Print

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

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

How was it not random voting? It was day one!
Someone even said earlier that it's still random voting

[Jack A T]

Fine, I'll use a separate IC voice (increasing the risk of people going after me for advice I fail to tag, but clarifying things a bit).
<<This is my IC voice.  Whatever I say in it is guaranteed to be honest advice.>>

I get hector and Peradon mixed up way too often.
Move vote from hector to Peradon

Cryxis: My questions mostly still apply: Is there something scummy about him accusing you of being scum?  How is he tipping your suspicion (#201)?  If I were to vote for you, would that make me scummy in your eyes?  <<Without further explanation, this is not a convincing case.  While you seem to be hinting at there being something more than just you not liking Peradon's decision to vote for you, that's the only clear point you've made, and it doesn't really say much about Peradon's alignment.  Try to figure out what about his actions got you to suspect him, and explain.>>

I VOTED ROO BECAUSE IT WAS RANDOM VOTING, EVERYONE ELSE VOTED ON THEM AND I VOTED LAST MINUTE BECAUSE OF TIME RESTRAINTS

<<A couple points:
*Random voting stage (RVS) is generally considered over by the time people start making serious cases, and was certainly over by the time you voted.  Granted, people have been quite confused about the length of RVS throughout this game.
*"Everyone else voted on them" is not a good reason to vote for someone: if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?  A bunch of people wanting to kill someone doesn't directly say all that much about that person's alignment.>>

How was it not random voting? It was day one!
Someone even said earlier that it's still random voting

<<Theoretically, random voting is meant to last a real-time day or two at most, not a full game day.  Day 1 had gone well beyond RVS by the time you voted.>>

Ya I think this will be the only game of mafia I ever play

<<Understandable.  Mafia's not everyone's thing, and it's pretty time-consuming and stressful.  If you feel overwhelmed, or are just not having fun, feel free to ask for a replacement if you think that would be for the best.>>
Working on a longer post, but I think this part needs posting quickly.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Well considering that I'm going to get voted out any ways I don't think I need a replacment.
I don't see why all the fuss on me voting Roo, I don't know what I'm doing, I wasn't here until the end of day one to read everything, didn't get anything conclusive so I just voted Roo like everyone else and because they were just tipping my suspicion, maybe it was because so many people were voting on them.

I am mostly voting Peradon not because of the accusation but because of the accusation with no backing to support why they think I am scum. Just an accusation of me targeting someone.

Ya this game just pisses me off and I don't see how people can play it, I'll finish this game but probably won't play another

[Jack A T]

Is this in your IC voice or your normal voice? If it's IC then I'm obligated to trust that you're telling the truth, but claiming that someone was obviously town after they've flipped is mostly empty air.

UXLZ: I'm not a huge fan of IC voices myself, so my first post was IC voiceless.  Since people are confused, I've started using an IC voice: <<this>>.

As for the specific statement, consider it to be in my "I've been watching this game since it started and argh" voice.  The read came from before roo flipped, back when I was not playing.  This should be tempered, from your perspective, by the fact that the first statement I could make came after roo's flip, though.

Again: Probably not. I still stand by that it was a good vote at the time. He was acting incredibly suspicious and Very anti-town. Obviously he was town but that doesn’t mean that he was  a pro-town player.

Nerjin: Taking a position on roo's appearance now, I see.  Why are you only now saying roo was acting suspiciously?

As for what made roo look town to me...

Spoiler: roo's towniness (click to show/hide)

It's not that hard: roo's behaviour, with his background taken into account, makes no sense from a scum perspective and some from a town perspective.

Let's start with the easy part: roo has experience elsewhere.

off topic: Lynching is good especially in a game this size 7-2. No lynching d1 would mean we lose a mislynch. We would lose upon the second mislynch so technically we would only have a single ml. Most importantly tho lynching kills scum. A wagon to analyze is good d2 if there is no wagon it is like we are starting at the beginning all over. Not mention that whatever actions we have we would do them blindly. And you are handing over a townie to the mafia for free. Town controls lynches as their are more townie so generally speaking lynches are a good thing. NLing is the correct option for certain situations, but not this one.

