Print

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

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

..My initial reaction and response would be 'I'll try', my ulterior motive is 'No' yet my full and holistic answer right now is yes.
All due to a recent revelation.

And what's that recent revelation?

NQT. Because I love him so much

"Tiruin... I— I never knew you felt this way."

GWG

From what I've seen from the other Mafia game I've played, fun isn't nearly as important as winning. Certainly, the standard of behavior required to not get people to lynch you is remarkably high.

I think fun can certainly be had while aiming to win. I was just rereading the last Toon mafia and I was amused to recall that I played in character for the entirety of the game.

notquitethere seems to be fishing for tells to figure out who's who. I'm sure this is a tell that points to him being a scum.

This is cute, GWG, but I'm not going to hang based on such spurious reasoning. Try again.

This aspect was saddened by seeing such unfounded accusations, so he naturally chose to vote for the elimination of notquitethere from the tent.

You might have a shadow of a point here: I've no firm grounds for believing Whitius is scum in any given game, but I've got good grounds for thinking they're scum in at least one of the games. I await their response.

It's mostly a parody of some of the reasoning I've seen in the previous Mafia game I've participated in, which I sincerely hope and simultaneously doubt is unusual.

Strong words, Gee-Dubya. I'd like to see you raise the bar in this game. Random votes at the beginning are fine, but if you still have those random votes for random reasons at the end of the day, then you're singalling that you're either lazy or scum or lazy scum.

DarkPal

I don't think so. I'm not really good at judging character or things like that, and I also haven't been playing Mafia long enough to really know how each of these players play. Sorry, this is all I got on this.

That's OK: I'm going to ask you this again in a few days time and I hope you'll have at least a preliminary sense of character.

Pah, I might offer myself up for replacament if I can't handle three different games at once. I'l try, though.
Also, I'l be quiet for the next 16 or so hours since I'l have to go to bed soon and I have school tommorow.

Eek! I hope you stick with it.

DarkStar

(tent 2) NQT:

A second vote on me, and for no reason? Quelle surprise!

3. Vanilla town, scum, and probably more stuff. Why do you think cop and doctor (especially doctor) are here for certain?

Well, these are roles described in the OP, it seems quite likely. They're not necessarily in every game.

Griffinpup

NotQuiteThere:  Would it be okay if I misspelled your name for humor's sake?

I won't be mortally offended.

NotQuiteThere:  What do you think about the concept of putting pressure on a single person, but in different tents?

I think that might be valuable strategy, and certainly one that would make more sense as the game continues and suspicions sharpen. At the moment I'm putting my main pressure on one player in all tents. This would probably not be a legitimate way to proceed by D2. What do you think?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Mm, I'm unsure how those reasons are in any way good.
Wasn't that your argument?

Ayup.

The evidence is made on the spot and not treated as it shouldn't exist. It is something to be searched for--something to take an action towards, and not something that does not exist unless it should.
Interpretations come and go with the viewpoint, hence why I emphasized communication back there. It is implied.
That's one way to say it, even if I didn't directly say it.

None of what you're saying is convincing me that the BS scumtells everyone's looking for have any kind of merit.


That is how brevity should be. Not these cheesy one-liners.

No. No, it isn't. If it was, I would have answered. You're asking...something about an ulterior motive, maybe? If you were, why'd you phrase it like that? Is there some specific type of purpose or "forwarding" method I would be using?

I've to ask where your question comes from because the origin is 'what purpose were you forwarding'.
Which is actually pretty straightforward if you'd say 'for clarity' or something.
Now I'm... curious. From where did you assume a speculation of ulterior motives? And why?

Now I'm more confused about what you were asking.
And why did I suspect you suspected I had ulterior motives? One, it sounded like you were asking that. Two, everyone seems to be paranoid whilst playing mafia.

Some deaths? Past voting records?

"Player A has persistently voted to lynch people who get whacked by the mafia a turn or two later. Player A is probably part of the mafia."
Stuff like that.

Indulge me in this: Why does this logically make a difference? Why should it be tough? Could you detail what characteristics make it so?

It's hard facts, facts that can't be concealed. These scumtells you people are looking for? They're pretty much nothing. Anyone can fake them, anyone can costlessly avoid them. They're dumb.
And why should what be tough?

notquitethere seems to be fishing for tells to figure out who's who. I'm sure this is a tell that points to him being a scum.

This is cute, GWG, but I'm not going to hang based on such spurious reasoning. Try again.

Wow. I've never seen someone miss the point after the point was explained. Truly, you have a gift for obliviousness.

