Print

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

[Nerjin]

Nerjin: Good of you to post, though the content is lacking. Is Max White's hounding of nqt really enough for him to deserve your vote? All you say is "I don't think this is scummy". In what world is softclaiming before anyone else a town action? Do you think it helps the town for people to reveal their roles before the mass claim?

I post when I have something to say. Sorry that's just how it is. If I have nothing to say I won't put up a bunch of nothing to make myself look better. I believe so. At this point anyway. I view what NQT did as stupid, no offense to him, but I don't really view it as scum actions. I just think Max is being a little too zealous about it is all so it strikes a bit like McCarthyism to me.

Nerjin

Max White I don't see how this is scummy and your recent attacks on NQT seem rather like McCarthyism to me.

(Please explain either in the [/abbr] tag or something what those terms are...) What is McCarthyism?

McCarthyism is me referencing the mind-set of McCarthyism. Or if you don't feel like reading that you could just say "Nerjin thinks Max White is accusing NQT with little relevant evidence."

I fail to see how this line of reasoning holds up. Are you trying to be an aggressive IC by chance because, otherwise, you're seeming awfully keen on knocking of NQT. Specifically though the ending seems more like "You're not doing it right! You are scum!" Every town player wants to survive. It's a simple fact that, as humans and players both, we want to be alive at the end of the day and start of the next. Town players know we shouldn't behave like that but we do anyway. I'm sorry, but you're just making things up it seems so my vote goes to you.

Bolding for curious emphasis. You think Max is being an IC here? Why? Next, what do you have to say about Max' last posts because you seem to be intent on attacking him based on what he's saying to NQT--something which came off to me as but queries.

Second bolded part...what. That seems more like a rule you're stating, but then 'it happens anyway so there' is what I got from it.

Third, what. I really can't get you--how is the 'you're making things up' make sense there? Max is giving his viewpoint. NQT is giving his viewpoint. Minor notes along side each, they both have their own behavior--why do you generalize instead of attack those specific points?

It just seems like he's trying to guide or teach NQT in a highly aggressive manner. They came off to me more as "You are scum because you say you're bad at day 1 but also that everyone is bad at Day 1!"

To your second point I was stating: The Ideal Town Player will NEVER focus on their own survival and will instead focus ONLY on scum-hunting; none of us are Ideal Town Player. As a general rule EVERY player will fight to stay alive because they view themselves as more useful to town than any other player [especially at the beginning where you only have yourself as confirmed town.]. I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Point the Third: When I say "You're making things up" I don't mean it literally. I mean it as "You're putting WAAAAAY more emphasis on these things that don't really mean much than you should.". I'm generalizing because I didn't really have anything to say on the specifics. As I said earlier in the post I say what I have to say. I only had things to address in general at that time [still do as it happens].

Ok imagine we have ten townies. One of them is a cop, and the rest are not. When there is a night kill, there is a one in ten chance that it will kill the cop. If one of those ten chooses to claim as not-cop, it goes to one is nine. The more people claim as 'not a cop', the more likely it is an actual cop gets NKed. If it is actually a cop claiming as 'not a cop' that ruins any credibility that have later on in the game, and could be just as counter productive, if not more so. As such it is in the towns best interest to not reveal anything about their roles this early when it won't be helpful. It is, however, in scums best interest to say anything to stay alive.

That's a good theory. Let me propose a counter-argument though. 1 = Cop. 2 = Claimed Not-Cop. 3-9 = Regular townie

1 has a 1/10 chance of being NK'ed [we assume 11 is also town and is Lynched] if no one claims right? Easy enough.

2 complicates this by claiming. Or do they? You assume that scum would trust someone who says they're not cop right? If I were scum I wouldn't trust a damn thing that came out of a townies mouth. Town power roles will lie just as much as mafia in early game to my experience. As scum the SECOND someone claimed non-cop this early I'd have them marked for death. Why you ask? Simple, wouldn't the cop try to distance himself from the role?

So as Scum I'd kill 2. Simply for the fact that he's my best lead to the cop. If he's not Cop [as 2 did] then I didn't waste a NK and everything is awesome for me anyway. If he IS a Cop then I lucked out!

That assumes scum thinks like me though. I'd say that on average claiming not-cop doesn't change the odds at all that 1 will die. If there even is a 1. Maybe 1 is an A instead. I just doubt that NQT's claim thing there really means anything towards a power-roles death assuming NQT is a townie.

[kleril]

I'm out. I'm in no state to play, and I apologize.

[Max White]

Jim
a. NQT asks me why I am asking Tiruin a question before I have an answer.
Ok, that is fair enough, I explain why I am not going to give an answer yet, we both agree it was a mistake. This isn't really that scummy, but it is something scum might do and I point that out.

b. NQT goes on to apologize and blame the fact that he has nothing very solid in the first day. Because you know, not having had night actions or anybody lynched totally is good reason to make mistakes like that early game.
This is being a little defensive. Why does he need to give a reason for these mistakes? Is he that worried that everybody is going to jump on him for a single error that he needs a preemptive defense? I ask him why he feels the need to point this out.

c. Instead of actually telling me why he thought to bring up his little defence, NQT decides everything will be better if he just clarifies that he actually meant everybody is bad at the early game. That doesn't answer my question at all. I point out that it still doesn't answer my question.

d. NQT decides that he was just providing context as to why this mistake happened. That is he is trying to convince me he was simply working off "a vague sense of the game's position and post responses without giving adequate consideration", but that still doesn't tell me why he would want to bring it up. I ask him what difference does it make if he is playing at the top of his game or not, should I read tells any differently?

e. NQT goes back to his tactic of totally ignoring what I actually asked, in favor of deciding everything will be better if he just clarifies that he specifically is bad early game.