Absolute newbies don't write like this.  There's plenty of jargon, the analysis is solid, and the first sentence indicates experience with games of other sizes.  He's from another site.  One, based on his posts, quite different from ours: dislike of random questions (like in our RVS), heavy emphasis on wagon analysis, a playstyle far more interested in votes than questions, and, most likely, a more 'pure' RVS start.  (MafiaScum, perhaps?  I know they like random bandwagons to start some games.)

And with that in mind, everything starts to make sense.  roo's stuff about the end of RVS and all, along with his hatred of RVS, shows his motive for much of his behaviour: get the players out of RVS as soon as possible and into something productive.  His method, the hector13 push/reaction test (a game-starting method I'm aware is used outside B12 at times) (and it's pretty recognizable as a reaction test.  I mean, just look at it.) failed due to culture clash: Bay 12 values solid, detailed reasoning too much for such a test to work.

He summarized the whole mess well:

I did vote Hector because I was leaning scum on him and insisted he be voted mostly to get reactions as I have stated before. If someone did vote Hector I would certainly raise an eyebrow. It has already been pointed out several time that there was no case. And the vote was mostly a gut vote. I had nothing to go on and the rqs was doing nothing for me. So I used my gut read to get us out of rqs. I saw an opportunity to clear myself and took it no sense im being coy about it. why would I as scum do any of this? better yet why would a scum do any of the things I did?

And that's the key issue: why would scum not only go out of their way to push the game out of RVS, but do so in a way that attracts a ton of votes?  Why would they keep going so strongly against the local style when under heavy fire for doing so?  Remember, that one burst of activity got roo 4 votes, and that didn't persuade him to stop.

Actively behaving in a way that attracts a ton of votes while trying to get the game moving on D1 in this setup: not scum behaviour at all, but it makes sense as bad town behaviour with his personality (arrogant) and background (very non-B12).

As a side note, looking back through his posts, he's mostly comprehensible.  Very different playstyle, but with that taken into account, he can be mostly understood.  If the ICs had been more active and realized what was going on, and had roo been more willing to try the local playstyle, things probably would have gone much, much better.

Hector13: I dont like the way you were trying to buddy up to me. It felt a lot like the last BM we played. You pretty much said that I coulde be trusted because I'm active. This seems like a stupid excuse to me, thus the vote.

Peradon: Can you give examples of how this is like hector's previous behaviour?  <<When using meta evidence like this, giving examples is quite useful.  Also, looking at the messy post #215: please prune your quotes a bit.  Cut them down to the parts you're responding to.>>

Hector: I'm going to wait and see what other people say about the buddying thing before responding to your post. I may have overreacted a little, so I want to see if other people see the buddying...

This is quite an attitude.  How dependent on the opinions of others about the validity of your case are you?  Finally, what distinguishes hector's thing about you and townhood from non-scummy giving of reads?

I don't dislike the idea of us looking at D1, I just don't think there's much value there. This is my opinion, and I'm glad it's not shared by at least one other person.
This is why I asked UXLZ, a fresh player to the game, what they thought because they would hopefully have seen something I overlooked. I would've asked you the same thing, had my brain not been scrambled from so much insomnia.

hector13: Accepted.

However, counter-question: do you think it's wise to keep that disruptive influence in the game? Roo's opinion, based on what happened, would have been a devalued currency after that, so even if they hadn't been lynched, I'm not sure what they could've added to the game that anyone would take seriously.

The guy was disruptive and a loose cannon, yes.  I've dealt with far worse.  <<Read the linked game.  It's hilarious.>>  roo wasn't going after 'lurkers' an hour into the game or anything like that.  In fact, with his background taken into account, roo mostly was understandable.  He was arrogant and played in a way that doesn't work here at all, but there was a sign that he realized he wasn't helping.  Some IC attention could quite possibly have done good (and that is, I think, one of the core purposes of BMs).  Instead, town got lynched.

I thought it was them trying to back out of behaviour that a number of people were seeing as scummy.

And what made you conclude this was more likely than roo having told the truth?  Do you think scum would go after you without giving evidence and expect that to lead to a wagon on you?

