Mini 792 - Tofu Mafia. Game over!

[Artem]

/confirm

[Artem]

Also, by putting a time restriction instead of a size restriction on when you think the day has gone long enough, all you have to do as a scum team to restrict information is to slow post (you don't actually have to lurk, just wait an extra day to respond). Some wishy washy foot dragging tossed in, and it wouldn't be hard for you to get to that 30 day mark and start pressing to get the day over with.

Ecto, the number 36 is not arbitrary and the fact that you haven't picked up on it tells me that Spyrex is paying more attention to the game (by reading every single post) than you:

5) Each day will have an autodeadline of (number of living players*3) RL days, i.e. Day 1 will be 36 days long.

[Artem]

Porkens, given the cast of this game, I think we're all familiar with the cliche motions of Day 1. But it is these motions that typically generate content. As such, a third vote on spring

would

have been useful, even if it did lead to the typical scenario described by your self-dialogue.

The fact that you decided not to stick with the vote boggles me a little. So, I think we should kick off the typical flow of Day 1 from step 2 (the person who messed up on step 1):

Vote: Porkens

[Artem]

1.

Newbie 716 (http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10068)
Open 123 (http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10636)
Mini 743 (http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10488)
Mini 727 (http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10182)

There are others, but these are the most noteworthy.

2. This is the only game in which I'm alive right now.

3. When I feel that somebody's keeping up with the game, but purposefully refusing to provide content, I'd call them lurking.

4. Ecto, Spring, Hero, Tajo

5. None

6. None

[Artem]

The joke wouldn't have "worked" if I hadn't unvoted. The unvote was part of the joke.

This part is lost on me. Why the joke not have worked without the unvote?

There's that word again though; "stick." To me, since both the vote and the unvote were in the same post...I mean, there was nothing in the interrim for me to consider. I would think that my intention to unvote from the moment I started typing would be obvious...

Alright, I'll rephrase: you've obviously thought about voting spring and that your vote would start to generate the typical content for Day 1. Having thought about it, why did you not go through with the vote?

Of course the fact that you didn't go through with it makes you the guinea pig that we're riding on and not spring, so I'm not too heart-broken. Do you deserve to be lynched for your lack of vote (or lack of "sticking" to a vote, if you prefer) for spring? No. Do you deserve to have a wagon formed on you for the purposes of content generation? Heck yea. (though it seems that there are other candidates for competing wagons emerging)

Artem, are you suspicious of Ectomancer after post 34?

No, not really. The basis for his argument was wrong, but the argument itself was good. Now that he realized that the basis is wrong, he is no longer pursuing the argument. Nothing suspicious.

[Artem]

@Artem:

OMG KITTEN

Do you think it defeats the purpose of wagoning someone for reactions if you tell everyone that's what you're doing?

No, not necessarily. Going into details about what kind of reactions we can expect would, however.

Not that I think you're scum, yet. But by god its leaning that way.

O.o

Is this a slap on the wrist? "Keep it up Ecto, and you'll end up on my scum list"?

---------------

Troll's posts are hard to read.

---------------

Not a big fan of Adel's fabricated suspension.

[Artem]

Anyhow, the first name the father of history choose to mention was Spring, and that his who his random vote was cast upon.

How is this any different than SpyreX's vote for Vi? By your logic, "The first name SpyreX chose to mention was Vi and that is who his random vote was cast upon. This is notable because it might be a form of distraction". Why did you choose Hero and not Spyre?

Also, with regards to SL. In my experience (both times when I was scum and SL was town), SL tends to lurk unless somebody's pushing a case against her. On the flip side, she generally picks up on things others don't.

[Artem]

He random voted spring, but later did not notice that her activity level was low, and he voted me for not contributing.

Ah. Simulpost.

[Artem]

Your posts are concise, but it doesn't seem like you're going in any direction with them. Troll's posts are hard to read, Adel is stretching your Willing Suspension of Disbelief, and your vote... is one for pressure on Porkens. It seems like you're saying things without intending to follow up on them or attaching much significance to them.

That's right. With my current playstyle, I tend to do a lot of watching early in the game and a lot of playing when the game picks up. I've recently learned that my biggest pitfall in scum-hunting is getting a strong townie-tell from somebody and then being reluctant of letting it go (which occasionally ends up nipping me in the butt), so I'm trying harder to re-evaluate those who I'm getting townie vibes from.

