Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hapah]

PPE: Good god, all the pages are so long. It feels like I just read a whole game start-to-finish and it was only most of D1. x_X

Spoiler: Part 1 (click to show/hide)

Hapah:
I knew I was forgetting someone!

Any of the more experience players who would be interested in helping me improve my game.  Yes; I know this is a perfect opportunity for a scum to blindside me, but you've seen my reads: I'm not really that happy with my confidence of any of my town reads.

I might be missing some context (god help me I'm not trawling through all those posts again to find out), but generally people don't intentionally give bad advice, even if they're scum.

By blindside I meant act town to the point of convincing me that they were.  I don't consider myself nearly skeptical to be able to see through such a cunning ruse.  And it is possible to give really good, solid advice in such a way that it will slightly mislead in the short run but be very practical and useful in the long run.  Drawing attention to certain tells for a simplistic example.

Ohhh, I see. My day game isn't so great; but the best advice I can give is to always ask why. You need to think about why people are acting the way they are (it's less useful D1, but keep it in mind as the game progresses). Also, and this is especially true for newer players, you need to make replies to questions clear and concise. I just assume nearly every question I'm asked has an implicit "Why?" Clear and concise replies not only make it easier for others to follow your reasoning, but also make you look less suspicious: people will naturally hone in on you if it takes you four replies to answer a question. Many a new player have been done in by throwing out nothing but half-baked replies, and even relatively patient players like myself get tired of it eventually. PPE: It seems like you've got a pretty good handle on this stuff already, though.

-stuff-...Gender-rolefishing...-stuff-

This made me lol; though with this game who knows? UI uses Ultimate Attack: Right In Da Jibblies?

Hapah:
Zrk is under suspicion because...he's asking Griff questions? Long questions, yes, but I can't see how that marks him as suspicious in anyway. Why the blue?

The questions just seem very...forced, I guess? It looks like a kinda knee-jerk reaction.

Hapah:

UI: I was thinking more Terry Pratchett, but hey, whatever. Are you going anywhere with this?

No, although your OMGUS has been noted.

It wasn't an OMGUS, it was an honest question.

Spoiler: Part 2 (click to show/hide)

Griff: How much Mafia have you played before? That's a pretty slick post at 296 for a beginner, for example (and I like the tone/format of most of your posts as well)

It's interesting. Many people poking at lurking. Lurk lurk lurk, comprises most of what I read in some posts. Why do you people think lurking is an offense in DAY ONE? I mean, you can just log off, then bookmark the quicktopic link and/or view the thread whilst logged off. Do you people think Lurking = Laziness, or that lurking = lack of drive in scumhunting? Because classifying things as "LURKING" doesn't hold much water unless you back it up with the reasons behind it.

I think the basic idea is that to catch the scum they've gotta slip, and they're not gonna slip if they aren't playing. I don't think I've ever seen scum intentionally lurk, but how can you catch 'em if they don't play? And sometimes life just happens (work kicked my ass late last week and it's still going). That's my two cents.

I did not make the case that there should be no scumhunting D1, I said that policy lynches or acceptable. Obviously if someone seems very scummy then we should lynch them. But baring overtly obvious scum then a policy lynch of a lurker/terrible scumhunter is not a terrible alternative.

Lynching a lurker gives next to no information, though, right? People with meaningful interactions give a lot more information.

-Picture-

Also, I've never seen you play scum. Could you point me towards a game or two where you played on a scumteam?

lol, who the hell is that guy?

Also, sure: I was scum in the last BYOR (I think it was the last one?). Beyond that, I can't think of a normal-ish game where I was scum.

Now. Out of his seven posts, the first is RVS, and doesn't have too much material. The second and fifth are short and only answer a single question each. The third asks a single person a question. The fourth asks for clarification. The sixth promises more later. Only the last has a lot of good content.

Does anyone else see this as very little contribution to the discussion?

Now, dear heart, why would you ask us what we think?  It smells like you're looking for the approval of the town and directing the lynch despite just so happening to rest your vote elsewhere.

A case that only he could see wouldn't be much of a case, would it?

If two people die soon from being linked, and they're town, NQT'll probably be a good lynch.

How do you figure?

NQT: ...I really hope you picked wisely with Lovers because if both end up dead and town, your kinda screwed.

Same question. How do you figure?

[Vector]

Yes, a case only one person can see isn't much of a case, but the whole "asking for approval" thing is a canonical scummove.

