Invitational 10: 2005-2006. Game over! before 624

[petroleumjelly]

Hot damn, I thought I'd have to be replaced before the game ever started.

Vote: MrBuddyLee

, because I <3 him very much, and yet he is never around for me to talk to any more.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

MBL, have you been D1-gate-wagoned in a game other than Space Monkeys? I just checked that game, but the crash likely deleted your

initial

reaction. If so -- assuming they are finished -- which games?

Also, your posts seem to imply that [1] you're waiting for the wagon on you to dissipate ("play out"); and [2] you want to a "competing wagon" (presumably a wagon competing with your wagon). It doesn't seem like you can both have your wagon play out while having a wagon compete with yours. Mind reconciling this? [I can see two ways at the moment, but better to have you explain].

The other weird thing is that you if by "play out" you

do not

mean "dissipate", then I have to wonder why you would still want a wagon on yourself even after it "played out". If this is the case, it seems as though you are trying to act overly nonchalant.

Hmm?

*pokes in belly*

2.)

This space reserved for a question (or possibly questions) for Ether.

VOTE COUNT NUMBER ONE

MBL: 4

(patrick, Elvis Knits, PJ, Sarc

chamber: 1

(DGB)

DGB: 1

(bluesoul)

sarc: 1

(OGML)

Elias the thief: 1

(MBL)

Elvis Knits: 1

(Ether)

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Ether (this is not yet the "reserved" question, mind you), you vote Bluesoul for "assuming MBL has scum-buddies". Did you notice these other posts:

I know how tempting it is to protect your scumbuddy, OGML, but sometimes you're just better off bussing.

I'm tempted to put him at five but not until we've had more discussion to help us nail his buddies.

Why focus your post on Bluesoul, but not Bluesoul & Sarc & DGB?

2.)

[Edit] EK got to my question for Bluesoul. Bluesoul, the "lurkers" would need to fear being "connected" to MBL

only if

MBL were scum,

and

at least one of the lurkers

knows

that MBL is scum and hence has a reason to fear being connected to him. That said, even if that's the case, it could be just as -- if not more -- informative for them to begin posting with the thought they had better not connect themselves to MBL if possible, since this would require them to play the game even

more

unnaturally than they would if they were town.

3.)

Before I forget, I think everybody should read the rules of this game very carefully; they are slightly from the 'standard' rules.

[petroleumjelly]

A couple comments and questions.

1.)

I also do not think there is a distinctive Bluesoul-Sarcastro connection at present. They both have explained things on behalf of each other, but that hardly constitutes very weighty evidence. [Clarification: This is not to say they "unlikely to be connected", just that nothing compels me to think they are connected to each other more than any other two random players].

2.)

I also thought (and still think) Bluesoul's meaning of "three players" was meant to imply the three "non-posters" at the time. I've read MBL's Post 29 a few times, and I think MBL must have read it the way he was claimed to read it; precisely because if

he

had read "three players" to mean "three non-posters" he would not knowingly try to twist it to mean something else. Purposefully misconstruing a post does not strike without any signs of joking or playfulness does not seem probable, even if it were under the guise of "sparking discussion".

3.)

I do, however, disagree with Bluesoul that any 'damage' was done by DGB's post. This was already alluded to in my own Post 42 (part 2).

My problem: I have a hard time in thinking that Bluesoul

seriously

thought MBL was ever in danger of being lynched in an Invitational Game on page 2, and hence how he could take DGB's post to be

serious

. Even assuming his complaint ("the non-posters will know not to connect themselves with MBL now") against DGB to hold weight in a vacuum (which I find doubtful), it would

only

hold weight

if and only if

the non-posters

also

believed that MBL was actually in some amount of peril and some sort of 'distancing' was even required.

Bluesoul's reaction and subsequent explanation (which also seems serious) does not seem to fit in to the realities of the situation, which strikes me as playful. Seeing as Bluesoul himself began the game playfully – and in fact still is doing so in a manner (see his response to chamber's vote on him) – I find it hard to think he would miss that same vibe in DGB's post, regardless of whether or not he has played with her (especially as her two posts prior to her MBL-post were also playful).

4.)

Now for the question(s) reserved for Ether:

-->

a.

Did you

actually

think E_K's post was going to result in any "discussion stifling"?
-->

b.

Separately: Do you think E_K

intended

for her post to stifle discussion?