Another aspect of it is slight intimidation with the cast. (I would still consider myself a newbie compared to a lot of you; no, I'm not playing a newbie card) As such, I'm being extra careful with getting "reads" on all of you. I've been called out on this playstyle in another game, where I've posted this (yes, Adel, I left this game off my list because I don't think a newbie game where I get NKd the first night is worth mentioning):

As per ignoring the other IC, I have to say that I am purposely keeping Albert at a null-tell for myself, because it's much more difficult to get a good read on an IC on Day 1 than the newbies. I see no sense in chasing a wild goose when I have better reads on the other players. I prefer to wait for one (or more) cardflips, the voting pattern information, the game event reactions, and any claims before I start forming my opinion of the other IC. Moreover, newbie-scum will often NK ICs to put the town at a greater disadvantage. So, I don't see the point of analyzing Albert on Day 1, when me or him may not even make it to Day 2.

This was said about the other IC in the game, Albert B. Rampage. I felt that because I was purposefully keeping him at null all day, my final read on him (which was IC-scum) at the end of Day 1 was more clearer than if I let my judgement be clouded throughout the day. Albert was lynched (and flipped scum) on Day 2.

The point is that I'm doing the same sort of purposefully keeping players at null in this game because you're all ICs. When I mentally "reset" a player to null every now and then, I tend to get a better read on them and feel that I'm less likely to fall into "OMG obv town" mentality, which is described above.

That said, I have played with four of you in other games and after playing this mental game with myself, here are my "current" reads on you:
Ecto - likely town; I happen to agree with his analysis of Porken's satire and I find SpyreX's "slap on the wrist" somewhat offputting and kinda scummy.
Spring - is playing pretty much like she did in the other two games (where I knew her alignment to be town); and I still stand by my earlier point that the best way to get SL posting is to start pushing a case on her (and I don't really have the stamina or purpose to do it a third time).
Tajo - is being a spaz; He's also being a spaz in a game I'm modding (

deleted

) so it's really messing with my head and I don't have a good read on him at the moment;
Hero - is likely scum; He played very analytically and aggressively in our game together and I quickly (but correctly, mind you) nailed him as obv town. He's still being analytical here but the level of aggressiveness is quite a bit lower. Why?

Hero is the only one for whom my meta on them doesn't add up with their current playstyle. That sets off a red flag for me, but at the same time, he was a newbie in our common game and his playstyle may have shifted as he got more experienced. Hard to tell at the moment.

Now, I'm trying really hard to not get stuck in thinking that Ecto and SL are town and keep evaluating their posts from Ecto-mafia and SL-mafia (if she ever posts again :/) viewpoints.

As per my vote. I'm well aware that my pressure is small, but I'm also aware that Porkens is not at all worried about a wagon forming on him and none of the other players (other than Ecto) like the idea of piling up on Porkens. Interestingly enough, this crowd does not seem to be interested in piling up on anybody as the last votecount looks like a rainbow.

[Artem]

IMHO posting the names of people you have town (regardless of your actual alignment) reads on helps scum players more than town players.

I know, but the point of the post was the contrast between the four players in the context of their meta. I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm trying to "clear the slate" on all players from time to time.

If Ecto/SL-scums decide that they have me in the bag because I have town reads on them, then they are going to be a little surprised later in the game. As such, I don't think I've given out any information that helps scum, but I've given out my view on playstyle consistency of the four players I've played with before, which helps town IMHO.

[Artem]

"Likely scum"? That's pretty strong. If your argument is based purely on meta here, then wow. In your post you explain why your meta is different in this game, then you say someone else is "likely scum" because they're less aggressive in this game?

Would "more likely scum than town" be better? Think of it as a gauge with the arrow pointing above 0. (where + is the scum side and - is the town side)

It sounds like you would have thought your vote would do some good on Spring -- and at the same time you're defusing any case that does get made against her by preemptively calling it pressure.

Calling something pressure does not diffuse the associated case. Here's an example.

You suggest that a case on Spring would make her active. I'd think that would give you a reason to at least vote for her, as pressure, even if you leave it up to someone else to make the case. Heh, this game has a lot of "why aren't you voting Spring? That's suspicious."
You think I'm likely scum, but you're not voting me either? Doing so would have destabilized the rainbow you were worried about, too.

I'm not voting for you because I don't think you deserve a vote based purely on meta. I'm not voting for spring because people (often myself included) tend to be less active over the weekend and I wanted to wait until Monday before piling up pressure.

