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.
It's interesting that you view an aikido-like use of momentum as scum-style evasion. I don't necessarily, I think certain people play in an aikido-like way, and you are one of these people - which is not to say I am calling you Scum because of it; I'm still essentially undecided on my impression of your alignment. Your use of momentum appears to me to include a fair amount of evasion, grounding, circling, and indirect approaches.
This'll serve as an example of what I am talking about. I've added (
martial arts related interpretation) throughout this brief quote.
Max
You know it is generally considered poor form to interject on peoples questions before they have been answered.(Direct getting of attention, to the point of attack) It has the possibility to alter how they will answer, kind of defeating the point.(Softer, but still forceful reprimand) Subtle form of buddying you see. (Threat and underlined reprimand)
Very interesting that out of all the questions asked so far you specifically zoned in on the one directed at Tiruin. (adding new direction of attack) I'm left wondering why. (Stancing, preparation of multiple lines of attack) We will get to that once I have my answers. (Threat and promise of further attack)
It's perfectly fair to wait until after Tiruin has answered. (redirection, balance correction) On reasoning it through, you're quite right in that it was bad form of me to be impatient in this regard. (apology, balance correction) So in fact, we can pick this up after her response.(repositioning) My early game isn't always the best, I prefer to have concrete things to work with. (stance change, selection of new line of attack) As such, I'll be bearing a close eye on how people will be voting today. (Return to forward momentum along new selected path) What to you constitutes a valid reason to lynch someone on Day One? (Delivery of new line of inquiry - to soft for me to call an attack - which is not a flaw, especially not in aikido)
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.
I'm not sure how to respond to that charge. Far as I knew it was Scumhunting. I failed to follow up on your answer to my question about your question to Kleril because you brought up a very strong reason (seemed so to me) why I should not, which I bold here -
To address Imp's question: when I asked the question I didn't realise their last game was the one I'm Scum IC in. As they're a (now dead and flipped) town player I didn't ever have direct dealings with them. Obviously, I read the main thread, but I don't necessarily recall all the usernames of new players. We should refrain from talking about current games though. The reason I asked my question was because I wanted to get a sense as to whether Kleril genuinely was looking out for anything different this game. Paradoxocally, a lot of scumhunting consists in assertaining whether your fellows are really scumhunting...
Oh, I care. I might even care way to much. But my every line of follow up (that I can think of) walks right through one or more parts of that ongoing game. I can't even talk about why I found your questions to Kleril seriously objectionable without discussing that game and things that may or may not have been occuring at specific points within it. I am aware (because I've read it mentioned in other threads, but have never seen a rule about it) that ongoing games should not be discussed by those playing in them outside of that game's thread.
So. I percieve no possible follow up to that question at this time, and that I can merely accept or reject your answer. I have decided to accept it at the minimal level and to disregard what it may or may not say about you and your playing here - if you're Scum (and if that was Scummy) either that won't be the only clue you show, or you definately deserve to win through the sheer skill of your play by virtue of showing no other clues that you are Scum. We'll see how the game plays out.
As far as my aikido-esk question to you and my purpose in asking it, it's about understanding what you're willing and able to say about your strategy and comparing that answer to what your strategy itself shows me. That your words are so different from how your strategy appears to me to be is interesting and was unexpected. I'm still thinking that over.
If you are Scum, I somewhat believe that's going to become more evident over time. If you happen to be the Cult Converter, you've got to die asap. Right now I have no idea if we have a cult, a not especially strong sense that you're scum, and a fairly strong expectation that if you live you're going to keep posting and interacting at a fairly high level - this will allow multiple chances to observe you both directly and indirectly and will allow more chances to get a stronger sense of your alignment.
To Cmega3:
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?
To unspecified, at the end of analysis:
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?
To Imp:
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?
To Tiruin:
Can you understand why I'd want players to discuss matters of substance in the game? Is Max or Nerjin correct?
I note that this is not the only topic you're discussing, for all that you've presented it as a serious topic to the point of being near the edge of tacitly suggesting it's the most important issue in the game so far. I wonder if that reflects on how you are the target; I wonder at how I feel myself percieving a plea for help in your words, not just to myself but to each of those you personally ask.
Here is my take on the situation, as of right now, Max's side. Max is pushing you, and pushing you hard. He is not pushing anyone else as hard, right now or as yet. I believe he's trying to 'sound' you, to read your depths in your reactions, and to interpret them as best he can (for himself, honestly? For us, dishonestly? Either is possible, I'm listening for both and everything else I hear) while continuing to press with what I'd call 'great force'.
