presuming that everybody thinks the same way about RVS as you do - ie. people who don't RV may be opposed to the RV stage because they think it is counterproductive or (more commonly) they are ambivalent toward it because they see it as generally accomplishing nothing.

Thus, unless you have good reason to think that the people who aren't RVSing are lying about their opinion on RVS, you can't call it scummy

Second

I'm inherently wary of any argument which says that something isn't scummy "on it's own" but that it is something to "look back at in the future".

Things are either scummy or they aren't. The approach you are suggesting leads to a form of confirmation bias. It also lets you get away with not having to think too much about why something is scummy

To illustrate with an example:
Say a person who doesn't RVS also then plays evasively later on in the game. The fact that they play evasively down the track doesn't magically transform their non-RVSing from a nulltell into a scumtell. It is terrible play to say, for example, "This person is being really evasive now and LOOK they didn't RVS so they were also evasive then".

The question has to be whether there is any good reason for thinking that their non-RVSing is actually evasion. If you can't find one, it isn't scummy.

Third

I also don't like the fact that you are determining scumminess based on the effect that not RVSing has (ie. "because it prevents us from getting a read on that person"). This is basically committing the classic fallacy of equating anti-town with scummy. Something is not scummy if it hurts the town - something is scummy if scum is more likely to do it than town. There is, of course, a lot of overlap between those two. But, here, people have been clear about giving reasons for why they don't want to RV. Ignoring that and focussing solely on effects is a recipe for disaster.

With that all in mind:

Suprise_Carcinogen + 5

for weak arguments that dance around the issue of why non-RVSers (who are something akin to sitting ducks) are scummy.
VOTE: Vote: Suprise_Carcinogen

(I should have said earlier, that a basic scale for points is: 5 = minor, 7 = moderate, 10+ = serious. I try to keep my points scaled so that a score of 70 is my "I am completely comfortable lynching this person" threshold.)

Hm, seems like a pretty powerful tool for giving your completely subjective observations a false air of objectivity. I do not like it. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it in action for at least a little while, but I trust well reasoned cases better than I trust a tally of isolated scum tells.

You're like the 200th person to make exactly this argument.

I've never once pretended that my points have any validity beyond being an expression of my own opinion.

I'd also point out that my system is in no way exclusive of reasoned cases. It does, however, force my suspicion on each person to be a composite of a number of specific subpoints rather than a vague general impression of a person.

Unless you are a Cop and had a successful night check getting a guilty result or positive result, I would like to see to it that you never place someone on 100 or 0. There never can be 100% sure something. Got that?

Nobody ever gets to 0 or 100 without cop clearing, etc.

[vollkan]

Honestly, I ALWAYS consider refusing to RVS to be at least a little scummy. Not enough to suspect someone on it's own, but still a point to look back at in the future.

I should say, refusing to partake of rvs is a little scummy because it prevents us from getting a read on that person. "I refuse to partake of RVS" is a nice way of saying "lurking time!"

I have three problems with this:

First

It seems that your reason for disliking refusing to RVS is that it amounts to a form of lurking, by avoiding giving people an opportunity to get a read.

The trouble with this is that you are presuming that everybody thinks the same way about RVS as you do - ie. people who don't RV may be opposed to the RV stage because they think it is counterproductive or (more commonly) they are ambivalent toward it because they see it as generally accomplishing nothing.

Thus, unless you have good reason to think that the people who aren't RVSing are lying about their opinion on RVS, you can't call it scummy

Second

I'm inherently wary of any argument which says that something isn't scummy "on it's own" but that it is something to "look back at in the future".

Things are either scummy or they aren't. The approach you are suggesting leads to a form of confirmation bias. It also lets you get away with not having to think too much about why something is scummy

To illustrate with an example:
Say a person who doesn't RVS also then plays evasively later on in the game. The fact that they play evasively down the track doesn't magically transform their non-RVSing from a nulltell into a scumtell. It is terrible play to say, for example, "This person is being really evasive now and LOOK they didn't RVS so they were also evasive then".

The question has to be whether there is any good reason for thinking that their non-RVSing is actually evasion. If you can't find one, it isn't scummy.