Also, I'm not

worried

about the rainbow votecount. I noted it as an indication about players' reluctance to pile in on somebody, which I found interesting. It also means that I need to think carefully about my case before actually placing a vote if I'm going to convince anybody to follow me. I'm going to

Unvote

for now since everybody's nagging me about parking a vote on Porkens, which I don't think is really a problem.

[Artem]

Also, wanted to make a snide comment on this:

In that case, I only have one previous game, and you and I haven't played together before... no, they count.

Thank you, Mr. Meta Police. I missed the part where Adel hired you.

[Artem]

I'm sorry. You're saying that it's too strong for me to derive your scumminess based purely on the meta of your very first game. I happen to agree, but you seem to really want a vote.

I'd hate to disappoint.

Vote: Herodotus

[Artem]

Alright, here are your reasons:

0) You're playing differently than your meta. Not only are you less aggressive, but you also seem more emotional and less cool-headed.

My playstyle has probably changed since my first game, but there are more significant issues that explain why I've been less aggressive. One is the "intimidation with the cast" that you claim, another is reduced ambition (I was rereading that game from page 1 every day because I was sure I'd be able to find the scum.) There are also the number of players and their playstyles (in our game, only you, Empking, and I were active, leaving 2 lurking scum and 4 lurking newbie townies.) So that game was crawling by comparison to this one.

So, by your logic, since the game is not crawling, you don't really have to do anything. Is there a reason your ambitions are reduced? Is there no scum to hunt in this game, or do you just have no reason to because you already know who they are?

1) A townie shouldn't be asking for a vote. If you really are town, then all you're doing is distracting attention from the scum onto yourself.

2) You seem to be buddying up to Adel:

In that case, I only have one previous game, and you and I haven't played together before... no, they count.

Is it scummy for me to not mention a newbie game, which I don't feel I contributed much to (and where I was town-aligned)? You got NKd on the first night because of your stellar play. I get NKd on the first night routinely simply because I'm an IC.

If it's not scummy for me to not mention that game, then what's the point of saying "they count"? Adel is trying to fabricate a feeling that not providing a full list of requested information is somehow scummy and I think you're blindly following that feeling without really understanding why.

3) Piling up on somebody early in the game is a great scum tactic, because they can easily bring somebody up to L-2 or L-1 and argue their way out with "it's not dangerous", or "I'm doing it to get out of RVS". This is why early wagons generate good content. The fact that there was no such wagon means that the scum are either shy or inactive. Lurkers aside, you yourself said that you're intimidated by the cast. (me being the other person who's intimidated, but I'd argue that I was pro-wagon from the start of the game).

Also,

It's definitely contrary to your behavior in our other game. And the point isn't only that you do have a vote on Porkens that you have described as meaningless, it's also that you aren't voting for me. You say I don't "deserve" a vote based on meta; but don't I "deserve" a vote based on your stated belief that it's more likely that I'm scum than that I'm town?

Yes, I'm playing differently in this game. I don't have a bunch of newbie players that I'm trying to get to post. It seems that Troll is already fulfilling the activity police duty and I don't see much sense for me to vote hop like I did in our game together.

[Artem]

Well, then I honestly stated that there are other games that are not as noteworthy.

[Artem]

Someone who has been there to snipe and jump on some spurious bandwagons.
Someone who unapologetically wanted a bandwagon for "generating content".
Someone who gave a rather lengthy post explaining in detail why at any given point his reads can change. In selfsame post also gave a page 7 "feeler" list of some townies (but of course not the entire game).
Someone who is justifying this latest move with meta. Sigh. Further, with a sample set of 1. Double Sigh.
Someone who agrees that said meta is weak, apologizes and then votes.

-The only bandwagon that was spurious was Porkens, but as I said: I wanted a bandwagon on him, I didn't think he deserved to be lynched;
-I fail to see how that is scummy; Bandwagons = good;
-I said it was the contrast of people with their meta. :-/
-And yes, I agree that a vote based purely on meta is not worthwhile (like I said at least twice already. Double sigh.) Hero wanted a vote, so I thought I'd bring up the other problems that I had with him, since he was so anxious to have a case against him.
-L2SARCASM (I "apologized" because Herodotus wanted me to behave in a certain way and I wouldn't)

[Artem]

Oh, and hey, ever plan on replying to:

Not that I think you're scum, yet. But by god its leaning that way.

O.o

Is this a slap on the wrist? "Keep it up Ecto, and you'll end up on my scum list"?

?