[Vector]

Deathsword.

[Griffionday]

Tiruin:

...You're treading the meta line again. Previous scumchat things have little to no use in the current game. While people may still retain their modus of communication from previous games, its variably very darn hard to correlate something done in an incognito channel and in a mainthread...

I'm simply trying to see if an experienced player's advice in the scum chat could dramatically change play of a new player in the main thread.  I'm not really seeing much correlation, but I couldn't find a good example case.  I would think that more experienced players would interact less with scumchat as a thing, and more with the other players in it so of course there would be little hold over between games; however, I had the theory that newer players as a category might have more of a "this is where I go for advice."  I'm not finding anything that is a strong enough correlation to cause any new suspicions though, but it was interesting to view on what is going on from the scum's perspective. 


Hapah:

Thank you.  This is my first forum mafia game, and probably my sixth or so game of mafia.  I've played a couple times at friend's places, and enjoyed it.  The format is borrowed with blessing from Tiruin, so you'd have her to complement her on that.


Deathsword:

I really don't want to go for a lynch just because your vote is based on out-dated reads, and your post posing your reads was ill made.  Please answer the questions I posed to you here and try to get back into the game.  Also reads would be nice if you have the time to post them.


Goodnight all.  I'll return to the usual pokes prods and speculation in the morning, I just want to give everyone who feels they lost track of where this game went a hundred posts ago a chance to catch up and start contributing again after the weekend.

[RangerCado]

busy morning, then school, will talk later.

[Zrk2]

Zrk2:
You were suspicious of Ranger because he backed off of his opinion on no-lynches because he was being voted for it. Why are you doing the same thing now, with your reasoning on Ranger?

I am not backing off. I'm just taking a moment to confirm my suspicions. More on that later.

Zrk2:
Now, I'm still wondering why you can't summarize your case on Ranger. Yes, you quoted the post in full -- but this sounds like or relates to the application of the fallacy of (shifting the) Burden of proof: "I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false." due to the lack of summary...You could

Code: [Select]

[list][/list] and all, or just Poke-link at Ranger.

I haven't summarized it because I am busy. I have an hour now so I'm updating it. And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "poke-link."

quote=Zrk2 @ 323]
I did not make the case that there should be no scumhunting D1, I said that policy lynches or acceptable. Obviously if someone seems very scummy then we should lynch them. But baring overtly obvious scum then a policy lynch of a lurker/terrible scumhunter is not a terrible alternative.

Lynching a lurker gives next to no information, though, right? People with meaningful interactions give a lot more information.
[/quote]

It doesn't, but letting a lurker live will generate even less because they won't do anything the next day either. I believe that in the long run lynching lurker will provide more information because the lurker wouldn't be doing anything the next day either.

Yes, a case only one person can see isn't much of a case

Deathsword.

Did I misread the first post, or did you just directly contradict yourself?

On Ranger:

I will however ask this. How do you feel about being Griff's second pick for most scummy person

His questions are rather weak. Surely you could have asked something better than how I felt being someone's scumpick?

If he's telling the truth, it won't work on him. But there may be some string attached to this that he isn't telling us. We won't really know till the end of the game.

Or when he or someone involved in it gets lynched.

NQT: I'm going to assume that your going to decide who to use your ability on around monday morning to afternoon. Although i don't want to end up in this, but i'll say one thing. Be careful who you trust this too.

You know what they say about assume? Makes an ass of u and me.

Tolyk: As the day starts coming to a close, who do you think is the most likely to be lynched and who will you vote for based on the current information?

Surely you could come up with better questions than that. Why do all your questions relate directly to the lynch or votes?

 Zrk: Your entire arguement against me has been that i started Day 1 wanting a no lynch. I have sine then changed my opinion and your reasons for voting me up to this point have seemed retaliative in nature. (is that even a word?)
[/quote]

Even though you had changed your opinion the question still stood.

Tolyk: I do agree with this. I believe the Night could give us all quite a bit of Information into who our mafia team are, and i believe I could use the information effectively as i now better understand how to play. And i will say that "the night is your ally" could definately come true for the Town this game.

How do you think the night will give us more information? Why do you think the NK will produce more useful information than the lynch?

Tiruin: The situation is rather similar to the one in the previous game and UI was my second scum pick. I was gonna let off Zrk Teporarily on the off chance he's town again. However if he persists with the same attitude, i'm going to see if i can atleast get it on someone who is scummy. My suspicions of him stand but i'll trust meta for the rest of this day and go from there.