A long series of being overly defensive, and trying to avoid this by giving answers that don't relate to the question being asked, topped with inconsistencies. He is scum that thought he made a mistake that somebody would vote over, and since broke out into evasion tactics.

That along with the fact that he claimed non-cop just to try and justify feeling like his wincon was better than average, and that made no damn sense. Would not being a cop really increase your chances of winning? Even if the last two games you were cop in you get NKed, does that have anything to do with your role when nobody even knew your role when you died? Seems more like he was looking for anything to justify saying that he had a good wincon, because there is no way he would just admit he is actually not town.

Nerjin
I'm not trying to teach or guide, I'm pointing out he has done something counter productive to the town to try and save his own ass, and as much as I would love to read your book on the human condition and how apparently the town won't do anything to actually win the game, that is scummy.
Even if somebody were to swallow your wine, that doubt that such a claim makes exists for the town too when later they suddenly come out and say "Oh yea guys, I'm a cop now! You should lynch who I tell you to lynch when it is most vital!"
Nope, that is bullshit. Cop shouldn't claim non-cop, and as such neither should anybody else. The sort of WIFOM you are peddling right now is hardly productive.

[notquitethere]

Max

Were you questioned on a theme?
Please, quote the exact question you were expanding on.

So you say your early game isn't always the best... Why do you feel like pointing that out? What difference does it make?

I answered your question and then expanded on the theme of day one mistakes.

I didn't question you, I pointed out you were doing the wrong thing, and from there you felt the need to expand on the point in an attempt to try and lessen the scum mistake you had made.

You clearly did question me: there were question marks and everything. It's all quoted there. How is lessening a mistake a scum tell?!

And how did those games go for you? Did you win?
Listen, if the scum know you aren't a cop then yes you won't get killed, but somebody useful will in your place. The life of a cop is worth more than yours, but you seem to only care about what will leave you surviving the longest with no regard for the town. Because you don't care about the town, do you? You just want to survive the longest, like all scum.

Yep: the only game I've won (though only by mod-revisionism) is Witches where I was doggedly survival focused (and super effective at finding scum). I'm the only person I can trust to be town and play half way competently and I'm going to try to stay alive.

And also, I didn't want to have to point this out but saying I'm not a cop is saying nothing: there are no cops in Supernatural! There are investigative roles, sure, but nothing exactly adhering to the classic 'cop' role. Look over past games if you don't believe me. Also, cops aren't the only valuable town-role, which you don't seem to be taking into account. You seem to have missed the important part of my statement: this isn't a BM and I don't have a BM role.

Although come to think of it I don't see why it is relevant to NQTs sudden found confidence. In the two games he got NKed as a cop the first night the scum wouldn't have known he was the cop. He isn't more likely to be killed as a cop, so not being a cop shouldn't be relevant to thinking he is going to win. Claiming he isn't a cop was just an excuse for that comment about having some wincon that was somehow more winnable that all those other town wincons he had in the past.

You obviously missed the post where I said that I didn't intend to imply that playing a town cop was unwinnable. However, being a cop makes me play more aggressively and talk on behalf of the town more and this sort of behavior gets me night killed. Maybe my confidence was misplaced, but it isn't due to me having a scum or third party role.

a. NQT asks me why I am asking Tiruin a question before I have an answer.
Ok, that is fair enough, I explain why I am not going to give an answer yet, we both agree it was a mistake. This isn't really that scummy, but it is something scum might do and I point that out.

A mistake I swiftly acknowledged and was happy to move on from.

b. NQT goes on to apologize and blame the fact that he has nothing very solid in the first day. Because you know, not having had night actions or anybody lynched totally is good reason to make mistakes like that early game.
This is being a little defensive. Why does he need to give a reason for these mistakes? Is he that worried that everybody is going to jump on him for a single error that he needs a preemptive defense? I ask him why he feels the need to point this out

c. Instead of actually telling me why he thought to bring up his little defence, NQT decides everything will be better if he just clarifies that he actually meant everybody is bad at the early game. That doesn't answer my question at all. I point out that it still doesn't answer my question..

You mistake my reasons, and I could have been clearer at the time: the very fact that we're worrying about ettiquette over questioning of essentially meaningless questions is a sympom of there being bugger all of real import to talk about Day One. Now do you see?

d. NQT decides that he was just providing context as to why this mistake happened. That is he is trying to convince me he was simply working off "a vague sense of the game's position and post responses without giving adequate consideration", but that still doesn't tell me why he would want to bring it up. I ask him what difference does it make if he is playing at the top of his game or not, should I read tells any differently?

The 'sense of game positioning' response was an explanation of why my initial response wasn't as clear as it could have been. I wasn't telling you to read my posts any differently, I was giving an explanation which you asked for!

e. NQT goes back to his tactic of totally ignoring what I actually asked, in favor of deciding everything will be better if he just clarifies that he specifically is bad early game.

Where are you even getting this from? You asked me questions, I gave you answers. It's okay not to like my answers but don't pretend I never gave them. You've convinced yourself I'm scum and are now working up further evidence for the case. It's just confirmation bias. Your case doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Tiruin

At this stage of the game, you seemed to me that you were just FoS'ing or voting people for attention to queries-giving off the sign that you seem more apt to query than to proceed with a line of interrogative statements and build a lead or case on that. Superficial strikes, to say bluntly.

When I made the post to which you refer it was still early in the day. Really there's very little to go on on day one. I'm making sure to follow up on various leads.