I know some people call what Max is doing 'scumhunting'. I'm unsure, but I do think it is a form of scumhunting. I do know that to date, I am not convinced by his concerns about you. Nor am I convinced he is wrong. I see flaws in some of his logic, holes in some of of his arguments. I have not previously spoken of them because I don't see them to be markers of his alignment. I won't forget they were included or the circumstances I saw them in, and if they end up seeming like puzzle pieces I'll drop them in the holes they might fit. I am learning small things about how he reacts to you and how you react to him, as well as bits and pieces about others reacting to the situation or its parts. How these bits fit into the larger puzzle that I'm here to help solve, I dunno yet.
You didn't ask for your side to be considered, you asked for Nerjin's. That's so aikido to me. Anyway, I think Nerjin's dead set to defend you. I can't tell what that means yet, if that means that Nerjin defends people and would defend anyone being 'hunted' as you currently are, or if it means anything else. Even just singling out what he says about your 'faults' in this - ahh, the bolded is mine -
To Caz:
I view what NQT did as stupid, no offense to him, but I don't really view it as scum actions.
To Imp:
NQT is playing dumb not scummy
To Tiruin:
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.
To Caz:
BUT the mistakes, for they are there, that Max is claiming are irrefutable proof of NQT's scummyness don't prove anything at all and honestly just seem like bad play to me....It's human nature and what NQT has done, while dumb as hell, doesn't seem particularly scummy.
He's 'ringing the not-Scum' bell for you really hard. Almost to the point I think he may not care -what- else he says, or if it contradicts what he's said before or may say next, as long as it might help get the message that you are not scum across. It seems seriously important to him that we all get that message, and as I bolded - he's either accidentally or intentionally willing to directly contradict himself, repeatedly and pretty freely. That's kinda neat. What does it mean? I'm still thinking that over.
So yeah, in short - This interaction between Max and... Nerjin, right? I thought it involved you too, but somehow you seem not quite there anymore, how aikido-y of you! Anyway, it seems pretty interesting and appears to show various things about each of those people and about a few others too. I'm just adding the information into the 'whole' that I'm trying to understand here, that's my take on this. There's information coming out of it. When put together with other information, perhaps patterns will become evident.
Nerjin:
Bold is my emphasis:
To Imp:
NQT is playing dumb not scummy
To Tiruin:
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.
To Caz:
BUT the mistakes, for they are there, that Max is claiming are irrefutable proof of NQT's scummyness don't prove anything at all and honestly just seem like bad play to me....It's human nature and what NQT has done, while dumb as hell, doesn't seem particularly scummy.
Umm.... what are you doing? It looks like you're flipping back and forth between saying NQT is playing/being dumb, saying he's not, then saying he is again. Are you actually doing that? Why are you doing this?
Also, to comment on your answer,
Because you were putting it on a player who wasn't even in the game. I guess in retrospect it's not that big of a deal but voting on someone who literally CAN'T be lynched is basically abstaining.
I assure you, once I was certain that I was voting for someone who was not a threat to Town (and also could not be lynched, but my focus was the perceived threat to Town), I stopped having any interest in what may appear to you to be 'abstaining' from voting. My vote was not placed with any intention to do anything but to make the most use of it I could see any possible way to use. Had the typo not been there, or had I realized it was a typo and not an intentionally placed clue to go with a long series of other clues all seeming to me to point in a very clear and very threatening direction, my first use of my vote would not have been placed as it was.
Tiruin:
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
Such pleasant topics perhaps should wait for calmer times, or at least less time-pressed and purpose-driven forum topics. Otherwise I'm glad to chat about it. I have curiousity about your curiousity, but I don't see how to connect that to scumhunting, alas.
Also.... it's been a few days. Is silence your answer to this?
Tiruin:
Imagine your role made you be a Cult Sexton this game. During N1 you are informed that the grave of the D1 lynch (a townsperson) has been disturbed - in fact the body is missing! No mention is made of that person's reappearance during D2's opening post and the posts in Scumchat tell you that no Scum was involved in this disappearance. Do you take any sort of action which might expose your role on D2? Why or why not?
Max White:
Imp
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?
It is important to seek other scum at all times. It is also important to verify suspicions, but to at least state them early enough that you aren't jumping in with fifteen minutes until the day ends with a great big case.
How much focus, over the last three days or so, would you say you have put into finding Scum other than notquitethere? You have said that he is Scum; can you explain your reasoning for your ongoing Scumhunting of him without compromising your purpose?
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.