It's mostly a parody of some of the reasoning I've seen in the previous Mafia game I've participated in, which I sincerely hope and simultaneously doubt is unusual.

Strong words, Gee-Dubya. I'd like to see you raise the bar in this game. Random votes at the beginning are fine, but if you still have those random votes for random reasons at the end of the day, then you're singalling that you're either lazy or scum or lazy scum.

Or, alternatively, I'm aware that these "scumtells" you're looking for are BS. Do you seriously think that the Mafia are unaware of these scumtells, and wouldn't try to avoid dropping them, even by accident? You're going to get more false positives than real ones...especially when you consider that pretty much everyone has given a "scumtell" by now. They're really only useful for reinforcing our initial assumptions.
And let's say that the scumtells work. You seriously expect that I've picked up on all of them by now? Or do you not give a damn for "noobs"? Oh wait, that's another of your precious scumtells, isn't it? Voting for what seems to you to be "random" reasons, as opposed to your stupid but infallible reasoning?

[notquitethere]

GWG

Wow. I've never seen someone miss the point after the point was explained. Truly, you have a gift for obliviousness.

Your point was that a lot of typical arguments in mafia are spurious, but I'm not sure how that amounted to a reason to vote me. You attacked my vote on Whitius, but I'm voting him based on the numbers, with a desire to see his reaction. What am I missing here?

Or, alternatively, I'm aware that these "scumtells" you're looking for are BS.

You're preaching to the choir. I think most things people take to be 'scumtells' are bullshit as well. As I've argued extensively elsewhere. Still, you've got to start the game somehow. A conversation forms, people give justifications for their votes, there may be few good justifications to begin with, but better reasons develop depending on how people act.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What numbers?
And I'm voting for you because voting for WhitiusOpius in every game seems kinda suspicious, definitely unkind (since you're trying to get a player out of every minigame of a game whose principal appeal is that you can keep playing after you've been killed in one), and most importantly because I have no particular reason to vote for anyone else.

Why are you attacking my reasoning as bad if the "scumtells" you use are as bad if not worse?

[Tiruin]

GWG: Define scumhunting.
Next, define the usage of scumtells if anyone can perform them anyway.

Would you like random voting instead and random lynching?

[notquitethere]

GWG

What numbers?
And I'm voting for you because voting for WhitiusOpius in every game seems kinda suspicious, definitely unkind (since you're trying to get a player out of every minigame of a game whose principal appeal is that you can keep playing after you've been killed in one)

Aw, I'm not being deliberately unkind: for one, votes made in the beginning of the game (my first post!) have relatively little weight. They're highly provisional. Also, the numbers I'm talking about:

I know I'm town in every game. Whitius is in every game with me. What are his chances of being town in every game? 3/4 * 3/4 * 4/5 = 9/20. He has a less-than-half chance of rolling town in all three games. I'd like to try lynching him in at least one of them. At least, until a better reason to lynch someone else appears.

and most importantly because I have no particular reason to vote for anyone else.

That's fine at this stage: as I said though, if that's still your reason for voting me at the end of this day then we might have a problem. It's fine to think 'scumtells' are bogus. But you're expected to advance some kind of reason for lynching someone, even if it's just "I don't think this player is contributing much to the game" or something like that.

Why are you attacking my reasoning as bad if the "scumtells" you use are as bad if not worse?

I think you've got a serious misconception about me and my reasoning. Here are what I take to be good reasons to vote someone:

Early Game (i.e. first half of Day 1)
1. Pressure a person into answering your question
2. Pressure a person into explaining something they said that didn't sound right
3. Pressure a person into contributing more
4. Vote someone for suspicious activity (voting patterns, claims, inspects etc.)
5. Vote confirmed scum.

Mid Game (i.e. end of Day 1 to end of Day 2)
1. Pressure a person into explaining something they said that didn't sound right
2. Pressure a person into contributing more
3. Vote someone with suspicious activity (voting patterns, inspects, claims etc.)
4. Vote confirmed scum.

Late Game (i.e. Day 3 onwards or MYLO/LYLO, whichever's first)
1. Vote someone for suspicious activity (voting patterns, claims, inspects etc.)
2. Vote confirmed scum.

[GreatWyrmGold]

GWG: Define scumhunting.
Next, define the usage of scumtells if anyone can perform them anyway.
Would you like random voting instead and random lynching?

Scumhunting: Trying to figure out who the "mafia" players are.
They don't do much, practically. That's my point.
At this stage of the game, random voting and lynching is going to happen regardless of if I want it or not. I want honesty that that's what's going on, and that your "scumtells" everyone's talking about how I should be basing it on are subjective and meaningless.

