Print

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

[Ottofar]

Ottofar:

What reactions?  How would they help?  I'm pretty sure you were going for an under-the-radar strategy.

Any reactions and all reactions. They could help find the scum. Also, you would be wrong, then.

Then maybe you should try to convince people otherwise.

I should probably yeah.

Anyways, school started ton tuesday. That involves shenanigans, apparently, so I'll proably read this properly on the weekend. If the shenanigans continue after that, I'll request a replacement. Terribly sorry about this.

[Jim Groovester]

Jim: I, am a paranoid person in this game. I did something similar in Webadict's Magic Mafia where I acted really paranoid for most of the game. And like most people, I don't like it when I find out I'm wrong in my case against someone.

This explanation does not satisfy me. How do I know you're not just appealing to personal traits to cover up a slip up? I haven't played with you enough to make that determination and even if I did, I wouldn't accept your explanation.

I guess, basically, Toaster says it better here:

Appealing to meta is never a valid defense.

And I thought we were talking about a Day-kill, why the sudden switch to the Vigilante example?

The reasoning is the same regardless of whether it's a day kill or a night kill.

And you "gotta start somewhere" is by putting an admitted lynch vote on me and then not asking any questions till I called you out on it? I fail to see how that makes any sense.

I fail to understand your complaint.

What's so important about asking questions with a vote? Strictly speaking it's not necessary that the two go together.

Jim: Since your vote is a lynch vote, i'll ask you this. If I flipped town, how would you react with your current evidence? And may I ask why you only said you suspected I was scum with no further questions until called out on it?

I would break down in tears and quit mafia forever.

Would it make you feel better if I asked you a list of questions with my vote? If I wanted to direct my inquiry in a specific direction, I would have asked you questions to that effect.

Pup: because it's fun, also, it's an extra communication channel that allows more depth of emotion and reasoning than straight text alone, particularly when someone RPs back in response.

Right, there's more emotional depth in RP because everybody here (except you) are just a bunch of mafia-playing robots, devoid of all emo&%#!

ERROR: ON LINE 37; EMOTION "Sarcasm" NOT FOUND

No, I meant that you'd been doing an admirable job of pressuring.

Why the congratulations?

It's Day 1. Nobody knows anything. You're either buddying him or you're stupid.

Tiruin, Solifuge, webadict, the day ends tomorrow. How's your lists of suspects shaping up, and who's on it?

[notquitethere]

Princess Toaster

This is quite the flip flop. Considering your vote is currently on Cado, what's your opinion on Jim's scummitude?

Mafia players, like politicians, shouldn't be afraid to have principled changes of mind. Jim's case is a lot weaker than one I'd call a lynching case. I'll see what else Cado has to say.

Appealing to meta is never a valid defense.

Nor is it a valid attack: I was merely offering counter evidence to Leafsnail's meta read in me.

Princess Groovester

No, I meant that you'd been doing an admirable job of pressuring.

Why the congratulations?

It's Day 1. Nobody knows anything. You're either buddying him or you're stupid.

I think tone can often be hard to convey in text, especially between different nationalities. Obviously I am not buddying if I say to someone trying to apply pressure to me that they're doing an admirable job: in taking a friendly manner I'm showing that I don't feel pressured (and so by extension, their scumhunting is really not that admirable). My intended tone was not congratulatory in the slightest! I don't appreciate the false dichotomy, it's a dishonest tactic.

[Jim Groovester]

Oh, so, you're trying to butter up your attacker to make him go easier on you.

[notquitethere]

Again you misunderstand what I'm saying. Maybe I didn't explain very clearly? I think this might come down to a cultural or personality thing: even when I deeply distrust someone I still tend to view their actions charitably until given overwhelming reason not to. That might not gel with your own mafia philosophy.

[Tiruin]

I knew that but I didn't think mentioning something that objectively just happened in another game counted as discussing, but I take the point on board and I won't do it again.

Yeah. Don't. This very much did more than it's fair share of debating the matter when it isn't even half-baked. And came off to me as something I could label with certain pejoratives given my emotional state at the time.

Tiruin, Solifuge, webadict, the day ends tomorrow. How's your lists of suspects shaping up, and who's on it?

NQT as of recent note, but I'm still reading back (will post later in the day) and checking the context and other parts of note.

[Solifuge]

((Going to be busy moving, but I'll try to find time to review things tonight, or tomorrow morning.))

[Okami No Rei]

Sorry for the absence.  BM took all my free time yesterday.  Need to catch up with WCIII, then I'll be back here.

[Leafsnail]

Griffionday: all you seem to have done is put a vote on NQT and left it there while having a back-and-forth with him.  Do you think he's scum?  Is he scummy enough that you can ignore everyone else?