Third

I also don't like the fact that you are determining scumminess based on the effect that not RVSing has (ie. "because it prevents us from getting a read on that person"). This is basically committing the classic fallacy of equating anti-town with scummy. Something is not scummy if it hurts the town - something is scummy if scum is more likely to do it than town. There is, of course, a lot of overlap between those two. But, here, people have been clear about giving reasons for why they don't want to RV. Ignoring that and focussing solely on effects is a recipe for disaster.

With that all in mind:

Suprise_Carcinogen + 5

for weak arguments that dance around the issue of why non-RVSers (who are something akin to sitting ducks) are scummy.
VOTE: Vote: Suprise_Carcinogen

(I should have said earlier, that a basic scale for points is: 5 = minor, 7 = moderate, 10+ = serious. I try to keep my points scaled so that a score of 70 is my "I am completely comfortable lynching this person" threshold.)

Hm, seems like a pretty powerful tool for giving your completely subjective observations a false air of objectivity. I do not like it. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it in action for at least a little while, but I trust well reasoned cases better than I trust a tally of isolated scum tells.

You're like the 200th person to make exactly this argument.

I've never once pretended that my points have any validity beyond being an expression of my own opinion.

I'd also point out that my system is in no way exclusive of reasoned cases. It does, however, force my suspicion on each person to be a composite of a number of specific subpoints rather than a vague general impression of a person.

Unless you are a Cop and had a successful night check getting a guilty result or positive result, I would like to see to it that you never place someone on 100 or 0. There never can be 100% sure something. Got that?

[/quote]

Nobody ever gets to 0 or 100 without cop clearing, etc.

[pappums rat]

vollkan, your points system seems to contradict what the guy in your avatar is yelling.

My avatar is meant to be expressing anger at the use of "gut".

FWIW, if I have a schtick on this site, it's for hating gut-based play.

Among the justifications for my points system is that it directly ties every single suspicion I have to specific reasons. (eg. if I find something scummy, I say why and then say, eg,

+5

. What this means is that my suspicions are always clearly linked to specific reasons.)

also, hos tclawren for not joining rvs.

Why do you think this is scummy?

bold 1: well, i dont think you are going to like my play then...
bold 2: general not joining in with the rest of the group. it doesnt make someone scum imo obviously, it just seems off.

I didn't join the RVS either, how come you have a HoS on him for that but not on me?

thanks for pointing that out for me.

hos regfan

I appreciate that you respect my divination skills to such an extent that you will follow my lead even while directing an HoS at somebody else. Why would you not vote for your own suspect? Did you slaughter your own goat, or did you use an ouija board?

i dont have the skills that you do, so i had to come to my suspicion the old fashioned way. as to why i voted bgg: the entrails know all.

[subgenius]

Re: Abstaining from RVS=scummy

It's not scummy if other action is taken in lieu of RVS'ing. At this point, I don't think it's scummy, but hypothetically, if we don't see tclawren do anything productive in the next 2 weeks, I think it would be fair to point towards his refusal to RVS as his first infraction. That being said, at this point I don't find it scummy, and hopefully I won't find it scummy two weeks from now either.

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

Surpise_Carcinogen: And yes, they do harm us. Questions that muddy the water, and can be used as either proof positive or negative waste time, and can easily be used to form cases either way.

If you don't think they're relevant wouldn't you just ignore them if someone were to bring them up for a case, infact wouldn't they allow misleading information for someone to attempt to abuse thus allowing you to find a scum-tell on someone that does so?

Following this...

Vote:Regfan

You're insisting that your questions(like the metagaming probe, the query about whether you like to lead or follow or whether you like to be mafia and scum) are actually useful. They aren't. They serve no purpose but to waste time, and can't really serve a future purpose except to obsfucate the situation. Forcing the idea that it's actually helping doesn't really give me good feelings, and leading the town under the guise of a questionaire adds to enough that I'm willing to put a vote behind it.


@Vollkan: In order

1: I suppose I can understand the idea of someone being against RV for the sake of finding it pointless, but at the same time, refusing to partake still leaves us out an early read of that player.

2: Refusing to RVS is a span of time a person is lurking. Lurking a LOT is a scum-tell, or at least anti-town. We can't ignore a gap in playtime for a reason like 'I don't find it productive'. Lurking is still lurking at that stage.

3: I agree. I misspoke. Anti-town is a much more reasonable way of putting it as opposed to scum-tell.