Finally, please summarize your case against Peradon.  What are your key points?  I'm having trouble following.
Cryxis: You don't have all that many votes on you.  What makes you think you'll be voted out?
<<Regarding your Peradon vote, I'm just going to point back a bit earlier in the game:>>

Cryxis: What is TheDarkStar advising you to do in RVS? {This is a trick question, which you will see a lot. Town use it to get scum to slip. Scum use it to frame town. It may appear as "are you scum?" or "are you nervous that I am voting you, scumbucket?" or just a plain vote with no comment or question. In all cases but the last, the only correct answer is saying you are not scum. In the last, just show that you are not concerned. Either way, you must answer, which is why I'd like you to answer even with this whole text here.}

[Peradon]

Peradon: Can you give examples of how this is like hector's previous behaviour?  <<When using meta evidence like this, giving examples is quite useful.  Also, looking at the messy post #215: please prune your quotes a bit.  Cut them down to the parts you're responding to.>>

It starts here. But I think ya'll arent understanding what I meant. I'm using that buddying, and looking for something that looks like it. I'm not using it as proof, but rather I'm judging against it, if that makes sense. It gives me a more tangable definition of buddying, nothing more. Thus, when I said that I saw buddying similer to the other BM, I was simply saying that it looked like buddying.

I get the sense that that didnt make sense...

This is quite an attitude.  How dependent on the opinions of others about the validity of your case are you?  Finally, what distinguishes hector's thing about you and townhood from non-scummy giving of reads?

There are 3 experianced players here. You, Nerjin and UXLZ. If all 3 of you say that there I'm seeing things, I know that at the very least, 1 town experianced player does not see it, most likely 2 town players.

To answer your second question: Hectors read was based off of activity, which is not a scum-tell, nor a town-tell. He then says that it was only temporary, which makes no sense. Thus, the "town-read" was full of hot air, thus the buddying.


I dont think I formally asked it, so I will:

Nerjin/UXLZ/Jack A T: Do you see the buddying that I mentioned, or am I just seeing things?

[UXLZ]

I'm not a huge fan of IC voices myself, so my first post was IC voiceless.  Since people are confused, I've started using an IC voice: <<this>>.

Thanks for that, it makes things clearer as to whether or not it's worth trusting what you say. Of course, I didn't particularly think you were lying about it to begin with, but as I said, claiming you read someone as town only after they've flipped is pretty easy to interpret as empty words encouraging people to read you positively. If you weren't an IC I'd be pushing you significantly harder on that kind of claim, though you seem to have provided evidence (or at least an explanation) anyway, which is nice. Then again, I may be too paranoid.

This should be tempered, from your perspective, by the fact that the first statement I could make came after roo's flip, though.

Don't worry too much about giving me advice; anything is still welcome, but the others need your attention a lot more than I do. (My ability to play this game is more than adequate, it's just missing the tempering via experience.)

Nerjin/UXLZ/Jack A T: Do you see the buddying that I mentioned, or am I just seeing things?

I can kiiind of see what you're saying, but it's quite hard to judge because buddying is inherently subjective; that is, Hector may really just be being polite (though the point about his fluctuating read is a fairly good one.)

If you see it as buddying, then keep a close eye on him until he's alleviated your suspicions. Our opinion is (in my opinion) fairly irrelevant, the important thing is what you think you're seeing and using that to drive who you look into the most.
I don't think making an argument purely off of perceived buddying is a good thing though.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Post #228

Because people are still saying I seem suspicious.

I guess it's annoying answering the same stupid question everytime.
I don't get why you would throw an accusation at someone if their only respons is to say they aren't suck no matter who they are, and that people have to answer it multiple times saying the same answer just seems redundant

[Nerjin]

Spoiler: Cyrix (click to show/hide)

I don't see why all the fuss on me voting Roo, I don't know what I'm doing, I wasn't here until the end of day one to read everything, didn't get anything conclusive so I just voted Roo like everyone else and because they were just tipping my suspicion, maybe it was because so many people were voting on them.

The fuss is that you didn't really have any reason to vote other than really vague ones. We're trying to see why you voted him which is very important in this game. I'm sorry to hear you're not having fun but the game isn't for everyone.

Oh god… Jack’s post…

Spoiler: Jack AT (click to show/hide)

Again: Probably not. I still stand by that it was a good vote at the time. He was acting incredibly suspicious and Very anti-town. Obviously he was town but that doesn’t mean that he was  a pro-town player.

Nerjin: Taking a position on roo's appearance now, I see.  Why are you only now saying roo was acting suspiciously?