On that thing on Max, you're replying to what his context is, right--the BM, explicitly? Because that thing you say there like 'I'm not a cop' could translate to a soft claim or stuff like that--wherein the term cop could relate to a lot of things with the theme of 'inspect' here. Just to say in advance given the...dueling statements on that one part.

Well quite, I was just saying I don't have a role that doesn't strictly exist in this game. I didn't intend to make any claims for or against having an inspect-role.

Cmega

I disagree. One careless mistake in your answer to that question can help a lot later on.

I doubt it. Look, why don't you tell me about what you think of Max's case. As far as I can see it's the only seriously lynch vote so far. So does he have a good argument or not?

[notquitethere]

Analysis 1
We're getting close to the nominal day end here. Everyone has had enough time to talk to everyone else. I've compiled a list of who each player has directed questions at. It takes little effort to ask general questions or answer incoming enquiries without any follow up. What takes effort and is indicative of townplay is players who ask questions of everyone and follow them up.

Spoiler: Who has asked questions of whom (click to show/hide)

Persus-
  -Jim
  -any vets
  -NQT
  -Caz
  -Cmega
  -Imp (kind of)

Nerjin-
  -everyone
  -Imp
  -NQT
  -Max

Kleril-
  -all
  -Caz
  -NQT
  -Imp
  -Toony
  -Jim
  -Max


Max-
  -Jim
  -Tiruin
  -Caz
  -NQT
  -Kleril
  -Toony -off-topic
  -Persus
  

NQT
  -Nerjin
  -Caz
  -Kleril
  -Jim
  -Cmega
  -Tiruin
  -Max
  -Persus
  -Imp
  -Toony

Caz
  -Kleril
  -Max
  -Nerjin
  -NQT
  -Imp
  -Persus
  -Cmega
  -Tiruin
  -Toony
  -Jim


Imp
  -General question for all
  -Persus
  -Jim
  -Caz
  -Cmega
  -Toony
  -Tiruin
  -NQT
  -Nerjin
  -Max
  -Kleril

Cmega
  -NQT
  -All
  -Tiruin
  -Caz

Jim
 -NQT
 -Nerjin
 -Kleril
 -Caz
 -Persus
 -Imp
 -Max

Tiruin
  -Nerjin
  -Kleril
  -Max
  -NQT
  -Imp
  -Toony
  -Caz
  -Jim
  -Cmega

Toony
  -Imp
  -Cmega

If anyone disputes any of the above, please provide quotes. I only included questions and accusations directed at players, not replies with no follow up.

Points of note:

Imp, NQT and Caz are the only players to have asked questions of everyone.

Tiruin has questioned everyone except Persus. Why the omission?

Nerjin, Persus, Cmega and Toony have directed questions at fewer than half the total players. Toony has said he's busy and Persus and Cmega are newplayers. What's Nerjin's excuse?

Kleril asked questions of six players but has now replaced out.

Jim has played very passively, mostly just responding to questions. He has yet to direct a question at Toony, Tiruin, Cmega (though he accused the latter of going through the motions but didn't take this accusation anywhere). He said he was just getting started with the questions, I've still yet to see it. What's your defence Jim?

Max has the only serious case in the game and yet he has yet to meaningfully question Cmega, Toony, Imp or Nerjin. What's a bigger scum-slip: being defensive, or not actually scum-hunting?

[Imp]

Persus13:

Persus13:
Imagine your role made you be a Town fortune teller this game.  During N1 you make your selection of who to inspect and receive a result of 'changer' from it.  There was no kill N1.  Do you take any sort of action which might expose your role on D2?  Why or why not?

I would wait a day, and check some of the old Supernatural games to see what was wrong unless I was going to get lynched that day or I thought I'd get converted/night-killed that night.

Hey, Imp, I'm failing to see how this question helps you. It seems like a pretty specific scenario.

*considers the question*  I wasn't aware that you considered pretty specific scenario questions unhelpful.

Specifically, I'd noticed that you'd asked Jim a question about his opinion of the most dangerous Scumteam (a question he'd been asked and had answered S5; his newest answer hasn't changed from then).  That got me to wondering your overall absorption of the previous games, which was part of why I picked this question to go to you.

Spoiler: The situation harkens back to S3 and S4 (click to show/hide)

S3 is the game that (probably) shaped Jim's opinion of the most dangerous Scumteam.  Three Town investigators on N2 checked out Scum players, two of them picking the Vampire leader, the only player able to convert others to the cult; One, a Sage, died to the already converted SK's puppet after getting the vision of Jim being anti-town. The oracle picked a vamp slave to check, but was converted that night - so in that game neither of those investigators had any chance to speak about it as Town.  The third investigator, a Fortune Teller, also investigated Jim that night and got the result, 'changer'.  The converted Oracle decided to pick that fortune teller as his target to misclaim as having seen as a vampire.  The fortune teller was confused, and talked to town about having seen Jim as a changer.  Jim claimed to be priest, the Fortune teller was D3 lynch, this tipped the balance enough for Scum to win long before it appeared to be a lynch right or lose situation.

S4 again saw vampires as Scum.  There were some nights with kills, some nights without, and people were discussing a Devil offering deals.  N3 a Town Fortune Teller (happened to be Max White) picked up a changer result on the as-yet-unclaimed third party Demon; that same night had a nightkill where a vampire slave died.  The fortune teller's first post D4 may have been a bit excited, but it more or less pounced on the Devil's changer status, also claiming the first two inspects and results.  To much happened from this choice for me to reasonable summarize; it affected all the rest of the game.

By asking you this question I hoped to get another bit of insight into your absorption of the game's history, as well as a look at your thinking in regards to your intentions regarding your own caution, aggression, awareness, and concern about certain types of Scum we could be facing, and some of the clues that might suggest we faced one type or another.  I'd have happily accepted learning anything your answer could have told me about you and your thinking.