In closing, non-rvsers aren't scummy. They ARE anti-town, though.


mafia edit @Subgenious: I'm more inclined to find a person doing little or nothing during D1 to be Lurking. Which is, depending on your personal method of gaguing, either a scum-tell or anti-town. I'm inclined to consider lurking for all or most of D1 to be a scum-tell. But the day is still young.



In other news, out of curiosity, if I were to cop to being a Town Miller, what would general reaction be?

[vollkan]

1: I suppose I can understand the idea of someone being against RV for the sake of finding it pointless, but at the same time, refusing to partake still leaves us out an early read of that player.

But that's just it! A person who finds RVS pointless will, by definition, not see "refusing to RVS" as depriving people of anything worthwhile.

2: Refusing to RVS is a span of time a person is lurking. Lurking a LOT is a scum-tell, or at least anti-town. We can't ignore a gap in playtime for a reason like 'I don't find it productive'. Lurking is still lurking at that stage.

Leaving aside the issue of lurking being scummy (it isn't), the fact is that you need to look at any instance of lurking to determine if it is scummy or not. If a person doesn't RV, and posts less as a result, you can't say "that's an example of them lurking" without tanking account of the reason that they aren't participating.

3: I agree. I misspoke. Anti-town is a much more reasonable way of putting it as opposed to scum-tell.

In which case, I am now completely confused as to where you stand. You've spent much of your past few posts arguing why it is scummy, but now you turn around and say that it is anti-town "as opposed to a scum-tell", which would seem to undermine everything you've been saying until now.

In other news, out of curiosity, if I were to cop to being a Town Miller, what would general reaction be?

@ EVERYBODY:

DO NOT answer the above question!

@SC: if you want to claim miller, claim miller.

[subgenius]

In other news, out of curiosity, if I were to cop to being a Town Miller, what would general reaction be?

I'm not a fan of this hypothetical question. Claim or don't. You'll find out what my reaction is if, and when, you claim.

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

Once again,
1. Then that person and myself will disagree. See pt.3
2. I mean that you need to look at refusing to RV as a section of time a person was refusing to play. For example: You are not RVing, but you're still investigating. IE: not lurking. The first guy who said he wasn't going to RV hasn't said anything else since, but it's still early. If he continues to say nothing for a few more days, it becomes lurking.
3. Under the misconception that it was a universally accepted fact that RVS is beneficial to town, I made the decision that refusing to do so is a scum-tell. Your argument has swayed my understanding. I consider refusing to do it to be anti-town, as it is still my opinion that you can get good information from RV(see pt.1), as it has been my experience that SOMETHING good comes of RVS. It is a slightly moot point at this stage though, as I think we've skipped entirely through RVS phase.


And, I'd like to point out that I've always gotten different reactions when I've asked that question. This is one of the more interesting ones. I'm not going to claim miller. If I WERE a miller, I would have done so with my first post. I'm more curious as to how people would react. And, by the by, "you'll find out my reaction" is a reaction. The purpose of the hypothetical question is to gain information, and at worst it allows you to probe out some idea of a person's play-style.

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

Forgot to add this to the end of my last post: Hypothetical question rescinded, since I already got two answers, and anything else is going to be null for information

[tclawren]

Regfan

:Where did 'one person leading' come from, everyone does indeed think for themselves though every player has a tendancy to lead or follow in the game of mafia, thus what the question is about.

I think i misunderstood your question. Nearly all of the mafia games I've played (in real life and chatmafia) have suffered from a huge cases of sheeping. Only the cop or some pr would lead the game and there were many people who would just go with the flow, making it very difficult for town. But however to answer your actual question I think for at least the time being I will tend to follow as this is my first game on the site. I want to get used to the structure of things.

Now, on to the big stuff which is namely my reluctance to vote.

1. I really don't think RVs help. It kinda just makes people run around in circles. That's just my opinion. I can totally see the other side of this. Votes=pressure, blah, blah, blah...

2. Just because I'm not RV-ing doesn't mean I will be lurking. I will regularly post (hopefully) quality content. I will try extremely hard not to lurk. Lurking is

very

antitown.

Pappums:

bold 2: general not joining in with the rest of the group. it doesnt make someone scum imo obviously, it just seems off.

Exactly what do mean by off? Do you mean scummy? Antitown? I would just like some elaboration.

@Carcinogen: Is your vote of regfan a policy lynch for bad play or do you believe that he is scum? Also what responses do you normally get when you ask the miller question? What were you hoping to achieve?