Because he was acting anti-town and I had just reread the thread so I was more inclined to call him suspicious. You get a different view of someone when you see a bunch of things all at once than when you see the same thing spread out over several days.

As for what made roo look town to me... [...]

Let's start with the easy part: roo has experience elsewhere.

[…] Lynching is good especially in a game this size 7-2. No lynching d1 would mean we lose a mislynch. […] Most importantly tho lynching kills scum. […] Not mention that whatever actions we have we would do them blindly. And you are handing over a townie to the mafia for free. Town controls lynches as their are more townie so generally speaking lynches are a good thing. NLing is the correct option for certain situations, but not this one.

Absolute newbies don't write like this.  There's plenty of jargon, the analysis is solid, and the first sentence indicates experience with games of other sizes.  He's from another site. […]

Hm… Yes, in retrospect that makes sense. However he still floundered around and kicked up a real dust-storm at the time of his postings. Rushing to get out of RVS is fine. The way he did it was just too… sporadic I think is the word.

Granted you mention that it was an issue of culture clash. Fine and dandy. I’m not going to quote the whole thing but I will state that I think you’re right. If you take that into account maybe he wasn’t quite so anti-town as I had thought. Hm… Maybe I’m not cut out for IC-ing as you keep delicately pointing out. Hm… I stand by my reasoning at the time but concede that I messed up there.

Spoiler: Peradon (click to show/hide)

Nerjin: Do you see the buddying that I mentioned, or am I just seeing things?

Here's what I saw: Hector said you seemed town enough for the time being. You flipped out and accused him of buddying you. Now you're just sorta rolling with it. I honestly do not see where you are coming from at all. He said one thing and you accuse him of buddying.

It was actually kinda sit-commy if that makes sense.

[hector13]

And what made you conclude this was more likely than roo having told the truth?  Do you think scum would go after you without giving evidence and expect that to lead to a wagon on you?

Latter first: I think bad scum would try it, yes. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to lead to a wagon, but he attempted it, nonetheless, and I read that as a really scummy thing to do.

Naturally, I was reasonably convinced at the point he claimed "reaction test!" he was scum, so I thought it more likely that roo was trying to back out of a bad situation (3 votes on him at that point) by trying to explain it away as a reaction test.

Finally, please summarize your case against Peradon.  What are your key points?  I'm having trouble following.

Apologies, I get quite verbose when I try to explain things sometimes.

The reasons Peradon gave when they voted for me felt very light for wanting to get someone lynched, especially when in the same post he names two other players he sees as scummier. He explained that away by saying it was in the context of the question, but... I'm not convinced of that.

I didn't understand how I was buddying by town-reading him, and I don't see buddying as a scum-tell either. He's quite clearly misinterpreting my town-read of him; he thinks I won't ever see him as scum because of it.

This made me feel like he was trying to invent a case on me, rather than build one, which is not something I expect out of a town mindset.

I can understand his point on me OMGUS'ing him, but that was a mistake on my part. I felt that putting a little extra pressure on him with an FoS and then a vote would encourage a clearer answer.

He seems to be refusing to consider my points without input from others, namely the three more experienced players in the game. Understandable, but foolish: any of you three could be scum. Indeed, given that you three consist of almost half the players in the game at this point, two of you might be scum. His deference to you as experienced players perhaps means he won't consider that any opinion you give could be coloured by your role in the game.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

It was vague because it was a random vote, it was vague reasoning because I barely had any besides everyone else voting them out so they must be scummy in some way.

[Silthuri]

Votecount:

Cryxis, Prince of Doom: Nerjin
Peradon: Cryxis, hector13,
UXLZ:
ggamer:
hector13: Jack A T, Peradon,
Jack A T:
Nerjin:

Not voting:

Day 2 will end Friday, March 6 at 10:30am EST.

[Peradon]

Apologies, I get quite verbose when I try to explain things sometimes.

The reasons Peradon gave when they voted for me felt very light for wanting to get someone lynched, especially when in the same post he names two other players he sees as scummier. He explained that away by saying it was in the context of the question, but... I'm not convinced of that.

Why are you not convinced? Do you not answer questions in context of the question?

I didn't understand how I was buddying by town-reading him, and I don't see buddying as a scum-tell either. He's quite clearly misinterpreting my town-read of him; he thinks I won't ever see him as scum because of it.