I'm basically wanting to know if you think E_K's post was legitimately

scummy

, "bad form", or something else.

~~~~~

Unvote: MrBuddyLee, Vote: BlueSoul

.

[petroleumjelly]

So why is the act of stopping people from stifling those leads [connections between the then vote leader and other players] anti-town?

1.)

I was not attacking you for the

surface

reason of your vote. On the surface, you were protecting our collective innocence and inexperience (warning: sarcasm) from making the 'mistake' of trying to connect people to the vote leader before everybody has posted.

However, your surface reason has a few hidden assumptions/connotations that it pushes, which I

am

attacking. The ones in particular that concern me are:

-->

a.)

That DGB is largely responsible for pointing out that the town will look for partners for a possible MBL-scum (and that it would have likely gone unnoticed otherwise);
-->

b.)

That damage is probable from DGB's post. This requires: (i) that MBL be scum; and (ii) that at least one non-poster knows that MBL is scum and would therefore fear being connected with him;
-->

c.)

That DGB was serious about lynching MBL (and consequently that the three non-posters would also think the collective town was serious about lynching MBL). I find it hard to believe you would not recognize the playfulness in DGB's post.

Note: Of the three, it is

c

that concerns me the most. The other two are almost negligible, but enough for me to wonder about.

2.)

I second Patrick's question to chamber.

VOTE COUNT NUMBER THREE

MBL: 2

(Elvis Knits, Sarc

Bluesoul: 2

(MBL, ether)

DGB: 2

(bluesoul, PJ)

chamber: 1

(DGB)

sarc: 1

(OGML)

Patrick 1

(chamber)

Elvis_Knits 1

(patrick)

not voting: 2

(Elias, IH, )

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Bluesoul, Vote: DrippingGoofball

.

[petroleumjelly]

You managed to butter up three people in the game with a single post.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

In fact at the moment my favorite scum candidates happen to be (1) PJ for defending me with explanations as clever as they were long, then voting me without a word of explanation and then providing a "reason" as gratuitous as the ones he was condemning others for, then (2) elvis for buying into it. Caveat: I'm not sure how likely it would be for two scums to both go after a townie, one after the other. Thus I will refrain from voting either for now.

Bluesouls seems to jump from extremes of helpfulness to historical records of kraplogick.

vote: bluesoul

Come again? If you think either EK or myself are scum, why would you then vote Bluesoul without pointing to an in-game reason?

2.)

I'm just plain not understanding Patrick's response to chamber in Post 87. I've read it about five times. I've deleted about three sets of questions about this, so I think I'll just ask for you to reword this response, please.

3.)

I'm fine with all EK's "catch-up" posts. MBL seems to think there is a problem with Post 93, but I can see what Elvis is aiming at; MBL had snipped the portion of Bluesoul's post which essentially explained what Bluesoul meant by "three players". I personally don't think MBL did it purposefully (as I explained earlier), though. It's too early and too obvious.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ- After all of those large posts I also think it's slightly strange that you instantly switch your vote to DGB for her buttering three people up. Was your vote just not that deep (as I felt it was implied), or do you consider that a much larger scumtell than what you had found?

A pitcher doesn't just throw fastballs. Gotta mix it up.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

DGB, could we have a clear example of Bluesoul alternating between "helpfulness and kraplogick", then? Your use of the word "historical" in your vote (for reference, that was in Post 98) led me to think you were basing your vote on past games, and not this one. I was not "misrepresenting" you so much as you were not "representing" yourself clearly.

2.)

Re: The 30% discussion. Assuming 3 to 4 scum in a mini game is pretty standard, and I've no problems with that.

However, I generally don't like percentages being thrown around like they actually mean something when in fact they are the same when applied to any random player in the game. It's a fairly cheap rhetorical trick to make your statement sound as if it holds more weight than it does. [Note: This is pretty much in agreement with chamber's Post 126].

3.)

I don't much like Post 109 from Bluesoul. Here's a rundown of what I'm reading there:

Bluesoul

: DGB, why did you wait so long to explain your post?

DGB:

I didn't wait that long. Check Post 76.

Bluesoul:

But after Post 76, you got two votes. Why, then, would you use that post as a defense?

That just seems really backwards. DGB wasn't "defending", she was simply pointing out that she had, in fact, already explained her post. If I'm not characterizing this correctly, please correct me.

[petroleumjelly]

2.)

MBL, my point apparently is not being gotten across other. Pretty much the only thing I got from your percentage post was that you think there's a 30% chance Bluesoul is scum. And my reaction to that is

whoop-de-do

; that same number can be applied to

everybody

. Here's why your post is a rhetorical a rhetorical trick:

You are not even making the minimal assertion that "this post makes Bluesoul more likely to be scum", or else you would have started off with a percentage

higher

than 30%.

And if you aren't even bothering to make that assertion, then I don't understand why you would screw around with percentages unless you wanted your post to look scientific / mathematic, and therefore more weighty.

2.)

<snip>... what do you think of the rest of 106?

I have no problems with Post 106.

3.)

Bluesoul, how many games have we played together? Are you counting scumchat games for this?

[petroleumjelly]

You aren't addressing

my

problem, this is so stupid.

Here is what I see in your posts:

Before Bluesoul's post, he had a 30% chance of being scum.
After Bluesoul's post, he had a 30% chance of being scum.

In case you haven't noticed:

If you think the percentage is the same both times, I'm not getting why you bothered to use percentages at all. If you think it has even the

slightest chance

of being a scumtell (5% or 10%, or whatever the hell you thought it was), then that will

increase

the 30% to something else.

You are basically "taking a stand" without actually calling Bluesoul's post a "scumtell" which makes him any more likely to be scum than he was before. By definition, that is not a scumtell.

[petroleumjelly]

That's it? I wish you had explained it that way the first time.

[petroleumjelly]

More questions. (And there was much rejoicing).

1.)

OGML, concerning your Post 160, when you made your "Sarc-BlueSoul connection" post did you consider Masons at

that

time, or was your opinion on that spurred by MBL's question after-the-fact?

2.)

Two things for Bluesoul:

-->

a.)

Patrick's effort so far has been mediocre going on decent. He did open a line of discussion with e_k that would've otherwise gone more-or-less unnoticed. Other than that there hasn't been a tremendous amount of substance to his posts. It's mostly questions without contributions.<snip>

PJ has been the PJ I'm used to, I think I've played with him more than anyone out of this playgroup. He's made good points, with good support, and hasn't backed down from asking more direct questions. Of course none of those make him town, but his contributions so far have been good, in my opinion.

I get the feeling that both Patrick and I have about the same amount of commentary to questions asked ratio, but you seem to take a different stance on "question asking" for Patrick than you do on me. Could I have a little more detail on how you're differentiating between us?

I suppose I'll just have to accept your claim that you've read games with me in it, because I'll be frank in saying (without having yet checked the player-lists) I don't ever remember playing a game with you to date.

-->

b.)

Actually, I'll nix this one for now. Deals with Post 172. I need to think about it more.

3.)

DGB, answer my question to you in Post 131.