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

I was hoping to gain information. At this stage of the game, I can't honestly have any goal more specific then "Figure out who is scum." And I've gotten any number of reactions, ranging from a breakdown of possible realities(I am mason, I'm town lieing about mason, I'm scum lying about mason) and why nobodies reaction really matters in that case, to being ignored. And while I'm not yet very sure about a regfan lynch, I think some pressure should be put in his direction. What he's doing is something that I would call bad-play, and I'm interested to try and get information from him to find out if he's scum or not.

[subgenius]

I fail to see how your miller question is any more useful than regfan's list. What have you concluded the two responses you received?

[subgenius]

concluded *from* the responses you received.

I shouldn't post after 2:30am.

[Regfan]

Following this... Vote:Regfan

You're insisting that your questions(like the metagaming probe, the query about whether you like to lead or follow or whether you like to be mafia and scum) are actually useful. They aren't. They serve no purpose but to waste time, and can't really serve a future purpose except to obsfucate the situation. Forcing the idea that it's actually helping doesn't really give me good feelings, and leading the town under the guise of a questionaire adds to enough that I'm willing to put a vote behind it.

So you're essentially voting me because I believe another system rather then a RVS is optimal? Mind reading this for me:
http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?tit ... ning_Stage

What I did was the alternative to the RVS because I don't see any benefit behind the RVS itself, yet I undestand other players do thus them taking part in a RVS is a null-tell and always will be. I'm still waiting on an answer in regards to 'Can you show me one game where the RVS itself led to a scum-lynch'.

[havingfitz]

Good morning. Everyone has confirmed and Day One is underway (obviously). I will post a vote count later today. Its seven to lynch and the Day One deadline is midnight E.S.T. on April 1st.

[curiouskarmadog]

1. What's your time-zone
2. Have you played with anyone in here before, if so what was their play-style like? (Remember you can't mention ongoing games)
3. Do you prefer being town or mafia generally?
4. How often are you likely to post?
5. Do you generally like leading or following?

1.) EST
2.) vollkan, he uses the point systems as town and scum. he is usually pretty logical. he hates it when people vote with their "gut"...(which I do constantly)....as scum, he likes to take out the biggest threat to the scum group as a whole, versus individual threats.
3.) prefer being scum
4.) depending on how busy I am....sticking to a rule of only 1-2 games at a time...will post every other day unless I get busy.
5.) somewhere in between...also depends on my mood...I am know to get angry...also tunnel vision. also i hate proofreading, so sorry in advance for bad grammar.

2. I've played a large number of games with CKD. I can't really define his playstyle, other than saying I think he's a good player.

ahh shuck vollkans, consider my bread buttered.

that being said, vollkan is a MUCH better player...and I never can call it when he is scum..ever....and by the time I do figure it out, he has got the town wrapped around his finger so tightly (for whatever reason)..that he is almost unlynchable.

[curiouskarmadog]

havent read the whole 2nd page yet....baby needs a feeding.

[Truant]

(I think I'm further elaborating on a point here, but whatever):

The reason everyone should be voting for tclawren right now is because of his refusal to participate in the RVS. If you do not agree with something, propose an alternative (like Regfan did) and follow through with that. I disagree that Reg's alternative is better than RVS, but that's neither here nor there.

Otherwise, vote for sub or possibly pappum's as a third option.

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

I fail to see how your miller question is any more useful than regfan's list. What have you concluded the two responses you received?

I've concluded that two players have a playstyle more cautious then most I've played with in my one other game on mafiascum, and in my experiences playing on other forums.

Reverse the question: What can we learn from Regfan's questions? Some are practical. What timezone do you live in? That's a reasonable and relavent question, but has very, very little application for scumhunting. Do you like being scum, or town? Irrelavent BECAUSE it cannot be applied in any way towards case-building. His metagaming question is dubious at best. Metagaming can tell you, potentially, if someone is playing differently then usual, but it's always going to be debatable evidence. My experience has been that cases using metagaming as any sort of major component will meander around for a little bit, while RARELY actually going far enough to lynch, and even MORE rarely, actually catching scum. I'm willing to reevaluate my experience if given a few cases where metagaming was used successfully, since I haven't done much reading, and I'm used to a very different playstyle then MS.net uses, but the idea that "he's playing a different kind of game then he did when he was town, and this is suspicious" is weird to me.

[Surprise_Carcinogen]

Woops, accidentally hit submit. continuing.