It's a fair position, but you'll also see that I'll move my votes around a lot as town early day 1 (see the latest BM where as the cop I voted nearly half the other players on day 1). I like to try to interact with as many players as possible to get the broadest possible read until someone particularly scummy comes out. My focus though has been a bit off so I'll readily admit that I haven't been as effective yet as I ought to be. To explain my recent behaviour: I genuinely thought that Cado's reaction was  a strange reaction to what I took to just be a dumb RVS vote, but then Jim explained how he was serious which I thought completely unjusifiable, but then I had another look at Cado's initial response and the concern with being tracked didn't seem quite right so I turned back to Cado. I have admittedly been a bit too free with throwing around the vote, but at the same time, I do think it adds a necessary degree of pressure to the questioning.

To summarise: I don't emphatically support Jim's case, but I do believe in using my vote to get answers and changing my mind when new evidence comes to light. This might make me look inconstant, but I think this is better than maintaining an unsupportable vote (which I have seen stubborn town players do in the past).

I think you're wrong about pressure in voting (a vote thrown around wildly is a vote that carries no real weight) and indeed some other things, but this answer does somehow seem honest.  Unvote.

Leafsnail:
What is your scumhunting process?

In general, find something that looks mafia-ish, question it, see if it still seems mafia-ish after receiving the answer to the question (or if the response itself is mafia-ish).  If there's nothing mafia seeming around (or if there's a player who hasn't been doing much) then I'll ask a question that I feel is likely to induce a scummy response from a mafia member.

In return, please tell me what the point of any of those questions were (please go into more detail than "I am looking for reactions")

[Tiruin]

Griffinpup:

Otto:
Do you like goldfish? (lolololololol)

I almost let your rather late set of RVS questions slide until I hit this one.

Don't you think it is rather late for RVS?  Do you truly see nothing else in this game that is worthy of mention by you?

I think he put questions towards others at that time. Though..I'm finding it strange why you're not asking him why, instead of what he's doing.

griffinpup: "What's the purpose of that blank you put towards Ottofar? Asking if one likes goldfish is a serious question where I come from--you can derive one's personality from their appreciation of fish: colors, texture, shape..that."


Still PFP-I've got time later.

Spoiler: Extremely OOC to FFS (click to show/hide)

((I am deriving much entertainment from this. Just wanted to pop in and say that. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.))

So you DO read this board!  Explains why I was in your sig a while.

Spoiler: Added OOC because of FFS (click to show/hide)

He commonly visits the boards for many fun things.
He's awesome that way..and this is totally not me pushing my appreciation of people who appreciate fun games. It's not like I like him or..or anything.

[webadict]

Yeah, Toaster is definitely scum. I don't buy his faux aggression. But if you wait long enough, he'll turn on his buddy.

[Okami No Rei]

Pardon me, Lady Solifuge.  I seem to have missed your response in my previous readings.

You propose there's someone here against her will, who doesn't wish for the Prince's hand? It's plausible, I suppose... but what harm is there in keeping them around? They're as likely to aid those with honest intentions as not, no? Moreover, unless they are actively trying to ruin others, I should think it'd be a simple enough matter to come to an agreement that met their ends, as well as ours. Such are not our adversaries.

The actual question seems to have escaped you.  I ask not about one who is confirmed as a jester, but rather one who has claimed such, and when/why you would lynch them.  Assume, if you please, that lynching an actual jester will end the game, with only said jester winning, as per classic rules concerning the role.


Princess Leafsnail

I misread his first answer as something that wasn't completely stupid.

Insult my intellect, will she?  She'll be sorry when I'm Queen.

ONR: there are two claimed cops.  Would you lynch anybody who isn't one of those two cops, and how do you think that relates to the first scenario

Unless it's an open setup like a BM, who's to say there can't be two cops in a game, and one of them is an unaware miller?  Anyway, I see what you're getting at now.  From my scenario, town would prefer killing one of the two cops, since there's a 50/50 chance between hitting scum for a three-man LYLO, and hitting town for a scum win, as opposed to a 40/60 chance if they vote randomly.

However, from the perspective of a town player in such a situation (five-man LYLO with two claimed cops, Player A calling scum on Player B, Player B counter-claiming and calling scum on Player C), I could conceivably be convinced to lynch Player C, on the grounds that, iff my read of Player B was fairly solid Town, I'd assume that scum are sacrificing their least valuable player as the first cop claim, making Player C slightly more desirable as a lynch candidate.

So, normally I wouldn't, but I won't rule out the possibility entirely.

Princess Okami
I'd almost forgotten you were playing. Do you have a compelling case on anyone yet?

I fear I have no case of my own, though I must admit that the one on you,  Princess notquitethere, is rather compelling. 

To follow up, what is your wincon?

Getting that particular trap out of the way, are you?

even when I deeply distrust someone I still tend to view their actions charitably until given overwhelming reason not to. That might not gel with your own mafia philosophy.

Do you think this philosophy is beneficial to your play?  Why can't/won't you adopt a more cynical attitude while playing?