[Artem]

*shrug* I've always been pro-wagon as town and I've always seen plenty of good content come out of it. I don't know where you're getting this more-harm-than-good from.

A good townie isn't going to be set in stone. As information is presented reads should, and will, change. Telling people "my reads change" is a duh at best...and, of course, there is definitely reasons a scum would go in essence:

Read the post-game of Open 123 (or better yet, the whole game) if you think it's a "duh".

Meta could be used to bolster a case, but it should not be a key component of one.

On what basis did you single out meta to be the key component of my vote when I've presented reasons?

"This behavior is moving towards being scummy in nature. IF YOU ARE TOWN, perhaps you should think about it and perhaps not make yourself a target of suspicion. P.S. if you are scum keep it up.'

The problem is that Ecto's argument was not scummy. Not only that, even Porkens said that he can see where Ecto is coming from (while disagreeing with him). By threatening Ecto with putting him on your scum list, you're discouraging Ecto from pursuing the point and getting even more reactions and response from Porkens.

[Artem]

Say "I dont have strong reads and they will most likely change?" as scum? Hell yes he would.

Try "I'm reluctant to let go of my reads, so I'm trying harder to let them change".

[Artem]

I've recently learned that my biggest pitfall in scum-hunting is getting a strong townie-tell from somebody and then being reluctant of letting it go (which occasionally ends up nipping me in the butt), so I'm trying harder to re-evaluate those who I'm getting townie vibes from.

Just so you don't bastardize my words even further.

[Artem]

3.) Bandwagoning is a great scum tactic. You said this. YOU SAID THIS ARGGGHHH.

Scum can't get a wagon going by themselves because there's no enough of them. 2-3 scum are not going to put anybody at L-2. They need townies to help them. Why would we help them when it's just a scum tactic? Because it generates content.

Wagon generate content AND they are a tactic that scum employ (which is why they generate content; if it wasn't their tactic, we would get no content).

Freaking hell, I can't believe I have to spell it out.

[Artem]

You're saying that a wagon generates content because scum join it? Does this mean said wagon is on town?

Yes, I doubt scum would let a wagon form on one of their own. Any good early game wagon will have at least one scum on them and the wagon will be on a townie, I'm fairly certain.

Thus, is the "content" your generating some form of "there is scum on this wagon." when that is in no way proved?

Not true. Wagons can be analyzed in retrospect.

Address post 186 please. Also, you missed the point of arguments 2) and 3) against Herodotus. So I can see how you picked out meta to be the "key" arguments of my case. Try again plox.

[Artem]

Meta's being used to bolster and attempt to make a weak vote appear to be something that it isn't. Thats what I dont like.

I'm using other arguments to make a vote stronger than it would have been had it been based solely on meta.

That

is what I'm doing.

And I missed those two little posts in not checking for posts while I was typing. It doesn't really change anything in my mind though.

Well, then you can keep your vote that is based on me liking wagons, the twisting of my words and the misunderstanding of my points against Herodotus.

[Artem]

Hero, my biggest problem is this:

I got a red flag from your playstyle. I noted it. You said that I shouldn't be suspecting you to be scum based on that. I agreed that the level of suspicion does not warrant a vote. You seemed to disagree. I don't understand how you can both say that I should not have a high level of suspicion while saying that my level of suspicion should warrant a vote. Perhaps I came off with a stronger level suspicion than intended when writing words, but the lack of a vote (or even an FOS) should have given you a better idea of my level of suspicion, no?

I'm not sure you read what Artem wrote... "more likely scum than town" is hugely different from "more likely than random."

Same difference, except the probabilities are normalized to sum up to 1 in the second case. There are only two alignments in this game (I hope). So if you're "more likely scum than random" then you're also "more likely scum than town", because there's no other option.

This comment seems irrelevant to providing reasons for your vote.

Not irrelevant. My parked vote served one purpose: an invitation to join a bandwagon. No wagon formed. Don't you find it unusual that no wagon formed? I do because in pretty much every other game I've been in, there's an early wagon. I presented a theory behind that

I seem to recall I had to drag a case out of you...

That's right. I wasn't going to share the problems because I was still watching, but you really wanted a case, so I figured I might as well bring them up.

[Artem]

EBWOP: Same difference, except the probabilities are normalized to sum up to 1 in the

first

case.

[Artem]

You indicated you were estimating town/scum probabilities where the odds of my being scum were higher than the odds of my being town (and you said that twice.) I thought it was unreasonable to assign such a high probability based on my being less aggressive, but if you were going to do so, it was also unreasonable not to vote for me. Do you expect to ever get better than 50% odds of hitting scum on day 1?