Would you say you mostly skimmed or remember little about each of the previous S games?  Did you enjoy reading them, did they make sense?  Which one was your favorite?  Was there one you found the least interesting?

Jim Groovester:

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like feeling challenged?  Feeling successful?  Feeling useful?  Feeling clever?

On a scale from 1 to why is a numerical rating of ToonyMan's emotions relevant?

There's many possible questions to ask, many possible ways to ask them.  Toony's seemed to have little time to put into the game so far, I hoped to ask a question that could be quickly answered yet still give me a range of likely answers which might help me understand his thinking/see how utterly unwilling he was to distinguish answers.

Jim:
In general, how careful would you say you are to make sure that you are being accurate, particularly before you close off a route of inquiry or a line of thought?  Does that level of care differ when it is your inquiry or line of thought, or another person's?  Does your level of care change when the other person's inquiry or line of thought is being presented by an experienced player versus a newbie?

...

What?

This is a complicated and annoyingly phrased question.

You stepped into a question from Caz to me, not to answer it, nor to (directly) say it shouldn't have been asked, but to volunteer related (and accidental) misinformation.  Yours is a very confident tone and you are a strong speaker.  I'd like to understand better what you think about how careful you (usually) are with facts and how quick you are to close off ideas before they have been investigated.

I'd also like to know, roughly, how your 'fact checking'/'idea dismissal' reactions differ when you respond to these three classes: Yourself.  Experienced players.  New players.

Caz:

You're basically saying that people shouldn't help newbies because they might be helping scum, correct? I guess I can agree with that.

No, I am not.  Helping newbies (or even experienced players) be they Scum or Town is a completely separate issue from FINDING SCUM.  Both can be done AT THE SAME TIME.

Okay, they're separate issues. How is this answering the question?

Wow.

Reread what you asked me.

Your question was this:  "You're basically saying [blah], correct?"  So I answered you:  "No, I am not.", as in "Wrong.  No, I am not [saying blah]."

are you in favour of helping newbies or not?

I am in favor of helping, period. Newbies, experienced players, non players, the moderator.  Note that what I mean by helping probably encompasses far more than what for you that word means.

It's in your best interests for me to play effectively, unless you are scum.

Yeah, I'm not going to go back on my answers just because you find some imaginary fault in them.

Going back on your answers, versus correcting a mistake (if you made one).  Is that the same thing to you?  You may think it's convincing to explain away my challenge against your words and the attitude they spring from as 'imaginary'.  I'm not concerned with whether you're a jerk or not.  I'm concerned with whether you're a Town or an anti-Town jerk.  You're looking pretty anti-Town to me, but it does look like you're also trying to Scum hunt.  I won't vote you for being an idiot or making mistakes; if it happens it'll be because of the probability I see in your being Scum.

Though I am glad you've given up on that train of thought, it does bother me that you want to keep going over it.

Where'd you get that misperception from?

@Imp:
What's your next move, now that the almighty mod has clarified the 11 / 12 players issue?

Continue to play, completely content that I need give that closed path no more attention, other than the questions of others request that I do.

Imp

First, there are only 11 players, not 12.

Well, there goes that theory. Either Imp was being overly cautious, or is just spinning bullshit to distract from the real discussion going on. What do you say to that, Imp?

If you'd prefer for me to ignore a question, do not bother to ask it.  Any attempt you make to over exaggerate my answer or to attack me for having answered a question appears, as does you asking any questions that you do not want answered, to be you "just spinning bullshit to distract from the real discussion".

Caz

Do we still have that mafia forum bot? A list of posts posted by each player might do well to see who is trying to keep out of the way, though there hasn't been much lurking so far.

Regularly checking the lurker tracker is pretty good for that. I'd noticed that Nerjin in particular has been a bit absent.

You might find a link helpful.

Tiruin:

Imp

None the less, if I was running a D&D game with players, I'd feel very confident that I'd dropped a 'reasonable to catch series of clues' even for newbie players - presuming the newbies did what I asked (and what several of them said they were doing).

You use every kind of experience and method to analyze others?

If I remember information and perceive its correlation to the current situation, I include it in my analysis, yes.  I am a gestalt thinker; a 'wholeistic' thinker (thinking in wholes, thinking of absolutely everything at as part of an entire whole).  The more you know, the more you can know; period.

Secondly, assuming you're town (vanilla), how would you judge a lynch on a person who you primarily think is town? What would you do-and if such, how will you further your goal of picking out the 'badguys'. Wait till next day, let the lynch off, or...?

Judging, as in my thinking about those voting?  I consider their votes on that target along with all the other factors I'm aware of.

What would I do about it?  Super situational dependent.  Some of my more likely reactions:  Openly compare that town-like target's scumminess to the scumminess of those I believe more likely to be scum; invite others to help convince me that the town-like target was indeed the better pick and why; understand their logic and agree with the information presented; understand their logic and disagree with the information presented, then present my new/continued concerns and explain why I was not convinced.  Consider reactions, inter-reactions, and outcome(s).

With the way you use voting, what difference is there between a pressure vote and a lynch vote?

notquitethere:

Kleril

I plan on improving by taking a more offensive stance, and not just sitting back while things happen around me. Last game nearly all of my replies were defensively replying to accusatory posts, and that didn't help much. Speaking up when I notice things, and when they don't sit right with my gut.

There's this idea in chess (and other games) called momentum, if you're always reacting to the other player's move they've got momentum. You need to seize momentum by proactively asking questions and querying other player's behaviour.