I know I'm town in every game. Whitius is in every game with me. What are his chances of being town in every game? 3/4 * 3/4 * 4/5 = 9/20. He has a less-than-half chance of rolling town in all three games. I'd like to try lynching him in at least one of them. At least, until a better reason to lynch someone else appears.

You know what? That same logic can be applied to anyone. Or to any assortment of three people chosen from various games. There is an equal chance that WhitiusOpius is mafia in at least one game as that one of the people I voted for is mafia in that game.

That's fine at this stage: as I said though, if that's still your reason for voting me at the end of this day then we might have a problem. It's fine to think 'scumtells' are bogus. But you're expected to advance some kind of reason for lynching someone, even if it's just "I don't think this player is contributing much to the game" or something like that.

I've given a reason. You don't like that I'm complaining about the way you play? Too bad, it's still more legitimate than voting to lynch someone because there's a 55% chance that one of him is a mafia.

I think you've got a serious misconception about me and my reasoning. Here are what I take to be good reasons to vote someone:
Early Game (i.e. first half of Day 1)
1. Pressure a person into answering your question
2. Pressure a person into explaining something they said that didn't sound right
3. Pressure a person into contributing more
4. Vote someone for suspicious activity (voting patterns, claims, inspects etc.)
5. Vote confirmed scum.
Mid Game (i.e. end of Day 1 to end of Day 2)
1. Pressure a person into explaining something they said that didn't sound right
2. Pressure a person into contributing more
3. Vote someone with suspicious activity (voting patterns, inspects, claims etc.)
4. Vote confirmed scum.
Late Game (i.e. Day 3 onwards or MYLO/LYLO, whichever's first)
1. Vote someone for suspicious activity (voting patterns, claims, inspects etc.)
2. Vote confirmed scum.

I notice that pretty much every step of every day involves a very much subjective measure of "suspicious," "didn't sound right," etc, which can be applied to anyone over the course of a turn. If you post enough, you probably said something that can be construed as a scumtell, and in extreme cases the posting rate itself can be a scumtell. Didn't post much? That's also a scumtell. Complains or argues? Scumtell. Agrees too much? Scumtell. Let me put it this way:

Spoiler: Because it's cathartic (click to show/hide)

Everything's a scumtell!
Everything's a tell, if you are paranoid.
Everything's a scumtell;
This you cannot avoid!

Everything is better when we stop this blather.
Stop the crap, all of us; that is what I'd rather--
A fact you should gather!

It's the same--I'm like you, you're like me,
We're all acting suspiciously.

Everything's a scumtell!
Everything's a tell, if you are paranoid.
Everything's a scumtell;
This you cannot avoid!

Have you heard the news? Going over well,
Games are good, if we just drop the scumtell.
Lost tactics? It's a new opportunity
To destench the Mafia Community.
The...um...yeah, I'm running out of steam here.

[Tiruin]

PFP

Goodness GWG. Playing the generalist.

Oooooo yes everything's a scumtell~
What matters is the context and essence of why it is a scumtell instead of basing it on your spurious case of paranoia.
Could you in the least detail something for this time rather then go with your brevity like you laid out before?

Scumhunting: Trying to figure out who the "mafia" players are.
They don't do much, practically. That's my point.
At this stage of the game, random voting and lynching is going to happen regardless of if I want it or not. I want honesty that that's what's going on, and that your "scumtells" everyone's talking about how I should be basing it on are subjective and meaningless.

Ahh yes, let's generalize.

Bring out your context and let's talk about that, Mister I know better than all of you.

[notquitethere]

GWG

You know what? That same logic can be applied to anyone. Or to any assortment of three people chosen from various games. There is an equal chance that WhitiusOpius is mafia in at least one game as that one of the people I voted for is mafia in that game.

The difference is, I'm playing in all games with Whitius. I'm only playing in two games with you, so your chance of being town in all games from my perspective are: 4/5 * 3/4 * 4/5, or 12/25. There's not much in it, but mathematically, I've got a better reason to vote Whitius right now. And even this isn't a very strong reason, but the fact that they've yet to post is also another good reason to vote them: an inactive player can't be relied on to help town win at LYLO.

I've given a reason. You don't like that I'm complaining about the way you play? Too bad, it's still more legitimate than voting to lynch someone because there's a 55% chance that one of him is a mafia.

I'm saying you seem to have voted based on a false idea of how I play. Also you've got a misconception about the lynch vote. The person a competent player votes at the beginning of Day 1 is not necessarily the person they'll decide to vote at the end of the day. I like to use my vote pro-actively to encourage players to post more. My votes will stay on Whitius until they post (or unless a scum player outright claims or whathaveyou).