Ok, I know where the problem is. You think that I'm looking at you in the context of other players. In this case, the prior is 2/12 or 3/12 (depending on the number of scum) of you being scum. So, when I said that I find you to be more likely scum than town, you thought that I used your meta to bump you up to over 50% (i.e., 6/12), which is a reasonable thing to freak out about.

In reality, I didn't place you in the context of other players. I evaluated you in isolation. For me, you started at 50/50 of being scum/town. When I looked at your meta, I decided to put you at, say 51% of being scum, 49% of being town. (numbers are not really important). That's a small bump due to meta. 51% is hardly worthy of a vote or an FoS, but the statement "you are more likely to be scum than town" is true because 51 > 49. The statement "you are more likely to be scum than random" is also true because 51 > 50.

[Artem]

Artem: I think Herod is likely scum.
Herod: Why?
Artem: This reason.
Herod: That's a bad reason.
Artem: You're right.
Herod: But if you think I'm likely scum, why aren't you voting for me?
Artem: Fine <vote>.
Herod: But your reason still sucks.
Artem: Yeah, so?

Yep. That more or less sums it up. He reeeally wanted a vote, so I gave it to him because getting into "Your reason is bad, you should vote me" vs. "My reason is bad; I'm not gunna" argument would have been retarded. Giving a vote to somebody who's asking for it against your own desire is always more interesting.

Unvote

, because I now understand how he can both agree that my reason is weak and think that I should vote him. Hero, as I said in my previous post, the meta difference gave you a scum point. A single point is not enough for an FoS or a vote, but you have more scum points than townie points, making "you're more likely scum than town" a true statement.

----------------------------------------------------

@SpyreX:

Here's what I said:

That's right. With my current playstyle, I tend to do a lot of watching early in the game and a lot of playing when the game picks up. I've recently learned that my biggest pitfall in scum-hunting is getting a strong townie-tell from somebody and then being reluctant of letting it go (which occasionally ends up nipping me in the butt), so I'm trying harder to re-evaluate those who I'm getting townie vibes from.

Here's how you interpreted it:

A good townie isn't going to be set in stone. As information is presented reads should, and will, change. Telling people "my reads change" is a duh at best...and, of course, there is definitely reasons a scum would go in essence:

"I'm going to totally bus my buddy but if it doesn't bite I am going to "change my read" and feel that he is town."

Further, show how this twisting can't possibly happen.

Well, for one you could try reading what I wrote. I was saying that I'm generally reluctant of letting townie reads go, so I'm trying harder this game. How exactly you translated that into "I'm going to bus my buddy...." is beyond me.

Did you look at Open 123 (Vengeful) like I asked you to? In that game, I got a very strong townie read on one of the scums and didn't let go of it the entire game. Tajo (town) kept trying to convince me but I wouldn't budge, so we ended up lynching the other scum, who (hooray us) ended up being the godfather. But the point I walked away with was that I need to re-evaluate my townie reads. This is the point I was trying to share and this is the point that you so graciously bastardized.

not sharing yet. I want to see if other players find reasons to vote for him or not.

Sure.

Vote: SpyreX

His "You said that scums use wagons, so you wanting a wagon must mean you're scum. DURRR!" and his twisting of my words are good enough reasons for me. He's either really stubborn and doesn't want to see my point of view, or he's a scummerson with an agenda.

[Artem]

Yep. Thats been my whole point.

Not anything about your play as a whole and this bandwagon jumping.

What changed between the first time "I twisted your words" and this post where you actually vote?

(Hint: Its Adel's vote)

I'd say trap sprung but my lord.

Ok, you caught me. I want you hung up high until your legs stop kicking. Darn, wish my vote was a little more subtle.

Adel voted for you too? How grand!

You what else? Korts has expressed interest in reiterating his points against you. Wish he'd hurry up and voted you.

Sarcasm aside, you're way too stubborn to be town (especially in this group). You haven't even tried putting any effort into understanding what town motivations I may have. No, it's all scum motivations, somehow.....

-3.) Bandwagoning is a great scum tactic. You said this. YOU SAID THIS ARGGGHHH.

Just a gloating scum that wouldn't even consider the opposite point. Should I list every single early wagon I've seen and point out the scum on them? You yourself said that early wagons lead to unnecessary claims. So why not start a wagon and see who's going to request/demand a claim? You don't think that would be beneficial to town? Wagons = good. End of story. Scums use wagons, so we get wagons, we get scums. Me wanting a wagon for this reason does not f-ing make me scum.