~~~~~

There are also a couple more obvious questions (concerning what IH meant with his last post, and what OGML is referring to in regards to Sarc-PJ-Ether), but I assume they will explained fairly soon.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

OGML, concerning your Post 160, when you made your "Sarc-BlueSoul connection" post did you consider Masons at that time, or was your opinion on that spurred by MBL's question after-the-fact?

Why are you asking this?

Well, it's a bit convoluted, but I mostly asked it because I was confused at OGML's use of "unlikely".

OGML's post (made Wednesday) called a Sarc-Bluesoul Masonry "unlikely", even though it came

after

Sarcastro's post (made Tuesday) where Sarc explicitly said there were no connections between himself and Bluesoul at all. If he had noticed this, I would think his response would have been "no". This suggested that perhaps by "unlikely" he meant "before MBL's post", which confused me precisely because of his claim that he "had not considered it".

I'll admit that wasn't the best question I could have asked. Now that I think about it, a better (and more direct) one would have been if he had taken note of Sarc's post (which is Post 132) where Sarc explicitly said there was no connection.

^ To OGML, go ahead and answer that instead of my previous question. ^

Also, now that OGML's given a reason that I don't like--was the context of my Bluesoulvote that hard to follow?

When I made my post, I pretty much just saw three people talking about MBL possibly having scumbuddies, and you only questioning one of them about it.

You've since drawn a distinction I wasn't considering at that time -- however, I think it a reasonable distinction to draw. In other words, I get why you focused only on Bluesoul

now

, but I did not see the reason

earlier

.

[petroleumjelly]

^ Wow. My reasoning for the OGML question made a

lot

more sense in my head. Bleah.

[petroleumjelly]

Up late / early because I got sucked into reading court cases from my old Con.-Law book. Sometimes I am just too nerdy for my own good.

Anyways, I was thinking about MBL's general commentary towards me, specifically:

I'm getting modest "trying to look involved but not really scumhunting" vibes off of PJ.