Generally trusting meta over suspicions is a bad idea. Trying to avoid notice again?

I'll probably only be able to make one more post before Day End.

[Vector]

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

[TolyK]

TolyK

5: Everyone has tricks up their sleeves. -.- And this part doesn't really matter any ways, why'd you put it here? To make it more belivable?

Possibly it was extraneous: I was trying to be exhaustive in my answers as I knew I'd be getting lots of questions regardless.

NQT, anything to say about the comments to 1?

TolyK

It confirms that you actually read through everything, which (in my eyes) lowers your chances of being scum.

So in your statement that was to me -- addressing UI as an experiment, your conclusion was...this? How does reading lower the 'chances' of UI being scum? How does it pertain to chance anyway?

"Chances to be scum" I mean to be "scuminess", which is why I said "from my point of view". If he had skipped that, it meant he was more likely to be constantly skimming, although on second thought his scumbuddy could've alerted him of my post.

Zrk2 seems the most scummy now, though as Ford said (and Griff noted) it's "him acting in character". Possible link? I only have the gut feeling and general association, since I haven't read many of his posts in-depth and those I have don't really seem wrong to me. Might vote for.
I don't honestly know about Ranger, he's really mixed for me. Probably won't vote.
NQT is really strange. I can't find a flaw in his logic, and haven't yet seen how it would help scum EXCEPT if he did two townies.
If two people die soon from being linked, and they're town, NQT'll probably be a good lynch. But for now, I want to see where this gets us. Probably won't vote.

Recap? Meh, doesn't seem like I want to vote for anyone quite yet. Still got that "don't want to mislynch" stuff, probably.

Granted, details and your time is understandable. However, "don't seem that you like to want to vote for anyone" + "mislynch stuff" isn't. You can vote anyone, anyone that irks your suspicion-meter. Like what I'm doing to you.

The problem is voting one of the "vote leaders". I am aware of voting people to push them, but I'm not currently pushing anyone. I'm being careful who I vote here, since (a) I might not have time to change the vote later, though with the extend it's a bit better, and (b) it can result in ties.
Also, my suspicion-o-meter is usually out of whack. Yeah. :/

And a mislynch? That means you're subtly poking at the vote leaders, right? Because I can't see anyother way of you concluding a mislynch and then not pertaining it to them even after what you said. Clarify. Please. Doesn't seem like you've much of an inclination to press your vote though, because you're being vague with that vote, but not of its use except in stating a mislynch. Is there any case on your suspects which validate them for a mislynch?

The reasoning is fallible.

Uh. I've outlined the people I think are a bit scummy, but they're not past my "vote" threshold.
And I do not know who would be the mislynch, obviously. I prefer to hold back so that I could say "told you so!" later.

What's the sole purpose of you not voting? Why aren't you pressuring anyone?

I'm currently retargeting, and also logically trying to think something out that got on my mind (pertaining to this game).

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

Hm. Convince me?

UI - 2
Zrk2 - 2
Ranger - 2
Deathsword - 2
TolyK - 1
NQT - 1
Bold and Red - 100 (since Wuba counts as 100)

[Griffionday]

Hapah:

I think the basic idea is that to catch the scum they've gotta slip, and they're not gonna slip if they aren't playing. I don't think I've ever seen scum intentionally lurk, but how can you catch 'em if they don't play? And sometimes life just happens (work kicked my ass late last week and it's still going). That's my two cents.

I did not make the case that there should be no scumhunting D1, I said that policy lynches or acceptable. Obviously if someone seems very scummy then we should lynch them. But baring overtly obvious scum then a policy lynch of a lurker/terrible scumhunter is not a terrible alternative.

Lynching a lurker gives next to no information, though, right? People with meaningful interactions give a lot more information.

So would you prefer to lynch someone who seems terribly scummy but hasn't really been interacting with the game, or someone who is less scummy but has played enough that their death will cause loads more information to go into N1 with?  Your post seems to be suggest we should let sleeping scum lie.

Also do you have strong enough reads to re-target your vote, or do you plan on pressing UI further?

Sheep:

You call Zrk out on being suspicious primarily of lurkers, but your vote is on a lurker yourself? Explain this. In fact, the LurkerTracker says this is your second vote, and your first was an RVS vote, also on TolyK. Do you have nothing else to offer?

Why do you equate number of votes with productivity in the thread?  And why do you think the only way to track someone's suspicion is through their votes?

