Print

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

[notquitethere]

Max

NQT: What was that bit about the last laugh?  I'm sorry buddy, I did try to get you lynched day 1 just so that we could bring you back to life as scum and roll to victory, but best laid plans and all. Although seriously, don't give out early role information! Speaking as scum, we do use that sort of information, your early claim was very useful to us.

Yeah yeah. If I'd have know that a three-person scum team with a choice of convert or kill was a possibility I'd have lynched the lot of you.

Imp

Oh.  And NQT.  A rather humbled Imp's interested in listening to that talk whenever you'd like to start it.

Basically: whatever you thought was a scum tell for me, is definitely not a scum tell. As you can see from my spreadsheet, scum tend to have the fewest genuine targets for suspicion. If a player seems Hamlet-like in indecision and appears to frequently reassess their views, then they're probably not scum. If a player is willing to put significant effort into assessing people's actions throughout the the game, then they're probably not scum.

Persus

Nice job Tiruin and Toaster. Looks like NQT was right. I was wondering why Tiruin was being so defensive about me thinking she wasn't an illusionist.

Rule #27 of B12 Mafia: Tiruin is never town.

Leafsnail

4 scum out of 11 players is way too many, particularly if the converted player can bring an extra kill with them.

It was a game that I was playing in, thus it was impossible that I'd actually be able to win.

Max

Eh, if you shift methods enough then sure it will eventually find scum and you can claim it works.
He method failed him in regards to Nenjin, Jim and Imp who were actually townies.

Well Imp had the largest post count and was town. All of his vote analysis picks were scum.

Exactly this: every time I tried to reason through how people were acting I voted town, but both my analytical tools infallible showed who was scum. I think I might have cracked this game.

Toaster

I don't think I want to play mafia ever again.

And I was complimenting your play in scum chat!

Cheers. I think I will probably play again, I snap back quickly out of despondency.

NQT is a logical player that brings a very novel (and reasonably effective) approach to scumhunting, and he makes games interesting simply for doing things differently than everyone else. He just has a bit of trouble looking outside his methodology- and it all breaks down in situations like this one. Vote records are pretty bad for tracking down a conversion.

Thanks for the compliment! I think if I'd have known a one-shot conversion was possible, I might have been able to see it in change of voting patterns. Maybe. I guess I prefer games where I have full knowledge of the possible mechanics while I'm actually playing.

Tiruin

...NQT, you don't know how much I'd like to hug you and tell you you're right. You're right for the right reasons, and on the wrong team.

Aw, well that's nice. Makes me want to play another game and damn well win for once.

[Tiruin]

Max

Eh, if you shift methods enough then sure it will eventually find scum and you can claim it works.
He method failed him in regards to Nenjin, Jim and Imp who were actually townies.

Well Imp had the largest post count and was town. All of his vote analysis picks were scum.

Exactly this: every time I tried to reason through how people were acting I voted town, but both my analytical tools infallible showed who was scum. I think I might have cracked this game.

Not the game, but a crucial mindset which I see many scum-players subconsciously keep in mind. Do note that the team-value seems more set in; the short term value, than the long-term one.
..Sorry Caz >_>
So yeah. I do believe that instead of you cracking a game, you cracked a mindset and made it more apparent!

Persus

Nice job Tiruin and Toaster. Looks like NQT was right. I was wondering why Tiruin was being so defensive about me thinking she wasn't an illusionist.

Rule #27 of B12 Mafia: Tiruin is never town.

:I
I'm town!..Sometimes. Also I was in the mindset of being an illusionist because..that's exactly what I would do if I was an illusionist..
..But the defensive reasons I think I gave back there.

[ToonyMan]

You know Tiruin I do really hate how you avoid being attacked by people by putting up a fortress of words on invaders and making them completely dread even leading a question on you.  I probably would have followed through with my suspicions on you if I didn't just get exhausted and give up trying to write more than you.

[Tiruin]

And you say that as if I'm making 'a fortress of words' as my intent in doing such? Useless pedantry?

What did you even lead on me back then? I didn't get it. And then you hate me for...what? Was anyone fazed by my words that they completely failed to give an efficient reply?

Or are you saying my English is bad? You don't have to write more than me, just write enough to get your point through.

>_>

[ToonyMan]

You're doing it again.

EDIT:
Okay here's the layout.

I vote you for voting Caz weirdly.  That's all I needed as a reason for my vote.

What I get instead is you shoving down why why why would I do that or where where where was my reasoning to do so.