I notice that pretty much every step of every day involves a very much subjective measure of "suspicious," "didn't sound right," etc, which can be applied to anyone over the course of a turn.

OK, there's a kernel of a good argument here but you're fighting the wrong person. Asking people to explain themselves when it's not clear to you why a town player would say the thing they just said (and backing up such a request with a threat of a vote) is legitimate scumhunting. Do you disagree? What you won't know is that I usually take a very objective tact to lynching (as opposed to just voting, there's a difference): I have determined scum and town tendencies that show up in voting and posting (see the theory thread) and I'll often use these metrics to inform my vote from Day 2 onwards. I also like to use logic to analyse different claims to make to discover liars. You're quite right that in the beginning of the game there's very little to go on.

I like the tact that you're taking. I agree with you that most of what people on this forum believe to be scumtells is just smoke and mirrors. There's a reason why town almost always lynch fellow town on D1.

[Tiruin]

I like the tact that you're taking. I agree with you that most of what people on this forum believe to be scumtells is just smoke and mirrors. There's a reason why town almost always lynch fellow town on D1.

Expound. There's a reason why town almost always lynch fellow town on D1.

Yet what you, and he, state are just generalities once more. You agree them to be smoke and mirrors--aye, I feel that way too, yet I persist that such an idea comes from the context of the situation and time being: how the situation is presented, akin to now on how somehow we are all questioning each other not based on specific tent but as a general mode of discourse.

So both of you, *ahem* enlighten us.

[darkpaladin109]

I guess I'd like someone to replace me, if that's alright. I can't really keep commitment to this game right now, with my current schedule and all the other things I'm in.

[notquitethere]

Tent 2

Dark Star and GWG: you're both about to be responsible for mislynching me in Tent 2. Whitius hasn't posted yet and Griffinpup has scarcely said a thing and we're nearing the end of Day 1. Now's your last chance: do you really think I'm the best person to lynch? Make your case well because your comrades will judge you on it after my flip.

Tent 3/ Tent 4
I'm going to break the tie in an hour if no one else does before hand. Dark star, GWG, Tiruin why should I vote for the other?

[griffinpup]

Sorry guys, i forgot that I could vote. 

Tent 1: Turuin, I believe you missed my questions to you?

The reasoning for this vote is that it doesn't tie the vote, and the person currently being lynched is inactive right now anyways.
Actually, Unvote, Vote DarkPaladin109
I don't want the votes somehow tying up on this one.
Tent 2:

Whitius hasn't posted yet and Griffinpup has scarcely said a thing and we're nearing the end of Day 1. Now's your last chance: do you really think I'm the best person to lynch? Make your case well because your comrades will judge you on it after my flip.

Eh, weak.  An obvious, yet understandable attempt to save your own skin.  Lynching  Whitius would make sense to lynch, yet... I shouldn't tie the vote and no-lynch the first round.  That practically wastes a day.  So no vote in this tent.

Tent 4: vote WhitiusOpus

Post sometime, man.  At least the other 2 characters on deathrow post quite heavily.

[notquitethere]

DarkStar 3 to break the tie.

I respect you not wanting to tie 2, Griff. It'll be LYLO tomorrow so bear that in mind.

[flabort]

One hour until Day 1 ends and Night 1 begins. Darkpaladin109 has requested a replacement.

VOTECOUNTS:
Tent 1:
Tiruin (0):
TheDarkStar (1): Tiruin
DarkPaladin109 (3): GreatWyrmGold, TheDarkStar, Griffinpup
GreatWyrmGold (0):
Griffinpup (0):
Not Voting (1): DarkPaladin109

Tent 2:
WhitiusOpus (1): NotQuiteThere
TheDarkStar (0):
NotQuiteThere (2): GreatWyrmGold, TheDarkStar
Griffinpup (0):
GreatWyrmGold (0):
Not Voting (2): WhitiusOpus, Griffinpup

Tent 3:
DarkPaladin109 (0):
TheDarkStar (2): Tiruin, NotQuiteThere
NotQuiteThere (0):
WhitiusOpus (0):
Tiruin (1): TheDarkStar
Not Voting (2): DarkPaladin109, WhitiusOpus

Tent 4:
Griffinpup (0):
GreatWyrmGold (1): Tiruin
Tiruin (1): GreatWyrmGold
WhitiusOpus (2): NotQuiteThere, Griffinpup
DarkPaladin109 (0):
NotQuiteThere (0):
Not Voting (2): WhituisOpus, DarkPaladin109