Ford:

...and after reviewing it, I can clearly see his changed his vote because I asked him who he thought was worth lynching. Unvote.

I could be missing something here but didn't you keep your vote on him primarily because he changed when you pressured him?  Did your pokes produce new reads that you plan on pursuing now that you're not targeting Ranger?

[Urist Imiknorris]

Ranger: You still haven't responded to me.

Vector:

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

1. Who are "we"?
2. Stop dodging the question and explain why you're voting Deathsword.

Mod: Please prod Deathsword and The Soldier with extreme prejudice. They have not posted since the 6th and the 4th, respectively.

I'll have more tonight.

[Captain Ford]

PFP

Vector:

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

1. Who are "we"?
2. Stop dodging the question and explain why you're voting Deathsword.

It's like you read my mind.


Griff:

I could be missing something here but didn't you keep your vote on him primarily because he changed when you pressured him?  Did your pokes produce new reads that you plan on pursuing now that you're not targeting Ranger?

1. Yes.
2. No, I gained new insight while re-examining it. None of his following posts influenced my change of mind.

[Hapah]

PFP

So would you prefer to lynch someone who seems terribly scummy but hasn't really been interacting with the game, or someone who is less scummy but has played enough that their death will cause loads more information to go into N1 with?  Your post seems to be suggest we should let sleeping scum lie.

Also do you have strong enough reads to re-target your vote, or do you plan on pressing UI further?

A case could be made for either, but I prefer the latter. My reasoning goes something like this. Assume I hadn't made that post last night, didn't post before day end, and got lynched. If I flipped scum, yay, go team, we got one. If I flipped town, everyone else would have damn near nothing to go on. Yes lynching a major lurker might get you scum, but if you miss you get absolutely nothing. It's all up to chance then, and if I wanted to gamble I'd go to the boats.

Best course of action is to prod or goad the lurkers into posting. And who knows, Wuba might drop the modkill justice on the major lurkers; he's done it before (I think 2 BYOR's ago? The one were I was Kefka).

[Zrk2]

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

Standard Operating Procedure suggests you should at least recap it when you vote for him.

Mod, could we please have a votecount?

[Teneb]

Replacement request.

I am not feeling well at all and can't focus enough to play. I am sorry.

[Griffionday]

Ford:

Griff:

I could be missing something here but didn't you keep your vote on him primarily because he changed when you pressured him?  Did your pokes produce new reads that you plan on pursuing now that you're not targeting Ranger?

1. Yes.
2. No, I gained new insight while re-examining it. None of his following posts influenced my change of mind.

The second sentence was meant to inquire more into what reads in general you are getting from your pokes.  I re-read your posts and can see that you are attempting to get more solid reads on NQT, Tiruin, Zrk2, and Toaster in addition to Ranger.  Have any of those lines of inquiry provided any major illumination that we should know?

Hapah:

A case could be made for either, but I prefer the latter. My reasoning goes something like this. Assume I hadn't made that post last night, didn't post before day end, and got lynched. If I flipped scum, yay, go team, we got one. If I flipped town, everyone else would have damn near nothing to go on. Yes lynching a major lurker might get you scum, but if you miss you get absolutely nothing. It's all up to chance then, and if I wanted to gamble I'd go to the boats.

I'm a bit concerned that you imply that you'd be a likely vote target, you've not drawn an inordinate amount of suspicion as far as I can tell, and likely would have made it off into the night scott-free.  As an example though; I agree with the premise.  Town is will gain far more information from a dialogue that a simple monologue.  There is still information to be gained from the votes and how they're phrased but not nearly as much.

Best course of action is to prod or goad the lurkers into posting. And who knows, Wuba might drop the modkill justice on the major lurkers; he's done it before (I think 2 BYOR's ago? The one were I was Kefka).

Agreed, although now that DS posted I'm not sure I'm not sure the results are always as illuminating as I had hoped.

Deathsword:

Replacement request.

I am not feeling well at all and can't focus enough to play. I am sorry.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I hope you feel well again soon.

Vector:
As far as I can tell our case against DS is only in two posts (mine and Sheep's) neither of which he's responded to.  Voting him and saying

I think we've pretty clearly established Deathsword's scumminess.  What, do you not think there's anything off about him?

Seems rather hasty.

So why are you voting in a fashion that doesn't lend itself to forcing DS to explain himself more fully, especially as that may cause tells on other scum to appear?