I voted you because your vote on Caz was weird!  There's no better reasoning!

Eventually my vote on you came down to "why do they care so much" so my added reasoning was that your response against my vote was also weird!

[Tiruin]

You're doing it again.

That isn't even long! D:

I vote you for voting Caz weirdly.  That's all I needed as a reason for my vote.

..Your reason back then was akin to Caz' reason. Shifting votes. You redacted that and did not state the weird part. :S

What I get instead is you shoving down why why why would I do that or where where where was my reasoning to do so.

It didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, it got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw it as going along Caz' reason at the time.

[notquitethere]

It didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, it got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw it as going along Caz' reason at the time.

I think it's paragraphs like this that are the problem. I can't really work out what 'it' is meant to be here. Toony's case? Should I parse what you're saying like this:

Your case didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, your case got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw your case as going along Caz' reason at the time.

Okay, then what does "attached to Toaster's post" mean? And how was his case "going along Caz' reasoning"? Do you mean he was following Caz and Toaster's cases in his case against you? And if so what was wrong with that? It's all very unclear.

[Mephansteras]

Max

NQT: What was that bit about the last laugh?  I'm sorry buddy, I did try to get you lynched day 1 just so that we could bring you back to life as scum and roll to victory, but best laid plans and all. Although seriously, don't give out early role information! Speaking as scum, we do use that sort of information, your early claim was very useful to us.

Yeah yeah. If I'd have know that a three-person scum team with a choice of convert or kill was a possibility I'd have lynched the lot of you.

NQT is a logical player that brings a very novel (and reasonably effective) approach to scumhunting, and he makes games interesting simply for doing things differently than everyone else. He just has a bit of trouble looking outside his methodology- and it all breaks down in situations like this one. Vote records are pretty bad for tracking down a conversion.

Thanks for the compliment! I think if I'd have known a one-shot conversion was possible, I might have been able to see it in change of voting patterns. Maybe. I guess I prefer games where I have full knowledge of the possible mechanics while I'm actually playing.

To a large extent, that sort of this is exactly what makes Supernatural different from Paranormal. Paranormal got to the point where there was lots of meta play based on knowledge of what was possible. There isn't anything wrong with that, of course, but I wanted my next game type to avoid that.

Supernatural is specifically designed to avoid that sort of thing. Just about anything is possible and while most things stay fairly consistent from game to game there are supposed to be constant small shifts that shake things up. I didn't specifically try to do that this time, but it happened anyway.

Supernatural may simply not be the best game type for you.

[notquitethere]

Supernatural may simply not be the best game type for you.

Yeah maybe, it was just that you'd said that there was nothing new in this one (though, sure, you took that back later on) so we were primed not to expect anything that game-changing.

It's really about expectations. I don't mind completely closed games (like BYOR) where everyone has powers and you can formulate as best a plan that you can but you know full well that some unknown factor might well interfere with what you want to do. I didn't think this was going to be like that.

My typical experience with a lot of these mafia games is: slog away trying your best, get near the end and think you're on track for victory, something comes completely out of left-field and makes you lose the game. Is this the kind of game experience we want to people to have?

[Toaster]

That's what different setups are for.  Some are open, some are closed.

[notquitethere]

Sure, but this was effectively started as a semi-open set up when really it was semi-closed. If I'd have known from the beginning 'scum might have some powers we haven't seen before' then I would have played differently, especially at LYLO.

[Imp]

You're doing it again.

That isn't even long! D:

I vote you for voting Caz weirdly.  That's all I needed as a reason for my vote.

..Your reason back then was akin to Caz' reason. Shifting votes. You redacted that and did not state the weird part. :S

What I get instead is you shoving down why why why would I do that or where where where was my reasoning to do so.

It didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, it got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw it as going along Caz' reason at the time.

My 2 cents on this - Tiruin you seem to tend, these days at least, to speak very obliquely in game threads, however you are tending to speak far more directly in the Scum chat.

It's disconcerting to note the great differences, it makes it look like you -do- have control over how directly you speak, and that you are purposefully choosing to not speak clearly when you don't, and choosing to actually speak clearly when you do.

That's disturbing, especially after the game's over - but there's nothing 'actually' wrong with it (it's not rape/murder/theft or actually breaking any rules or anything).  But it is disturbing.

[notquitethere]

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'disturbing'. Also, people always talk differently in different settings. In a scumchat you're typically not trying to defend yourself or develop complex counterarguments.