And the more I think about it, the more I think it is probably true (although my automatic reaction is along the lines of "posh!"). Despite my attempts to find this game intriguing, I just can't muster up genuine

interest

in this game. I know I'm going to be replaced in a couple weeks anyways due to law school, so really all I've been doing is trying to ask questions so that (1) Day One has more potential to become increasingly informative as the game goes on (since I generally think lynching scum D1 is unlikely anyways, so you might as well look to the future), and (2) to make it look like I am more interested in the game than I really am.

~~~~~

After rereading the game (just now), I can really only say I feel like I have a decent "read" on a couple players.

1.)

MrBuddyLee. I haven't really found anything he has said so far this game to be scummy, and he's had ample opportunity to do just that. To recap, (a) I don't think he snipped Bluesoul's post maliciously & his reading of Bluesoul's post is supportable [although I believe incorrect], (b) after having it better explained, I have no problems with MBL's 30% post, and (c) although I very much dislike criticisms of my play, I feel his criticism of me is actually fairly valid and hence more likely in good faith than bad faith. All things considered, I am leaning town. This does not mean I trust him, though.

2.)

DrippingGoofball. So far I have found her "suspicions" even less credible than usual. After both EK and I had voted for her, she claimed the two of us were her "favorite scum candidates". Less than four hours later, she votes Bluesoul for "jumping from extremes of helpfulness to kraplogick". When asked to explain, she instead links to some posts and leaves it open to interpretation.

I think she went from one weak claim (PJ + EK scummy) to another weak claim (Bluesoul jumping etc.)

, and is trying to avoid directly explaining either. Leaning towards scum, and I'm happy with my vote on her right now.

Note: Just so it's clear, I actually could not care less about the "buttering up three players" post; my post was designed for a reaction and possibly a line of discussion that could be fruitful either now or later.

~~~~~

I was also trying to write up a "Bluesoul" section, but I ended not being able to put a "lean" on him either way in good conscience, so I just deleted it – he has factors which make me lean both ways. There is really no point in telling him what specifically I like and dislike about his play right now, as that would only tell him how to adjust himself to "my liking".

[petroleumjelly]