This isn't just "town" above. You're actively saying you're going to reset back to null and see what happens. Get where that has a definite scum motivation.

Not to mention three paragraphs on the subject. Kudos for not mentioning the rest of it.

So, back when I asked you to consider 186-187, you said: "And I missed those two little posts in not checking for posts while I was typing. It doesn't really change anything in my mind though."

Now, you come up with the exact little piece of my quote that you decided to use in your "case". If I'm guilty of only quoting a part of my post when saying that you're bastardizing my words, then you're guilty of only absorbing a part (whichever part serves your scummy little agenda) of my post without paying attention the general message/point of the whole post. Yes, good townies should be open to changing reads. No, it doesn't come naturally to me. Yes, Open 123 is an example of it (and no it's not "I totally am changing this because I lost as town hence I am town now"; you should probably get yourself new midgets, because I won Open 123 as town).

-------------------------------------------

I don't even care anymore. This game is supposed to be fun. Instead, I'm irritated to no end. In every game where I try and post more than once a day to play the f-ing game, some douche starts pushing bunk against me. ( http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10182 and http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8600 , if you want other examples of activity = irritation). Score 1-0 for lurking.

I'm tired of this shit, so I'm just going to go back to watching, since it seems that the less I participate, the more fun I have.

[Artem]

Alright, I took a day away from the game to cool off. Let's try this again, hopefully with less emotion.

Which, get this, follows what I've been saying about your voting patterns.

1.) Ectomancer says porkens didn't "stick to his vote".
- You repeat said sentiment and vote.

2.) Adel votes for Herod
- You then build your "case" (and dont vote until Herod goes wtf)

3.) I vote for you, give reasons.
- You then rebut. At this point you say I'm 'twisting' your words and bastardizing your statements.
- Adel votes for me
- You THEN vote for me

This would have been a good point, if my vote hopping had been opportunistic, but it wasn't:
1) I liked Ecto's sentiment and decided that Porkens would be a good place to start the first bandwagon because, you guessed it, bandwagons are good. I explicitly stated that I had no intention of seeing Proken's lynched over the said sentiment.
2) As I said many times, Hero did not deserve a vote, but he was asking for one. It is part of my personality to do what I did (i.e., stick my tongue out and vote him). Since I voted him, I decided to bring up the other things I have been mulling over at the time. Adel's vote on Hero had nothing to do with anything, and I certainly wasn't going to pursue a Hero lynch with my vote/case.
3) Here's the way I see it. You're either a) a dense townie, who doesn't see my point of view, but who nevertheless is pursuing a lead (as somebody said), or b) a scum, who is purposedly closing his ears to my PoV because you need somebody to "sink your teeth in". Currently, I'm leaning towards b). Yes, I unvoted Hero and voted you after Adel posted his vote. However, I was still going to do it on Tuesday morning, because I've decided to bring the Hero thing to a closure.

Which brings up a question: Hero, why are you still voting me? You said your reasons are different. I would like to hear them, because I've explained to you how I can both see you as more scum than town and see you as not deserving a vote, which is what I understand your main reason for voting me is. Currently, it feels like you've parked your vote.

I'll raise that with "too wishy-washy to be town"

I'm not being wishy-washy. Quite the opposite, I've been saying the same things over and over for pages now:
-Porken's consideration of voting Spring, but not doing so is mildly scummy;
-Wagons are good;
-I struggle with not letting townie reads go;
-Hero's meta does not make Hero deserve a vote;
-When Hero asked for a vote, I brought up all the other things I was thinking about that related to him;
-SpyreX is being stubborn in not wanting to consider my PoV;

Checking the list.... yep, still stand by every single one of those. Not wishy-washy.

The meta is also off. I contributed much more unprompted in both games we were in.

I don't think the meta was off when I made that post. Yes, now that you've avoided posting content for pages, the meta is off, but who's to say you didn't do it on purpose so that you can make this argument?

I also think his defence face Spyrex's case is not good, it is overly exasperated at some point, and make emotional 'I'm intimidated' appeal at other.

The only place I've said "I'm intimidated with the cast" was when I was explaining to Vi why my posts are concise and unsure. Can you please quote where I used "I'm intimidated" appeal in my defense against SpyreX?

Incidentally, rereading the game, I saw Herodotus 32. You know, the post where he votes with the popular wagon.