Okami: Having it a one-shot would not change my decision. I still find Day powers more useful than Night powers in a lot of cases.  And I would not kill on a hunch and I would gather evidence, but the likeliest outcome to me for how I think, would it would be a case against the player who I thought the least likeliest to get lynched on my scum list, despite evidence I found to support it. I have a confidence issue with things like that, I want to use the power correctly, but how can I justify it if I'm wrong when the person had less scummy activity than others, but wasn't holding up for me? To answer your question fully, killing on a hunch is not beneficial to Town in most, if not all cases. Those cases where its not, I have no idea.

Interesting.  Princess Cado, the others are accusing you of being scum simply because you're apparently afraid of getting lynched. You say you're playing paranoid, but you never explained why you're playing paranoid.  Please do so.

Why the least likely to get lynched out of your scumpicks, rather than your number two most likely pick for scum (assuming you're a vigilante, and your most likely choice for scum just got lynched)?

Yeah, Toaster is definitely scum. I don't buy his faux aggression. But if you wait long enough, he'll turn on his buddy.

So, you think he's scum, but you also want to keep him around to see what he'll do?  Should we not lynch him now?  Surely you've reached this decision based on more than just 'faux aggression'?

[Griffionday]

Lady NQT:
Firstly, please stop directly contradicting yourself in the same post, it's rather poor form.

Obviously, if the player isn't scum you won't draw anything of use out of someone.
-snip-
Neither: asking people's wincons sometimes brings surprising results. Currently, in the Witch game Tiruin spilled out that she was a third-party and wasn't actually directly interested in hunting that game's equivelant of scum.

Now onto the questions:

Have you interacted with everyone else yet?

Nope, I got a bit distracted by your behavior.  I'll start work on that right away though, thanks for the reminder.

Get back to you in what fashion?  If you meant for me to try again to answer your question again why did you not bring this up when you next talked to me here?  Possibly you should have pursued that inquiry at all.

I'm not sure where your misunderstanding here lies. I asked you an ambiguous question, you answered the question one way, I implied you'd not answered the way I'd intended you to answer, you asked me why I didn't ask me the question again, then I asked the question again freely admitting that I should have reasked it sooner. I didn't reask it sooner because my focus on the game was not sufficiently strong. This isn't a scum-tell, it's just me being distracted. Now I'm more on the ball, I'm determined not to let things get to Great Temple levels where I was town but utterly ineffectual.

Poor town play is not a scum tell.  Got it.

The "confusion" as you call it stems from the fact that I deliberately didn't follow up on your original question in this post to see if you were interested in the point or just trying to ghost your way through the first day.  You didn't follow up.  Not a flawless test of scumminess by any means, but I feel a fairly solid one on how interested you were in the question you posed me.  The fact that you didn't let it drop, but instead said "my bad, let me rephrase that" feels like a cover-up. 

On that note why are you so focused on playing better now?  If you're not feeling pressure from me why does my vote and discussion seem to have kicked you back into playing better?  Or are you merely trying to take advantage of the fact that Bay12 Mafia seems to primarily vote for whoever is playing the worst the first day, rather than who's been the scummiest?

Neither: asking people's wincons sometimes brings surprising results. Currently, in the Witch game Tiruin spilled out that she was a third-party and wasn't actually directly interested in hunting that game's equivelant of scum.

Let's test this theory: What is your win condition?

Lady Leafsnail:

Griffionday: all you seem to have done is put a vote on NQT and left it there while having a back-and-forth with him.  Do you think he's scum?  Is he scummy enough that you can ignore everyone else?

I'm sorry that that's all you think I've done.  It's not, of course, but I'll freely admit I've been tunneling a bit more than I should.  I am waiting for Tiruin to get back to me, so hopefully I'll have more than one person to talk too. (Link for easy refrence)  But you are right that I can't just ignore everyone else.

By this point in our discussion I believe NQT is not true town as for scummy .

A question about your vote pattern as of late: if you see switching votes rapidly without backing them up as scummy, and now claim that placing a vote and focusing on the player until satisfied is likewise scummy, is it safe to assume you are merely trying to provoke a reaction with your current case? 

Also did you mean to unvote me, or did you intend to just unvote NQT?  I'm assuming the latter, but I dislike making such assumptions.

[Griffionday]

EBWOP:

Sorry,

By this point in our discussion I believe NQT is not true town as for scummy .

Should have been

By this point in our discussion I believe NQT is not true town; as for scummy... yeah, I'm willing to call him that.

[webadict]

Tiruin, Solifuge, webadict, the day ends tomorrow. How's your lists of suspects shaping up, and who's on it?

I don't remember ever saying anything about a list of suspects...

But, Toaster's definitely on it. After that... I guess I've been pretty lax on who else, and on even making a case on him. I guess I feel like he's just been ignoring me this entire time. It's kinda sad.