This was going to be in a numbered list of commentaries, but it ended up being so long that I'm giving it its own post.

~~~~~

I don't like Patrick's latest questions to me. They seem way more like subtle attacks on me than they seem inquisitive. I'll answer the questions while also pointing out what I dislike about a couple of them.

Why do you feel that this [DGB's suspicion of PJ +EK] was a weak claim?

DGB was picking out the two people who had just voted her, and claimed we were her top suspects. Her reasoning was that I was "defending her" (a weak claim she has not supported) and then voting her without explanation – a phenomenon I am sure she has seen before, yet she does not bother to say why "unexplained votes" are scummy.

Her "suspicions" were essentially in direct correlation to the players voting her with a reason. I really doubt that if EK and I had voted somebody

else

with our exact same posts (supposing somebody else had made the "buttering up" post) that she would have claimed to have had the same "suspicions". This leads me to think she was just plain OMGUSing, and in doing so, not actually reading the game looking for scum. More on EK below.

You've said that your reason for voting DBG was no good, so why is it strange that she doesn't like it?

My reason for voting her was just fine; calling it "no good" is wrong, and I dislike this characterization.

Answer: She really

did

butter up three people in one post, and for Page 4 of a game that's a good starting point as any for a little pressure.

I don't think her post was externally scummy. But I can definitely see how there could be undercurrents playing in her post. In other words, it did not make her more likely to be scum in my eyes (at least as a standalone post), but there was a fair chance there was still an undercurrent to the post: hence my vote. [From what I understand, this is the same stance MBL took with his 30% post].

I no longer really care about the post precisely because (a) I do not think I will be able to gage DGB's purpose in her post at this point, and (b) there now exists some tangibly scummy things to push on.

Why is it strange that she dislikes elvis just parrotting your reason?

I don't like how you use the word "parroting" (correcting the spelling here); EK had an additional reason for her vote ("alignment =/= whether you like somebody"), and it's certainly not scummy to

agree

with somebody. "Parroting" is really saying the same thing as somebody else, which EK was not doing. Your use of language is overly dismissive of EK's post.

Answer: It's "strange" because it is convenient. Re: OMGUS.

In fact, if this vote was made for reactions, what useful reactions have you gotten from it?

I freaking

hate

questions like this.

FoS: Patrick

. This is basically placing a burden on

me

for something every other player can do themselves. Regardless of whoever makes a post that might incite reactions – which are not guaranteed to be "useful" to begin with –

all players can assess the reactions themselves

.

I keep trying to think of a way to explain what precisely I hate about this style of question, but I'm not doing a very good job of it. The best I can analogize it to on short notice:

Q

: You wear glasses because you can't see very well without them, isn't that right?

A

: Yes, that's right.

Q

: And you were wearing glasses on the night in question?

A

: Yes.

Q

: Well, if these glasses are meant to help you see, then what

exactly

did they help you see that night?

^ This obviously is not a good description because any juror with a brain would come off hating the attorney (as opposed to the intended effect) as a result, but hopefully this illustrates what I'm trying to get across. ^

The question itself has an edge to it I dislike, probably spurred by the fact that it has not been established

whether or not the witness thinks the glasses helped them see anything on the night in question

. Similarly, Patrick skips asking "do you think there were any useful reactions" and goes straight to "what useful reactions did you see"?

As an attempted answer, however: After my post, DGB claimed I was a "top suspect" and then voted for Bluesoul about three hours later. As you can see, I have yet to take my vote from her. I think her reaction was OMGUS followed by latching onto a weaker target with claims she has yet to support convincingly.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Blah – this was a longer section saying how I also thought Sarc's question of "how do you know" could not be read in any way other than rhetorical and thus attacking, but Post 224 addresses this enough that I'll spare your eyes. I originally didn't like Sarc's post, but I think he's explained it well enough that it doesn't bother me too much any longer.

2.)

But maybe I'm not thinking about things in a complex enough way. Does speculating on scum buddies or groups on D1, actually help any of you? Am I being too simplistic?

I actually agree with you; for the most part, I think looking for connections on D1 is just stupid and rarely helps in the long run – there are obviously some examples to the contrary (I can only think of College Mafia off the top of my head), but they are the exception and not the rule. If a connection is legitimately there in the thread, you're going to see it just the same later in the game, except by then that information might actually be

useful

because you'll have a better idea of players' alignments.

I also think it can lead to warped thinking throughout the rest of the game; if you always associate Player A with Player B, that's really just asking to be (a) manipulated, (b) characterized as some variation of a "waffler" (or at least less credible) if you change your mind, and (c) set up for a lynch if you are wrong. I could doubtless make a longer list of disadvantages, but I'm tired.

However, I do often

test

possible pairings on D1. This can range from:

Note to self: Check for X + Y interactions.

to

X, what do you think about Y?

This is a way to avoid the "association" problem, and the nature of these posts is that you might get some sort of reaction from one or both of the players in the question that could be telling.

[petroleumjelly]

*birthday-bites-Patrick*

1.)

Regarding my last question to you, I can understand your comparison to the attorney example, but I really don't understand why I'm being FoSed for that.

My FoS is spurred from the whole of your post. You ask me four questions in that post, and I explained why I did not like questions #2, #3, and #4; as it happens, it was #4 (where I officially FoS'd you) that I liked the least, because that sort of question is a personal pet-peeve of mine.

All of those questions had some element to them I did not like. Mafia is all about subtlety, and I feel your post subtly painting me (my reason is "no good", "you haven't said what useful reactions you've gotten yet") or trying to establish something up in the air as a fact (such as "my reason was no good", and "EK was parroting"). Worse, if I had simply answered your questions I would have implicitly agreed that both "my reason was no good", that "EK was parroting", and so forth.

If your post was truly inquisitive, it seems like you would have asked the simple intermediary questions:

• Do you think your reason was any good, even if you don't care about the post?
  
• Do you think EK was parroting?
  
• Do you think your post spurred any useful reactions?

Now:

You've said you don't like early pairings strategically, do you find it scummy as elvis does?

Not in itself – like just about everything in mafia, it usually depends on how an action is being conducted more than the act itself. Different players scumhunt differently.

2.)

MBL, when you are doing your "reads" on people are you isolating the posts, or reading them as they occur during the game? [Or have you done a mix of the two?] Which method is more common for you?

What makes me ask is that you criticize the post where Patrick list things Elvis has not commented on, but do not seem to realize that this came directly after Elvis asks "what would you like me to comment on?" in Post 88.

[Gah, Patrick mentions this as well in Post 237, but I would still like the questions answered].