Yes, I missed that post when I was drawing up the theory. When Hero first mentioned it, I went back and checked. Yes, it was the fourth vote on SpyreX, which undermines the theory. But you'll note that I'm not pushing the theory any further. As I've said many times already, it was one of the things I was mulling over that I decided to bring up since Hero asked for a vote.

[Artem]

Missed this:

I'm having a hard time reconciling some arguments here. So, bandwagoning early D1 is a good thing... but it's easy to catch scum because they pile onto the early wagon? And if bandwagoning is pro-Town, why hasn't Artem been doing it in any effective way? Motions, meet spirit.

Let me give you a concrete example. Mini 727: the first wagon is on me. I get brought up to L-1 and asked to claim. I claim, the wagon on me dies and forms on another townie, who again gets brought up to L-1 and asked to claim. Guess what? One of the two people who are pushing the claims is a scum. SpyreX mentioned that it's any scums wet dream to do that. But it's not just some fantasy, it really does happen, but the only way for it to happen is for there to be a bandwagon. You can't exactly ask somebody to claim when they are sitting at L-4.

Regarding the second question: first, I'm only a single player. I can't make a bandwagon happen all by myself. Second, there are people who disagree with your sentiment. Check out SpyreX's and Porkens's arguments: I'm voting for whoever is more popular at the time. So which is it? Am I happily jumping on every wagon that comes along or am I completely abstinent while promoting bandwagons from the sidelines?

[Artem]

@Vi: I don't think there's a formula for identifying scum on bandwagon, because if there were, scum wouldn't do what the formula says.

Wagons do accomplish several things though:
-They split the town into two categories: those on wagon and those off. This is useful for later analysis when the person wagoned has been cardflipped. If the cardflip is a mafia, you can ask questions like "Was player X bussing here?". If the cardflip is a townie, you can ask "Was this a parked vote?" In my opinion, both are valuable to scum-hunting;
-They identify the people who are eager to go after the wagoners, especially those that put the wagonee at L-1 and L-2. This is useful in the future also, because you can identify players that are a little over-eager to "catch scum", so they pile in on the first opportunity;
-They identify players who like to ask for claims when a person reaches L-1 without any good reason, they may even be the people who placed the L-1. This may be useful in identifying role-fishers in the future (i.e., a player who is consistently looking for ways to get people to claim).

In short, wagons are useful in generating content that can be analyzed in hindsight. The actual details pertain to any particular game/bandwagon. I know it sounds cliche to say "I just wanted to make a bandwagon and see what happens", but I'm afraid that's how it goes most of the time early in D1. Is it effective? Well, depends on the wagon. Look at my vote for SpyreX. SpyreX is already gloating that I've sprang some sort of a trap? How does he know it was a trap? Adel has been quite mysterious throughout most of the game. I see a couple of potential outcomes from me "following" his vote. Adel could come out, explain the trap, then vote me. Adel could also come out and bring out some meta that show SpyreX being a lot less stubborn when playing town and side with me, confirming his vote on SpyreX. In either case, the game is going to progress along some avenue, which I argue is quite a bit more "effective" than all these "Player A doing action B makes my stomach C and player D does nothing but lurk. Lynch E, Kthnxbai, see you tomorrow when I'm going to make another post like this" posts we've been seeing.

[Artem]

EBWOP:

time early in D1.

paragraph break

Is it effective?

[Artem]

@Vi:
Analyze the reasons for votes on first wagon and the players who begin attacking those reasons.

@Porkens:
-Have you never seen an early wagon where everybody knows that the person won't get lynched? (I have examples if you haven't). I simply stated the fact/sentiment explicitly.
-For two posts in a row, you've basically echoed what SpyreX said towards me. I think you're being hypocritical here when you say I don't do anything on my own.

@SpyreX:
-Why would I vote for Porkens or Hero with a desire to see them lynched? They haven't done anything scummy enough to lynch them?
-You're saying that you're wasting your time with me. I don't see you pursuing anything else.

@SL:
-How was I supposed to know you were V/LA when you never warned us about it? Besides, my meta was based on your (low) frequency of posting, not your lack of posting. In both previous games you posts have been scarce compared to the majority of other players. (you yourself told Kair that quantity != quality). This is what I remembered and this is what I noticed here.
-I don't know if you purposely avoided posting content to implicate that my meta was off, but the thought crossed my mind. Simply dismissing it with a "lol, scummy" strikes me as odd and not pro-town though.