I understand that it was a temporary read. But thats part of what makes me warry: that makes no sense. Why would you set up a temporary read? It does nothing at all.

He seems to be refusing to consider my points without input from others, namely the three more experienced players in the game. Understandable, but foolish: any of you three could be scum. Indeed, given that you three consist of almost half the players in the game at this point, two of you might be scum. His deference to you as experienced players perhaps means he won't consider that any opinion you give could be coloured by your role in the game.

I'm taking their role into concideration. If all three answer, I know that at least one will be telling the truth.

The reason that I wouldnt answer your questions was because I was getting pretty frustrated with you. I would say something, then you wouldnt understand, and I would say it again. It felt like we were talking past each other. So, I needed an outside opinion on things.

[hector13]

We were talking past each other. It's one of the joys of Mafia though I've done it once in each game I'm in just now, so I evidently need to change that. You didn't appear to be listening to me either. Given I'm trying to defend myself, that is also quite frustrating.

Why are you not convinced? Do you not answer questions in context of the question?

I'm not convinced because of the language you used. You said "right now" and said they were "most scummy". Even in the context of the question, that told me that's what you thought now, in D2, not in the past, in D1.

I understand that it was a temporary read. But thats part of what makes me warry: that makes no sense. Why would you set up a temporary read? It does nothing at all.

I used the wrong language to explain it, then. My read on you from what you were doing (because how else am I s'posed to judge you? ) was that you were town. I didn't feel I had enough information to categorically say you were town, so I tried to explain that, and didn't do it very well.

All reads are temporary, because they change based on the information available at the time. You had a town-lean at that time, then the reasons you gave for voting me (in my opinion) were weak, so that made me think you were scum.

I'm taking their role into concideration. If all three answer, I know that at least one will be telling the truth.

Do you know which one is town?

[Peradon]

I used the wrong language to explain it, then. My read on you from what you were doing (because how else am I s'posed to judge you? ) was that you were town. I didn't feel I had enough information to categorically say you were town, so I tried to explain that, and didn't do it very well.

All reads are temporary, because they change based on the information available at the time. You had a town-lean at that time, then the reasons you gave for voting me (in my opinion) were weak, so that made me think you were scum.

Do you know which one is town?

Hm. Ok then, I'll Unvote.. For now. I still think it could have been buddying, but with that mess about temporary reads cleared up, I really dont have anything else on you.

I do not know which is town. I'm leaning toward UXLZ as scum, mainly as a hunch though.

UXLZ: What are your reads so far? Why?

[UXLZ]

I do not know which is town. I'm leaning toward UXLZ as scum, mainly as a hunch though.

Usually when people do this sort of 'hunch read' fingerpointing, they at least include a small reason for it (tone, word choice, etc.), giving 'hunch' as your reason is not only empty air, it's almost literally useless. Please try to identify what's giving you that 'hunch' feeling, whether it's one of the things I mentioned above or something else. Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude you're just wildly clutching at straws (which isn't very effective hunting) or formulating 'reads' from empty air since you have difficulty creating them on your own (due to inexperience or being scum.)

As to my own reads, they're actually incredibly difficult to formulate because I have to take newbishness into account (otherwise the top two would easily be Gamer and Cryxis.) Despite that, my reads thus far are:

Peradon, Hector, and Nerjin are probably the three scummiest people (though at least one is a false positive), followed by Cryxis as a newbie-read and Gamer as null. Jack as the strongest town read. (However, this may be simply due to contrasting him with the newbie players.)

The reasons for Peradon, Hector and Nerjin are:

Peradon: Vague, unsubstantiated reasons for suspecting people (openly.) You can have those suspicions privately and use them to drive your investigations, but if you want to put them into the thread you need more than vague feelings (otherwise you just get called out on empty air, like now.)
Hector: Seeming OMGUS of Peradon, overtly emotional language in his voting post. (Slightly meta though not specific to Hector, in my previous game there was a scum player who'd get all sweary and angry every time he voted.)
Nerjin: Weak reason for voting Roo, lack of activity, strange actions for an IC. However, he does seem to have RL problems getting in the way.

Though do note that these three are just at the top on the continuum, I don't have enough information yet to form truly strong reads (hence why I haven't voted.)