3.)

MBL, both Ether and Elias essentially said "I'll be gone for the next week, so I will not vote anybody until I get back". Whether Ether said so or not, the action of unvoting (what Ether did) implies "in case my vote affects the game while I am gone". However, in Ether's case you claim that makes her seem town, and in Elias' case it makes him seem like scum. Could you explain how you differentiate these two actions side-by-side?

Note: Go ahead and disregard the fact that Elias claimed to have only read up to Page 5, and instead assume he

could

have made the most possible informed vote at the time (this way both Elias and Ether would be "up to date" when they made their respective posts).

4.)

A question I've been saving for the right moment:

Patrick, are you scum?

[petroleumjelly]

What do you think of elvis_knits?

I don't have much of a read on her yet.

The problems you seem to have with her (such as "ignoring the meat", "not much scumhunting", "parroting" – possibly others, but my memory's not

that

good) I do not find all that problematic. I don't think she was purposefully avoiding issues (especially since that accusation came early in the game) and I additionally liked her "catch-up" posts. She might not have been clearly scumhunting early, but I think her posts since her MBL vote have seemed more 'involved'. And lastly, I don't think EK was parroting (mentioned this earlier).

PPE: Ether also does not seem to like how EK goes from not being interested in Patrick's "motives" to inquiring about them soon after. I don't see this as a contradiction. Time can breed interest, and given the MBL/Patrick talk in the interim, I think it was a reasonable question for her to ask to double-check whether or not there

may

have been something there. This whole tack really only shows me that EK is somewhat unfamiliar with Patrick, as well as History of the MBL, Part 1.

My biggest problem so far was her wording of "if it will make you [Patrick] feel better about me", since that implies (a) she wants to please you, and by extension (b) that she thinks (or knows) you are town – clearly there is no point in making

scum

"feel better about you". I can definitely see that being a potential slip, though this has already been addressed and I doubt further questioning would be illuminative on the issue.

Summary: EK is middle of the road. Not coincidentally, most players are still in this range for me so far.

Interesting question from you, but not one I can really see as giving you info on my alignment.

Seeing as you seem to have snipped a two things in the game (BS's "three players" post and Patrick's "never failed me before" post), I wanted to check whether or not you had also missed the obvious (to me) explanation for a question you've asked a

third

time in the game. Had you claimed to have done a contextual reread, I tend to think I would

at least

consider your play very sloppy this game.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

I'm actually more interested in the FoS in that post, since MBL's last stated opinion on IH was "lazy town", and IH has not posted since that opinion was made. This in turn makes me think the point of his post is rather clear.

2.)

Patrick, how often do you think points against you are something

other

than nitpicks?

3.)

A couple things about DGB's latest posts:

-->

a.)

She claims people should "put their money where their mouth is", but the fact is I think just about everybody (save for Elias and Ether, for obvious reasons) already

are

voting, so this is just a ridiculous request; and
-->

b.)

She claims she wants "more wagoning", but has also said she only wants to vote for BlueSoul because he's the only person she finds scummy (and "borderline" at that). This (i) tells me that her early 'suspicions' of myself and EK were probably fabricated if they don't even constitute us as being 'borderline scummy' a few pages later, and (ii) seems contradictory [or at least nearsighted] in that she wants wagons but is only willing to vote for one person without considering that

other

players may be holding a similar stance (i.e. voting their best guess right now).

[petroleumjelly]

More often than nitpicks, I just see them as plain stupid. But to answer what I think you're asking, it's probably fairly rare. What's the purpose of this question?

What is it with so many people questioning the purpose of my questions lately? The best questions are the ones that don't have an apparent purpose, precisely because people don't know whether they're answering how they "should" answer it or not.

If I were to continue this line of questioning (which I was considering doing, but I guess it's rather pointless now that I'm taking the time to explain this), it would probably have been something along the lines of any or all of these angles (some are similar):

-->

a.)

If you think most points against you are nitpicks, can you show me cases made against you in a couple finished game that you felt were justified (i.e. not "nitpicks")? [Note: If you think nitpicks are justified, then please rephrase your complaint against MBL, because complaining about justified points just seems like sulking].
-->

b.)

Do you feel like you get nitpicked more as town or as scum?
-->

c.)

Do you think nitpicks often have kernels of truth in them? If not, why call them nitpicks? If there's truth to nitpicks, do you feel they are justified? How justified?
-->

d.)

Do you think scum or town are more likely to nitpick?
-->

e.)

Do you think you play drastically different as scum than as town? Do you think most of the differences are minor? Minor enough to sound nitpicky?

And so on. I don't always have specific reasons in mind when I ask a question (I didn't really have an "ultimate purpose" in my question for you, as a matter of fact), but getting an answer on one thing can lead me to question the answer and eventually have a conversation that might be alignment-telling immediately, or perhaps later on (in the sense that if you take an unnatural position, you may well contradict yourself later without realizing you aren't being consistent with your earlier position).

I like to think that splitting up a series of questions into multiple posts can be informative, because that way people don't always know what (if anything) you're getting at and hence can't shape their answers to "satisfy" the "point" of the questions.

That was for more info than you needed. Since I bothered to write this all up, go ahead and answer

all

the questions in this post.

[petroleumjelly]

Can I point to games where I

say

I don't have confidence in a D1-scum lynches in general? Probably not. That's not the sort of thing I like to highlight about my play because it is so obviously attackable (case in point), but regardless it's an attitude I've been harboring for probably the last year or so. I rather dislike Day Ones, and I feel much more in my element on D2 or D3, because by that time there are a few alignments to work off of besides my own.

I lost my "fire" for mafia quite a while ago. I have long since stopped playing to have "fun". Mafia is more a job than it is a game. I find that the only times I get "fiery" nowadays are (a) if somebody is attacking me, or (b) if I just really think somebody is scum (edit: or if I strongly think somebody is town).

Neil, if you're town, I'd think you'd be fired up about the challenge of catching at least one scum in an invitational game!

No, Todd. I've tried to get myself interested in the game, but it's not there. Experience has shown when I'm in a game full of experienced players, I lose, and the same will probably happen in this game. There will somehow be one scum who plays so good that they will win the game. That's how it always works with experienced players: you might be able to catch a few of them, but you can never catch them all. I predict most of the invitationals right now will end with a scum win precisely because of this principle.

As it is, you're attacking me more for my attitude on mafia as a whole rather than my attitude in this particular game. This really only shows that you have not played with me or talked with me about mafia for quite a while.