What makes you say NQT has little experience? Isn't he IC in the current beginners game?
Did you misread Nerjin's words of "very little evidence" as "very little experience"? If not, where did Nerjin say this? Here's the
link to the post you quoted if that helps you remember/find it.
Caz:
You offered no real argument against my words except to claim that they were "bullshit".
Did you just not read this?
Caz: One of many new faces to me! Tell me, have you much experience with games of this nature that aren't as clear cut?
Nope! I have no idea what I'm doing. Played a few beginner mafias and enjoyed the #mafia irc. I read through the previous Supernatural games to get a feel, though. Any common newbie mistakes I should watch out for?
And I'd like to ask you about this -
Why would I try to stop you making mistakes? Isn't that why we are here?
It's in your best interests for me to play effectively, unless you are scum.
Part of my job (maybe everyone's) is to attempt to find the Scum, no matter who they are. You could be Scum, none of the 'uninformed majority' knows either way. It's said that it's harder to be the 'informed minority' and act like you don't know what you do indeed know, but also know most other players do not. Newbies make mistakes, but so too do Scum, and it may well be impossible to try to stop ( I don't like the use of the word 'stop' there. correct? forgive? overlook? ignore? Something along those lines is what would actually be happening) newbie mistakes without also stopping Scum mistakes.
Please consider this - then explain to me your choice of either: Why the reasoning in the above paragraph is wrong.
Or: Accepting and including that reasoning, what your new answer to Max White's question would be if you were answering it again now.
First off, you're assuming that newbie mistakes replace and prevent effective play - instead both are likely to be present in a newbie's play, if that newbie's actually trying to actively play and achieve their wincon.
Secondly, you (appear to) assume that it's possible to turn you into an effective player by pointing out common newbie mistakes you should watch for. That's farcically incorrect.
Thirdly, you make the claim that it's in his best interests to invest time, effort, energy, and whatever else it takes, not into Scumhunting, but into making sure that -you- play effectively (or he's Scum). Do you really intend to state that?
To confirm your view: I'm an anti-Town jerk who scumhunts, right?
Nope, I'm not sure yet if you're anti-Town or not. You seem more not-Town then Town to me, but I'm not convinced yet. You do appear to be trying to Scumhunt.
How does the former align with the latter in your view?
Scum have to conceal themselves as not-Scum; appearing to Scumhunt seems to be a very commonly used and highly recommended method.
Do you even read what you write?
Yep. Far more carefully than you read what I write, that seems very obvious.
When you write stuff like this you make me wonder if you bother to remember what you write from day to day.
Where'd you get that misperception from?
Which? You're not still peddling the "Webadict is a zombie!" theory, right? How is this a misperception?
Here's the context which you did whatever with to forget/lose/disregard... bolded for easier understanding.
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.
Why are you making assumptions of whether I want answers to the questions I ask or not? Of course I want answers. It looks more like you're trying to paint me as exaggerating your own answers so that you can ignore my questions.
You ask about a topic I say I won't talk about again unless asked about; you use my answer to make the claim that I want to keep going over what you ask about. One of several reasons I'm sure you're a jerk.
Toonyman:
@Imp:
I think Imp is too good a player to make that error
What are you basing this belief upon?
If you lack the self-esteem to see yourself as a skilled player I should say by my impressions you seem pretty competent or at least proactive.
...Really? I think its a bit too early to make the reference on 'too good to do [this] error' here. Imp is technically fairly new to Bay12 forum mafia..
I could say the same for myself as I don't see myself as skilled at all given...my whole history on this board.
True enough, I can't recall seeing a player mistake a typical game for a bastard but it's probably happened. Although Imp is voting me now for some reason...?
I would appreciate an answer to my question instead of a dodge. None-the-less, I will discuss the garbage you dish out in lieu of an answer, this time.
I do not lack self-esteem. Nor am I unable to analyze my own experiences. You have utterly failed to ask, or notice when it was previously mentioned, which it partially was in this thread. This is my second Mafia game in any format. My first is the currently unfinished Beginner's Mafia on this forum. The next closest game I've ever played to Mafia is
'heads up 7 up' which I last played around 30 years ago - it's a very distant cousin which has almost nothing in common with Mafia. I first noticed Mafia existed about three months ago, and did not start to try and learn its rules until the recent BM started, about a month ago.
You, however, are apparently an experienced player. And you -dare- act confused that you bear my vote.
You have no time for any Scumhunting, yet. This game has extension limits; the maximum possible D extension ends Thursday, the day before your 'best possible time' to actually be able to focus on the game.