[Imp]

Max

NQT: What was that bit about the last laugh?  I'm sorry buddy, I did try to get you lynched day 1 just so that we could bring you back to life as scum and roll to victory, but best laid plans and all. Although seriously, don't give out early role information! Speaking as scum, we do use that sort of information, your early claim was very useful to us.

Yeah yeah. If I'd have know that a three-person scum team with a choice of convert or kill was a possibility I'd have lynched the lot of you.

NQT is a logical player that brings a very novel (and reasonably effective) approach to scumhunting, and he makes games interesting simply for doing things differently than everyone else. He just has a bit of trouble looking outside his methodology- and it all breaks down in situations like this one. Vote records are pretty bad for tracking down a conversion.

Thanks for the compliment! I think if I'd have known a one-shot conversion was possible, I might have been able to see it in change of voting patterns. Maybe. I guess I prefer games where I have full knowledge of the possible mechanics while I'm actually playing.

To a large extent, that sort of this is exactly what makes Supernatural different from Paranormal. Paranormal got to the point where there was lots of meta play based on knowledge of what was possible. There isn't anything wrong with that, of course, but I wanted my next game type to avoid that.

Supernatural is specifically designed to avoid that sort of thing. Just about anything is possible and while most things stay fairly consistent from game to game there are supposed to be constant small shifts that shake things up. I didn't specifically try to do that this time, but it happened anyway.

Supernatural may simply not be the best game type for you.

Supernatural may simply not be the best game type for you.

Yeah maybe, it was just that you'd said that there was nothing new in this one (though, sure, you took that back later on) so we were primed not to expect anything that game-changing.

It's really about expectations. I don't mind completely closed games (like BYOR) where everyone has powers and you can formulate as best a plan that you can but you know full well that some unknown factor might well interfere with what you want to do. I didn't think this was going to be like that.

My typical experience with a lot of these mafia games is: slog away trying your best, get near the end and think you're on track for victory, something comes completely out of left-field and makes you lose the game. Is this the kind of game experience we want to people to have?

Sure, but this was effectively started as a semi-open set up when really it was semi-closed. If I'd have known from the beginning 'scum might have some powers we haven't seen before' then I would have played differently, especially at LYLO.

A few questions I want to ask, somewhat related to what's above.  First I'll state that I'm not interested in asking or answering the question 'Is supernatural a fair game'.  To me it is a fascinating game, it's my favorite game type that I know so far, and in terms of how much it interests me, it's a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.  However some of these questions approach things from the direction of 'would this have been more or less fair', even 'would this have made the game more or less of a bastard mod'.  Note you don't have to think the game is fair or unfair to talk about specific differences as making it more or less fair - but I am very interested in a few things.

Like, D1.  When we started play with the 12 player typo + all the pre-game work up clues that connected S6 to the past S5 games, and we were told:

As part of keeping this beginner friendly, I won't be changing any of the roles or rules from last time. So while you still won't know quite what to expect at the start, if you've read all the previous games you should be in decent shape.

That to me is a double-finger point to look extra close at the 'last time', which is S5.  S5 is the sole game that's had a surviving and escaping Scum team member.

Given what we now know about how the game played out, if instead the Scum team did include Webadict-returned in some fashion, if there was an unnamed 12th player, would that have been 'more bastard or less bastard' than what we actually faced in play?

Does it seem reasonable for us as players to 'ever' rule anything out in a Supernatural game, regardless of if we have never seen it before, or if we've seen something similar or not?

I think I have other questions along these lines, but I haven't finished thinking of them yet.

[Imp]

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'disturbing'. Also, people always talk differently in different settings. In a scumchat you're typically not trying to defend yourself or develop complex counterarguments.

One of the biggy Scum tells of you to me was how you were talking differently, very differently, to different people, and a bit -how-.

I spent significant time in the current BYOR game (well, it's over for me, and I'm ONLY talking about my own behavior.. that's alright, right?) realizing that I had to edit almost everything I typed, because though I was trying to act exactly as if I were Town... I was using a totally different writing style.  It was also very similar to how you were writing when addressing Max (who I later realized was Scum, which made me go 'click').

Having recognized a 'Non-Town-Tell' in myself (and I felt darn Scummy in BYOR12, for all I wasn't Scum) - Should I just relax and know that what's a probable Scum tell in me isn't likely to be a Scum tell in anyone else, and hey, people probably won't even notice when I do it?