~~~~~

I asked to you to disregard Elias' not being caught up so that the basic reason(s) between your difference of opinion on Ether v Elias was more clear-cut. For failure of a better analogy, I was trying to remove the "variables" in a scientific experiment.

[petroleumjelly]

DGB is completely misrepresenting my posts. Since the "buttering up" post I have noted my complaints about her in Post 104, Post 194, and Post 273; there are other posts where I question her or talk about, but these three seem to give the basic reasons the clearest. I am further not impressed with her "who's considered me with a power role?" post, and watching her trying to crunch down all my reasons to vote her down to solely the "buttering up" post in no respect makes me want to unvote her.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm still annoyed by all the middle ground, though. Understanding that they aren't at extremes for you, could you order {elvis_knits, IH, OhGodMyLife, Sarcastro} and maybe give comments.

First off, I’d like to know what’s “wrong” with saying I find EK “middle of the road”. I want an answer from both MBL and Ether on this, since both of you claim to dislike it.

As crazy as it sounds, “middle of the road” is where MOST players are for me (which I’ve already said). I have leanings in my mind on two players: MBL and DGB, and I’ve explained exactly why they are where they are earlier. When I get a leaning, I say it; when I don’t, I don’t.

Since you claim not to like “middle of the road” analysis, you can probably expect to be disappointed with this post. I can’t magically

force

myself to get a leaning; I either get one or I don’t.

Already commented on EK, no point repeating myself.

IH

My biggest worry from IH is his actually his first post. In it, he tries to give the impression that he is writing the post as he is reading -- as indicated by his eventual striking of his commentary on me (basically saying: “I was thinking this up until Post X”). However, in the middle of his post he inserts:

Someone correct me if anything I've said is wrong as I was trying to read this quickly.

Which would certainly make more sense at the end of his post, rather than smack-dab in the middle of it. This suggests

against

a “stream-of-consciousness” post, which I think (other than this one quote) IH is trying to portray himself as writing. I was rather hoping for at least another IH-“catch-up” post to see if this trend would continue before I’m replaced, hence why I didn’t mention this before. [Note: This is similar to asking MBL if he was doing isolated rereads, but by that time MBL had done a few analyses and I wanted to see if my question would result in him changing his analysis-style if he was in fact doing isolated rereads].

Other than that, I’m mostly just waiting for him to explain the “slightly strange” thing about BS-MBL. He has hardly posted anything, and I don’t have a very good meta on IH because I can only recall two games with IH, both of which where he was scum (one on-going game, and Ye Olde Porte Towne). He was much more active in YOPT.

Middle of the road. [Surprise!]. Main thing is he needs to post more. In terms of “scumminess”, this puts me at IH > EK.

OGML

I felt his original comment of “why does MBL think I’m town” was a justified thought, but I haven’t been thrilled with his “pairings” commentary. He’s suggested BS-Sarc, and more lately Sarc-PJ-Ether. I think this is at least a pretty useless way to “scumhunt”. For the most part, he seems to be claiming some things without backing them up (why Patrick “has his hackles up” and his “pet theory”). Like IH, he mainly needs to post more.

I don't really like his posting, actually (although this is probably influenced by his absence of late, which has at least some explanation). It feels more like he's trying to get others to do "the work" more than he is willing to do it himself.

Another middler, but I like his posts less than IH’s. OGML > IH > EK.

Sarcastro

Complaints from others I don’t agree with: I don’t agree that he was “defending” Bluesoul early in the game – anybody could have explained Bluesoul’s post. I don’t think his “stop blinding us with logic” post was meant to discourage discussion, because the only person that could “discourage” would be me, and a post like that is far from being effective in doing that.