However, you see perfectly fit to pick a single detail, give a single reason, and park your vote. You ask no questions about my Scumminess, one of the few 'lessons' that was 'taught' in my not-yet-over first BM - you ask questions and actively scumhunt. Not you - to you I'm Scum because you (don't even bother to really) say so. You have no interest in verifying anything; you brush aside questions from multiple people (not myself) about your vote and its stated reason, one asking you repeatedly about your reasoning. When I ask you for the basis of your thinking, you refuse to give it, instead providing a two-part single sentence of drivel, one part flailing to attempt an attack at my self-esteem, the second part saying that your impressions make me seem competent or at least proactive.
Garbage. I -asked- for the basis of your belief that I was to skilled a player to make what you consider to be that sort of mistake.
To my limited experience and understanding, your behavior looks quite textbook Scumlike. Will you waste more effort on defending yourself than you have so far on your incredibly absent Scumhunting? That would be rather textbook Scumlike too from what I've read.
Toaster:
I can field a couple of those. The zombie was not voteable, but was actionable... if anyone knew the right person to action, when the only possible hint would come from a sexton (who can't do any action against the zombie.) IIRC the zombie goes if the necromancer goes.
Oh thank goodness. I have more questions along that line, and you were the necromancer then, so you might know them. That game, NO ONE but your zombie had a night kill, no member of Town, nor did the Scum - no one in that game could have targeted and removed your zombie - wasn't even a knight or a werebear or any other role who could possibly kill someone targeting them at night. Your role PM did NOT say that the zombie would leave or perish if you died, all it said was you could raise another if it did die.
Are you guessing, or actually maybe recalling correctly, that the zombie goes if the necromancer goes? That would have had to have been something you discussed with Meph in PMs - did you ask that then? How do you know that the zombie was not voteable - is that certain, or a guess? ... If I missed or misunderstood publicly available stuff that you remember, would you link it or at least provide clues for finding it myself?
Toonyman: Welcome in late to the party! If your role gave you a one shot daykill which had to be used on D1 or not at all, who's your pick and why?
This is a very specific question. Have you, perhaps, read Paranormal 11?
Not yet. I like Mafia enough now that I know it exists, I might just read all the games, eventually. Time is an issue. As to my very specific question, I generally prefer specifics. That question was adapted from reading S4, where Leafsnail asked kilakan, "Let's say there's a one-shot daykill floating around. Why exactly shouldn't you be the target?"
A few questions for you: Jim is quiet. How concerned are you about that, and how (what direction(s)) are you concerned about?
What flavor of Scum or known Third party do you consider most dangerous to Town?
And I'd asked this question of Kleril, he never answered so I'll pass it to you now -
Imagine your role made you be a Devil in this game. If you had to pick right now, which other player would you first approach to deal with, and why would you choose that player?
Persus13:
Your game this game is majorly different from the current BM going on. You seem less talkative and asking a lot fewer understandable questions then in BM (though this game may just be much more active) and have come up with a crazy theory for a GM mistake. Is this Scum Imp playing?
No. Keeping in mind that one's apparently not supposed to discuss an ongoing game... at least you're dead in a game that lacks resurrection, so maybe you can talk more freely. I don't know. But I'll try to respond without saying 'too much'.
Other than this game having some differences from the ongoing BM, in roles, unknown role status, tone, the attitude and experience level of most of my fellow players, and a history connecting to some degree with previous incarnations of the game (roles to possibly expect if nothing else) - to me there's not much difference in how I'm playing here as there, and those differences are situational.
I'm not aware of being less talkative, save that over this weekend I had a major headache (9/10 scale of pain for hours; over 25 hours before I felt 'normal' afterwards) that really wiped me out, and usually weekends are more available playtime than weekdays for me, but not during or for a long time after that agony. If you're not talking about my weekend absence, then I dunno what to think.
As to asking less understandable questions, I'll remind you that you can ask for clarification (or outright translation if it's that confusing), even if the question wasn't directed at you. Right now I have no idea what you haven't understood, so I can't try and fix it. As to my 'crazy theory', I didn't recognize the mistake as a mistake until it was confirmed as one.
There's a few differences in your play this game than in the BM too. Is Scum Persus13 playing now? In the BM you seemed to have in general more confidence. Once you replaced in, you really seemed to help get everyone talking with each other more, you asked about things (repeatedly when not quickly answered) including questions about how people were interacting with each other and what people meant when they said things, and you never seemed at a loss for questions to ask or impressions to offer.
Author
Topic: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Game Over! (Read 170579 times)