What about how 'games' like Aikido use momentum?  Bullfighting, even...  I enjoyed reading parts of WC3 (and in time I'll read it all).  Do you see the way you create momentum in Mafia as being highly similar to how momentum works in a chess game?

Cmega3:

EVERYONE: What role would you most like to have and why?

Hmm...
I think either a monster hunter, or sexton. Both could have very interesting roleplaying implications, if used correctly.
For monster hunter, I imagine a weathered veteran with a war-axe slung over his back, and for sexton I imagine an old madman grave-digger with a crazy twinkle in his eye.

How are you intending on using roleplay within this game?

kleril:

I'm out. I'm in no state to play, and I apologize.

... Good luck guy.  Might want to post again and bold the words requesting replacement, that's something of a tradition in that kind of request if I understand right, though our rules don't specifically say either way.

Max White:

Jim
Have we ever had a player come back town but with a different role? There was something about a lone vampire who pimped himself out to the town in exchange for a chance to full a survivor role, but that is still technically third party. Has anybody ever still been a townie, but with a new skill set?

Not to my recollection.

Spoiler: Adding more historic detail about resurrection outcomes (click to show/hide)

S1: N2 saw a pious Town resurrect a Town warlock.  He remained warlock, was slain again by Scum werewolf N3.

S2: N2 saw a sinful Town priest resurrect a Town warlock who returned as a demon. The demon made no actions N3, picked someone to kill N4, and was lynched D5

S3: N1 saw a necromancer raise a Town dreamwalker as his (hidden) zombie killer.  There were no priest resurrections S3.

S4: N1 saw a (unspecified, but clearly not pious) Town priest resurrect a Town priest who returned as a demon.  This player claimed to have remained a priest and won without use of the night kill, though arguably this win came through a lot of other players' work and was (I think) more luck than masterminded by the demon.

S5 N2 saw both a (unspecified, but clearly not pious) Town priest and a Scum priest attempt to resurrect the same corpse.  The Town priest won a random roll to get the action first, and brought back a Town Monster Hunter as a third party Lone Vampire, who could block (to feed) and if blocked the same player twice in a row, that player would die.

N3 saw the (apparently 'pious' to his side) Scum priest raise a Town Knight as a straight Werewolf (seems he lost his Knight role, though this was never tested).

Question for you:  You identify a seriously scummy player fairly early D1.  There's a few real life days before the scheduled nightfall.  How important is it for you to further verify that your intended target is Scum during this time?  How important is it for you to seek the other Scum during this time?

Nerjin:
You're one of the players with fewer posts than most.  When I look over your last two posts, they seem to have been devoted about 25-50% to the attack of Max White through pointing out flaws in his attack on notquitethere, and about 50-75% about defending notquitethere or yourself.  Do you agree with my assessment, or can you present what you see in your posts instead?

Given your relatively low number of posts so far this game, can you explain how devoting 1/3 of them to this purpose serves the achievement of your wincon?

Toonyman:

I'm trying to be really patient with your lack of time for here, so I'm just going to ask you two questions now.

I think Imp is too good a player to make that error

What are you basing this belief upon?

@Max White:

Toony
Putting your education before internet games, for shame!
Will you have a chance to really be active any time soon? I have no read on you what so ever, and that annoys me.

Unfortunately, probably not until Friday or this weekend.  Ideally, I won't die by then so it should work out.

BS.  I think you're too good a player to try to pull that one.  What do you mean by 'working out' if you don't die within a week's time - Exactly 'what' is going to 'work out' 'how'?  That's an entire two weeks of play you'd have mostly not been here for, with at least one player saying "I have no read on you what so ever".

You haven't offered much to go on, but I think I have a read on you.

EVERYONE: What role would you most like to have and why?

The role that let's me win without having to do anything.

Mmmhrm.

[notquitethere]

Imp

What about how 'games' like Aikido use momentum?  Bullfighting, even...  I enjoyed reading parts of WC3 (and in time I'll read it all).  Do you see the way you create momentum in Mafia as being highly similar to how momentum works in a chess game?

Aikido works as a metaphor for scum evasion: good scum will redirect their town opponents aggression and questioning back at them. Mafia is dissimilar to chess in that it is not strictly turn based. In fact, players often trap themselves into turn-like patterns of reactive answers, when they should be increasing their momentum by asking questions.

But look, this is all very nice and amicable but it's not scum-hunting. You never followed up on my answer to your accusation regarding my poor knowledge of Kleril's prior experience. You've since switched votes, but you never acknowledged my response. This makes me think you didn't really care.

Now, there's two serious votes in the game: Max is convinced I'm scum, his argument is there for all to read. Nerjin claims Max is seriously over-reacting. Well, who is right?

[Nerjin]

Nerjin:
You're one of the players with fewer posts than most.  When I look over your last two posts, they seem to have been devoted about 25-50% to the attack of Max White through pointing out flaws in his attack on notquitethere, and about 50-75% about defending notquitethere or yourself.  Do you agree with my assessment, or can you present what you see in your posts instead?

Given your relatively low number of posts so far this game, can you explain how devoting 1/3 of them to this purpose serves the achievement of your wincon?

Do I agree with your assessment? Yes. I do seem to have devoted my posts to doing just those things. How does devoting 1/3 of them to this purpose help me? Simple, that's what I think at the time I post. I suppose I could artificially inflate my post count giving detailed analysis of EVERYTHING everyone says as they say it but that would just be throwing a bunch of chaff out there that'd obscure my actual points. When I have something to say I'll say it.

Let me put it this way: Max's attacks on NQT could have happened to anyone and I would feel that he was simply trying to whip town, or perhaps just himself, into a fever pitch against the player with very little evidence. I'll admit I was taken in by it for a few minutes until I thought about it. NQT is playing dumb not scummy while Max is playing WAY too hard with WAY too little to justify it. That's my view in a nut-shell. If that makes sense.