I also notice that his own answers are slightly suspect, since he has an "I'm so town, lookit me scumhunt", and this has rarely boded particularly good. It screams of either 'newbie town' or 'nervous scum' though given how he feels about rvs he must be at least a little bit experienced.
How often do you post is, again, slightly relavent, while also giving plenty of an out for lurkers. If regfan is scum, his buddies now have an easy way to point and go "I'm not lurking, see, I said I'd only be posting X amount." and beside that, it once again is not going to give out any information that is in any way usable. And the 'leader/follower' question is silly. Town shouldn't 'follow' anything but evidence, and as such the closest thing to a 'leader' is going to be someone who lays out a good, coherent and worthwhile case. The results of this question are, once again, non-condusive to scum-hunting.


And no, regfan, I'm not voting with you because I disagree with the method you're using. I'm doing it because you've yet to explain to me what your questions mean. I notice that, in spite of ME asking several times, all you've done is defend the CONCEPT of what you're doing. RQS can be incredibly useful, and I've seen it succeed in the past. But, the questions THEMSELVES needed to have a purpose, and you've as of yet to tell me how you intend to use ANY of the answers in a town-productive way. And no, I can't really show you a game where RVS has, provably and immediately, led to a scum-lynch. I can show you plenty of games, though, where RVS has been used on D2 or D3(or, scum doing stupid things under the GUISE of RVS early game, which can't be done if there is no rvs) to conclude or finish proving a case. On the other hand, your statement has gone from "RVS is generally unproductive" to "RVS HAS NEVER EVER WORKED EVER!" Also, the rvs debate is slightly moot at this point as I've explained my reasoning. Refusing to partake and then doing nothing at all = antitown. Refusing to partake and doing something else(ie rqs) = productive. Asking questions that are at best irrelavent and at worst WIFOM/leading, and then refusing to offer up any reasoning behind how you intend to use the questions = antitown at best.

[tclawren]

Truant

: Otherwise, vote for sub or possibly pappum's as a third option.

Explain this. I

hate

when people accuse people without explaining themselves. Even if it something stupid explain yourself.

My opinion about the Miller question is that is somewhat more helpful than the regfan questions for reasons similar to what Carciogen put down. It is obviously about the game going on right now. Regfan's were... obliquely related at best.

Vollkan

: @ EVERYBODY: DO NOT answer the above question!

Why did you not want people to answer this?

[Regfan]

A) I'm not new, I've played mafia for 2 years now, intially at epicmafia then at various forum mafia websites.
B) You have stated over and over again that you find the questions and the responses of them to be irrelevant thus you are led to believe that I'm attempting to detract conversation away from something useful, yet I haven't once stated the reasoning behind the questions and nor did I plan on until sufficent enough players had replied to them. Though, you seem to be continiously pressuring and pushing against this, so for the sake of removing from this pointless discussion I'll go into them.

1. Was asked to have an idea of when to expect people to post, before, after, during when I post ect.
2. You may continously state that meta-gaming is useless and have never seen it help, but again that's your opinion something that I strongly disagree, the purpose of this question is to gain a broad understanding of the bonds formed inside the room. As well as if anyone has anything notable they remember that a particular player does a few examples would be (Tunnel, Lurk, OMGUS, AtE). Sure, the fact they may have used them in the past as mafia doesn't mean they're mafia this game from it but it helps gain a better understanding if it's their natural play-style if they're attempting to differ from it.
3. This question was asked not for peoples exact responses but instead the manner they did so in, if they're highly confident and secure with their answer, whether they're flaky or unsure on what to answer.
4. This question againw as so I have an idea of how much content people are likely to post and to be frank, it just for curiosities sake.
5. I've seen multiple players in the past sheep lynches without much questioning and response, I've ended up tunnelling and pushing against these players due to it to find out they sheep regardless of allignment. It's things like this that I'm interested in finding out.

C) To state that a lynch on mafia in previous games is purely due to the RVS period is a blatant lie, though I do agree with you saying that the RQS isn't that much better, personally I like neither and to start discussion around optimal ways to play the setup but since this setup is open we cant' do that. Thus my attempt to deviate from the norm of the RVS and instead attempt RQS which occasionally puts people on the spot. Though, from reading peoples responses I don't have a real-leading suspect at the moment though I will need to have a proper re-read later when I'm not as tired.