A couple complaints, though. Although I (obviously) agree with his vote on DGB, I am not too pleased that he hasn’t actually given many reasons to vote for DGB. He basically just continually says “DGB needs to die”. I dislike his general playstyle (which is basically “everything is obvious, if you don’t see it you’re stupid”), but that’s more of a universal complaint than one for just this game; I don’t think it’s telling of alignment. I also (as mentioned earlier) think his “how do you know there was night-talking” was not as hypothetical as he claims it was.

Although my Sarc commentary is mostly complaints, I really don’t feel like Sarc has deviated much from his usual playstyle.

OGML > Sarc > IH > EK. This list is very subject to change, seeing as I find little to differentiate between them so far.

[petroleumjelly]

I used "wrong" because it was the first word that came to mind, and I used parentheses because I don't agree it's wrong.

~~~~~

The only games I recall being in with DGB are Thespival, Kingmaker II, and Lights Out II (she was town in all three -- I was scum in Kingmaker II, however). [She played under Beep! Beep!, Toaster Strudel, and Penguins of the Serengeti, respectfully].

I honestly don't remember much about LO2 and KM2. But I do remember her play in Thespival. In that game, I spent a good deal of time attacking her "method" of scumhunting, which was basically: "If there are a lot of dead townspeople on a wagon, the other people on the wagon are scum".

I don't remember what convinced me not to lynch her in the end specifically; it was probably just that I felt sincerity from her posts in the end. She gave a distinct impression of scumhunting in Thespival (however misdirected), but I haven't really felt that in this game.

I'm not swayed by her "lynch me and find out" posts; I think that's a consistent thing in her play regardless of alignment (although I can't think of a game where I played with her where she was scum, I know she pulled that same thing in at least Thespival).

As for "what I expect from her as town", that's not something I'm going to post, and I actually quite dislike that question. Giving a list of things I think would come from a certain player if they are town just strikes me as stupid.

[petroleumjelly]

Thought I'd be replaced by now, so might as well post while I'm still here.

I will say that I've also rather thought Patrick was trying to connect me to EK, or

at least

trying to "test" a possible connection. Earlier in the game I mentioned that one of the methods I approve of to test connections is asking "X, what do you think of Y?", and since then Patrick has asked

both

what I think of EK, and EK what she thinks of me. To my recollection, Patrick has not done the same thing to any other two players. I was going to ask a question about this earlier, but I was trying to decide for myself whether he was being cheeky, coincidental, etc.

Note that you asked EK what she thought of me

prior

to then having her compare me to another player.

[petroleumjelly]

I will note that when I agreed to play in the game, it was at least a month before the game started (I don't remember the exact day), so I had hoped the game would have progressed much further than it did before I required replacement -- and if the game had gotten down to a few players I probably would have finished it despite law school. But seeing as the game was still on Day One when I hit school I knew it was better to just replace out.

I think the set-up is well-balanced (although I think I would also add a 1-Shot Immunity to the SK), but I do kinda think investigative roles should not be so prevalent in an invitational game. Invitationals (at least to me) ought to focus on raw scum-hunting, not "Ha!, I investigated you!" scum-hunting. My two cents there.

Well played to town, and nicely done to MBL for nailing all three mafiates.

[petroleumjelly]

More:

I do agree that SK is probably also not the best role to include in an invitational, as it can shorten the game dramatically in multiple ways (i.e. two town die every night, or scum cross-kills) leaving less actual time for playing.

~

Also (after skimming my posts) I think I would have had much the same views had I been town,

but

I would have gone about the game differently. [Although I do think I would have had a good deal of "questions" posts -- I tend to find answers to them very useful late-game]/

I didn't have a good read on a lot of players -- I was legitimate in saying that much. Day Ones are not my strong suit both as town and as mafia. The only real "feelings" I had during the game were: (1) DGB is scummy, (2) BS is scummy, (3) EK is townish, and (4) MBL is townish.

I would have pushed DGB more, I think -- I know from experience that I tend to get the best reads on DGB once I

really

grill her. I never seem to think she is town until I have her over a fire-pit. I don't know what I would have done (if anything) about Elias -- that's hard to say. I

really

did not like a good deal of BS's posts. Even as a member of the mafia, I wondered if he was scum of some variety, and I imagine I would have attacked him

a lot

more as town. The reason I held off here was because a good deal of players in this game seemed to think he was town, and I wanted to avoid "going against the grain" since some players seemed to be calling me into question.

Other than that, the only other thing I can think of that definitely would have changed is that I would not have had the "Oh, that's it? Why didn't you say so!?" post response to MBL (concerning the 30% thing). I was genuinely confused about it, and I probably would have made something like an "I am not amused" post rather than a conciliatory one that I did to try to "kiss and make up," as it were.