[notquitethere]

Nerjin— I can understand you not wanting to inflate your post count with chaff, but is there any reason why you've only seriously engaged with less than a third of the other players? Last I heard, scum don't just hunt themselves.

[Tiruin]

PFP

Imp, could'ja use the

Code: [Select]

[hr] thing I said before? :3 Or just space out them paragraphs thanks?

Cmega3

Max white, could you please calm down a bit?
You are acting rather weird.

I'd implore you to address quite much everything directed to you as of late, because its pretty...curious how you've been acting.

Tiruin tilts her hat 45 degrees to the right and looks directly at you.

What's up, son? What do you understand about Mafia?

Imp
I wonder where you got your name..seeing the date of creation. It's rather fascinating speculating on it...I'm always thinking mischievous little cute imp

Anyway.

Tiruin:

Imp

None the less, if I was running a D&D game with players, I'd feel very confident that I'd dropped a 'reasonable to catch series of clues' even for newbie players - presuming the newbies did what I asked (and what several of them said they were doing).

You use every kind of experience and method to analyze others?

If I remember information and perceive its correlation to the current situation, I include it in my analysis, yes.  I am a gestalt thinker; a 'wholeistic' thinker (thinking in wholes, thinking of absolutely everything at as part of an entire whole).  The more you know, the more you can know; period.

Secondly, assuming you're town (vanilla), how would you judge a lynch on a person who you primarily think is town? What would you do-and if such, how will you further your goal of picking out the 'badguys'. Wait till next day, let the lynch off, or...?

Judging, as in my thinking about those voting?  I consider their votes on that target along with all the other factors I'm aware of.

What would I do about it?  Super situational dependent.  Some of my more likely reactions:  Openly compare that town-like target's scumminess to the scumminess of those I believe more likely to be scum; invite others to help convince me that the town-like target was indeed the better pick and why; understand their logic and agree with the information presented; understand their logic and disagree with the information presented, then present my new/continued concerns and explain why I was not convinced.  Consider reactions, inter-reactions, and outcome(s).

With the way you use voting, what difference is there between a pressure vote and a lynch vote?

Ah, the crucial parts. I love you Imp for these notes.

I am amused by human psychology and philosophy, and from experience see the total difference between voting someone and not voting someone-the suspicion doesn't change, but the indication of such in public does, and only that. A pressure vote and a lynch vote, to me, is a subtle ploy (or..manuever? Strategy? Probably Tactic. I can't find the synonyms.), but they work in the same. Sure, you could say that a pressure vote leads up to a lynch vote, but they are both one and the same to me--a vote.


NQT

Tiruin has questioned everyone except Persus. Why the omission?

I believe you believe I believe I track people by your manner? No, I don't.

...To be honest, I've been working on borrowed time (ie stressy day stressy day~) and checking up on the notes I've had per page per person and not doing a checklist of who to interrogate at the time despite my RP attire. I question stuff I see that are noteworthy and Persus' posts are..
*checks lurkertracker*
...Huh. I didn't look deeper into him as as far as I read on him, it came off as newbie-newbie. He's being the newbie, but I don't get a strange malevolent note from him as of late.
Checking all his posts.
...Yeah, read is still the same though I do notice a thorough lack of questions from him (but...his defense is he doesn't know what to ask so... >_>)
Back to the point: It seems you only signify that one out of the 10+ people here have something tangible as of that post. Why? Do you not think anyone else has things to seriously say?

Max has the only serious case in the game and yet he has yet to meaningfully question Cmega, Toony, Imp or Nerjin. What's a bigger scum-slip: being defensive, or not actually scum-hunting?

"Only." "Serious."


I wonder what your line of thinking is there. Is it the notion of question-patterns which relate to alignment, perhaps? Or are you matching people up for reference later on? Explain, either way.

ToonyMan: Where are you~? What have you been doing? Why do you only have a few posts~?

Persus13: Tiruin hands you a welcome to Mafia flyer. It is smooth in texture and glossy to the hand. On the paper is a detailed drawing of a human body, clothed in a rather dashing looking formal blacksuit along with a bowler hat. It is smoking a rather ornate pipe. In its right hand is a revolver, crossed along the chest and its other hand is pointing apparently at the viewer. There are no words on it.

What have you learned as of late--who do you suspect, I want names--why aren't you asking questions? Do you think there are a certain subset of 'right' questions and 'wrong' questions to ask?


PPE NQT

...And then Nerjin :I

Imp

What about how 'games' like Aikido use momentum?  Bullfighting, even...  I enjoyed reading parts of WC3 (and in time I'll read it all).  Do you see the way you create momentum in Mafia as being highly similar to how momentum works in a chess game?

Aikido works as a metaphor for scum evasion: good scum will redirect their town opponents aggression and questioning back at them. Mafia is dissimilar to chess in that it is not strictly turn based. In fact, players often trap themselves into turn-like patterns of reactive answers, when they should be increasing their momentum by asking questions.

But look, this is all very nice and amicable but it's not scum-hunting. You never followed up on my answer to your accusation regarding my poor knowledge of Kleril's prior experience. You've since switched votes, but you never acknowledged my response. This makes me think you didn't really care.

Now, there's two serious votes in the game: Max is convinced I'm scum, his argument is there for all to read. Nerjin claims Max is seriously over-reacting. Well, who is right?

...I love you people and your metaphors xD (Aikido isn't..well, the concepts in Aikido seem relevant but...wow, that's astounding to use it here)

Anyway.

Why are you asking Imp on the matter on 'who is right' NQT? It's like you've both already concluded there on each other and are looking to those around for their conclusion. Emphasis: Conclusion.


Nerjin

Nerjin:
You're one of the players with fewer posts than most.  When I look over your last two posts, they seem to have been devoted about 25-50% to the attack of Max White through pointing out flaws in his attack on notquitethere, and about 50-75% about defending notquitethere or yourself.  Do you agree with my assessment, or can you present what you see in your posts instead?

Given your relatively low number of posts so far this game, can you explain how devoting 1/3 of them to this purpose serves the achievement of your wincon?

Do I agree with your assessment? Yes. I do seem to have devoted my posts to doing just those things. How does devoting 1/3 of them to this purpose help me? Simple, that's what I think at the time I post. I suppose I could artificially inflate my post count giving detailed analysis of EVERYTHING everyone says as they say it but that would just be throwing a bunch of chaff out there that'd obscure my actual points. When I have something to say I'll say it.

Let me put it this way: Max's attacks on NQT could have happened to anyone and I would feel that he was simply trying to whip town, or perhaps just himself, into a fever pitch against the player with very little evidence. I'll admit I was taken in by it for a few minutes until I thought about it. NQT is playing dumb not scummy while Max is playing WAY too hard with WAY too little to justify it. That's my view in a nut-shell. If that makes sense.

...Whip town/himself? Err, what?

NQT is playing dumb?...What?

Max is playing way too hard/too little...how? He seems to be the aggressive type as far as I see.
...Or in my lacking time, I'm just missing your point. I do agree that part of his substance on NQT (mainly that cop tangent) seems rather strange, but I can't see what you're saying straight there.

PPE: GRAAGH

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

I believe you believe I believe I track people by your manner? No, I don't.

Rest assured, I'm certain that you do not take any kind of systematic notes. I found it an interesting omission: often scum will ignore one another or only throw one another softball questions.

Back to the point: It seems you only signify that one out of the 10+ people here have something tangible as of that post. Why? Do you not think anyone else has things to seriously say?

Max has the only serious case in the game and yet he has yet to meaningfully question Cmega, Toony, Imp or Nerjin. What's a bigger scum-slip: being defensive, or not actually scum-hunting?

"Only." "Serious."

My claim is that Max's vote is the most serious in the game, and by association, Nerjin's vote on Max is also serious. I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that everyone else's votes are just pressure votes, prodding people to be more active or explain some small matter.

I wonder what your line of thinking is there. Is it the notion of question-patterns which relate to alignment, perhaps? Or are you matching people up for reference later on? Explain, either way.

My analysis of who has asked whom questions is a good indicator of which players appear to be trying to scumhunt and which players are not. Of particular interest to me are players that do not follow up their initial questions and players that only answer but do offer anything back.

Why are you asking Imp on the matter on 'who is right' NQT? It's like you've both already concluded there on each other and are looking to those around for their conclusion. Emphasis: Conclusion.

Max has an argument against me, Nerjin disputes that argument. They both can't be right and both of them have backed up their positions with lynch-votes. The game has left the RVS and there is now substance to discuss. Can you understand why I'd want players to discuss matters of substance in the game? Is Max or Nerjin correct?

[Tiruin]

Tiruin

I believe you believe I believe I track people by your manner? No, I don't.

Rest assured, I'm certain that you do not take any kind of systematic notes.[...]

>_> Ouch.

I found it an interesting omission: often scum will ignore one another or only throw one another softball questions.

Agreeable. However, isn't this a bit too narrow sighted given your ideas earlier? People are people and are..too broad to consider the softballing. What is your take on the mindset in that scenario, dear sir? I think we're thinking along the same line here, but...

My claim is that Max's vote is the most serious in the game, and by association, Nerjin's vote on Max is also serious. I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that everyone else's votes are just pressure votes, prodding people to be more active or explain some small matter.

But Nerjin's accusing Max based on how serious his vote (and context behind it) is. I'm asking what you're seeing about it considering the same usage of words. One seems to follow the other based on...and the other seems to follow back.

That, or when you say serious, you mean putting up a lot of words explaining words.

Max has an argument against me, Nerjin disputes that argument. They both can't be right and both of them have backed up their positions with lynch-votes. The game has left the RVS and there is now substance to discuss. Can you understand why I'd want players to discuss matters of substance in the game? Is Max or Nerjin correct?

...I do understand, but then I'm wondering why you draw attraction to that one cause as if its a whole detail. Yes, I see it as such, and yeah there is substance, but you seem to be drawing the attraction towards instead of letting it flow freely by that. Or..just that you're stating something significant has happened, which is agreeable.

Each and either is correct in their own mind, but I'm wondering on the stability on what they stand on to base what is correct or not. Checking up.

What I'm asking is why you're asking people to take sides /already/. What is your purview on them?

I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that everyone else's votes are just pressure votes, prodding people to be more active or explain some small matter.

So what are pressure votes for you and what makes them a pressure vote?

My analysis of who has asked whom questions is a good indicator of which players appear to be trying to scumhunt and which players are not. Of particular interest to me are players that do not follow up their initial questions and players that only answer but do offer anything back.

@Latter: Difference from being newbies?

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Cmega3: Tiruin
Imp: ToonyMan
Max White: Cmega3, Nerjin
Nerjin: Caz
notquitethere: Max White
Persus13: Jim Groovester, notquitethere
ToonyMan: Imp


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Tuesday

I'm out. I'm in no state to play, and I apologize.

I'm sorry to hear that. Looks like Toaster is in, then. I'll shoot him a PM.

[Nerjin]

Nerjin

Let me put it this way: Max's attacks on NQT could have happened to anyone and I would feel that he was simply trying to whip town, or perhaps just himself, into a fever pitch against the player with very little evidence. I'll admit I was taken in by it for a few minutes until I thought about it. NQT is playing dumb not scummy while Max is playing WAY too hard with WAY too little to justify it. That's my view in a nut-shell. If that makes sense.

...Whip town/himself? Err, what?

NQT is playing dumb?...What?

Max is playing way too hard/too little...how? He seems to be the aggressive type as far as I see.
...Or in my lacking time, I'm just missing your point. I do agree that part of his substance on NQT (mainly that cop tangent) seems rather strange, but I can't see what you're saying straight there.

I was saying he was trying to whip town into a frenzy. He was trying to drum up a lynch-mob so to speak. I also mentioned that he might just be trying to psych himself up to believe his accusations.

I don't think NQT is playing dumb. I think NQT is playing in a manner that isn't optimal. He's not playing well is what I mean but I don't think he's scum.

My comment about Max is me saying that he seems way to convicted with way too little evidence. Maybe that's just the way he plays. I'll admit I didn't think about that possibility but it still comes off... weird to me. Like he's trying too hard with too little evidence.

Sorry if my points weren't really obvious. I was busy at the time.

[notquitethere]

Nerjin did you miss my earlier question:

Nerjin— I can understand you not wanting to inflate your post count with chaff, but is there any reason why you've only seriously engaged with less than a third of the other players? Last I heard, scum don't just hunt themselves.

Also, I'm pretty sure you never followed up on my detailed response here:

Spoiler: Several Pages Back! (click to show/hide)

Where was I condescending? Tone can be easily mistaken in forum-text, and I didn't intend it. I've got a bit of mafia-experience under my belt. I think I have the smarts, the muscle and the heart to win this time! As for impossible wincons. The last five games:

• In Witches I had to kill all third parties before all the witches were killed, including killing ZU four times
• In Princess I had to survive a whole game where death was meted out by scum randomly
• In BM XLII I died N1 as the cop in a game fraught with participation issues
• In Toon I had to spend a night alone in a room with a boy in a game where not all the other players could be relied on to rationally play to their wincons
• In the Great Temple (though I also admit to lousy play here) I was pretty much the only player that didn't have a power in a game with dubious mechanics

No, this time I have a normal role (town, since you asked). Most of the other players in this game seem somewhat competent, I trust that the game set-up isn't completely broken, and it's at least not out of the realms of possibility that if I die tonight, I'll still win the game. You seem to be saying that scum and town wincons are impossible: what do you know that I don't?

(p.s. I love the image of scooping self-confidence into my raisin bran. You've got a good way with words.)

I guess you really didn't give a damn.


Tiruin

I found it an interesting omission: often scum will ignore one another or only throw one another softball questions.

Agreeable.

Spoiler: OOC language aside (click to show/hide)

'Agreeable' is usually applied to people and not statements. A person is agreeable (they are friendly) or are agreeable towards something (they like it). A British person might say 'reasonable' or 'I'd agree with that', but they wouldn't say 'agreeable'. You're obviously free to use language however you like, but I thought you might like to know as it's not an obvious point.

However, isn't this a bit too narrow sighted given your ideas earlier? People are people and are..too broad to consider the softballing. What is your take on the mindset in that scenario, dear sir? I think we're thinking along the same line here, but...

Are you saying that scum don't send easy questions to their scum mates? It definitely happens. What do you mean people are too 'broad' to consider it?

But Nerjin's accusing Max based on how serious his vote (and context behind it) is. I'm asking what you're seeing about it considering the same usage of words. One seems to follow the other based on...and the other seems to follow back.

That, or when you say serious, you mean putting up a lot of words explaining words.

Let's be clear here: Max has clearly stated that he will see me lynched. No one else in the entire game has made a claim like that. It's not serious because there's a lot of words, it's serious because he claims to be certain that I am scum. No one else has displayed that much certainty.

...I do understand, but then I'm wondering why you draw attraction to that one cause as if its a whole detail. Yes, I see it as such, and yeah there is substance, but you seem to be drawing the attraction towards instead of letting it flow freely by that. Or..just that you're stating something significant has happened, which is agreeable.

I'm attracting attention to it because it's the most significant thing to have happened in the game and I'd like to know people's takes on it. Scum often don't like to make strong reads on other players and forcing players to take a stance is a way of drawing out scum.

Each and either is correct in their own mind, but I'm wondering on the stability on what they stand on to base what is correct or not.

Enough wishy-washy relativism. Each may believe themselves to be correct but as they are diametrically opposed only one can be correct. So which is it?

What I'm asking is why you're asking people to take sides /already/. What is your purview on them?

I'm asking because Max has clearly lined out his argument as to why I am scum (in an alphabetically list, no less!), so now is the time to make a decision. Obviously, I know I am town and I think Max is mistaken but I can't expect anyone to just take my word on that.

So what are pressure votes for you and what makes them a pressure vote?

A pressure vote is just a vote to get someone to post more or to explain themselves. A lynch vote is an active declaration that someone is scum.

My analysis of who has asked whom questions is a good indicator of which players appear to be trying to scumhunt and which players are not. Of particular interest to me are players that do not follow up their initial questions and players that only answer but do offer anything back.

@Latter: Difference from being newbies?

Sure, Newbies can be lax in asking questions. That's why it's interesting to me that Nerjin, Jim and Toony (experienced players) have been so lax in scumhunting. At the moment, though I think he is very mistaken, I think Max is more likely town than Nerjin.


Toaster
When you've caught up and read the thread could you tell us your initial reflections?