@Hero:
-Asking for vote reasons is not anti-wagon and hence not inconsistent. Now if I get lynched, there's you saying you parked your vote in writing, which can be analyzed later.

"Player A doing action B makes my stomach C and player D does nothing but lurk. Lynch E, Kthnxbai, see you tomorrow when I'm going to make another post like this"

Porken's, Tajo's, and Korts's posts fall under this, in my opinion.

Mmm.....

Unvote; Vote: Porkens

. I think the contribution is lacking and I dislike him sniping at me from under SpyreX's wing, while saying that I'm unable to vote/unvote on my own. Look, ma, I voted all by myself!

[Artem]

@Porkens:

Post 225: SpyreX talks about me following other people in my votes;
Post 226: You tell me that I haven't voted or unvoted on my own;

Post 256: SpyreX talks about my voting and not wanting to see a lynch;
Post 257: You ask me what the point of a wagon/vote is if you don't want to see a lynch;

Now you tell me that I missed the point. If your point is the obvious one: you don't know what wagons are useful for, then I gave you three things that can come out of them in 254. The second thing requires a cardflip, the first and the third doesn't.

The only other point I see is a sideways cast of suspicion on me, because SpyreX finds my votes scummy, so you want to fan the flame.

[Artem]

@SL:

Here's my list of most scummy to least scummy.

Porkens-

After the whole joke ordeal, Porkens has not been contributing much of original content. He had a few posts consisting basically of "Such and such makes me shake my head", "Such and such makes my gut clench". Any kind of scum-hunting that comes from him has been a reiteration of somebody else's thoughts:

-In 209, he is not happy with me not wanting to vote Hero, yet doing so. Point has been previously covered by Hero.
-In 209, mentions Spring's "MOD: scum can communicate?" question. Ok, he was first to mention this. I'll give him that.
-In 226, puts more screws on Adel for promising content. Point has been previously covered by numerous players.
-In 226, identifies Spring as posting nothing but "will re-read" content. Calling out lurkers is hardly original.
-In 226, says that I have not voted or unvoted on my own. Point has been previously covered by SpyreX.
-In 243, asks SL to provide content assuming the mod question has been answered affirmatively. The point has been previously covered by Troll.
-In 259, calls Tajo fence-sitting. Original point.
-In 259, asks me what good the wagon are if they don't end up in a lynch. This is immediately after I explain to Vi what wagons accomplish. The only thing he's doing here is fanning the flame from SpyreX.

Him saying that I don't vote or unvote on my own is a little hypocritical giving that all he's doing is echoing others' sentiments from the sidelines.

His vote on me feels like "Eh. Everybody's voting him. I might as well." and also borders on OMGUS.

Porkens, what point did I miss?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tajo and, to a lesser extent, Korts.

Basically active lurkers.

Tajo's 246, which is his biggest "catch up" post basically has the same stuff as Porkens's earlier play: plenty of opinions, very minimal scum-hunting.

Korts is not much better. His posts are full paragraphs instead of one-liners and are sprinkled with some game theory. Other than that, it's mostly opinions. For example, in the post where he votes me, I can't find a single question/point to address in an attempt to defend myself.

Opinions are nice and all but they don't progress the game. Scum-hunting is done via questions, either implicit or explicit. Both players are lacking in that aspect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hero-

Gained a few scummy points with his latest "I'm parking a vote on you. So what? Shouldn't you be happy since you like wagons. Your behavior is inconsistent" post. Went to lurking after the whole ordeal with me. Next to zero scum-hunting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SpyreX-

While I still maintain that he's refusing to see the town motivation behind my actions, the fact that his vote is the only one backed by detailed reasons buys him some townie points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spring-

Good posts and attempts at scum-hunting, but several things seem off.
-Still hasn't replied to the question: assume the mod answered yes, what are the connections that you're seeing between players? The further the answer is delayed, the more inclined I am to think that there was no such notice and the question was for show;
-"Lol, scummy" reaction to one of my points. The cynics in some players are wondering if Ecto is pulling a gambit. Why is it so much more ridiculous of me to wonder if you purposely avoided to post to make my meta read on you off? Is it not a valid thing to wonder, especially since you've never warned us about your V/LA?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the players give me either a null or a townie read. If you want me to go into detail about any of them, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not planning on town-hunting.

[Artem]

You just wrote, and I can't believe this:

Here is the list of people I find scummy: The people voting me + a lurker.

Does that make the things I presented wrong? If so, how?

2- The reason your suggestion is 'lol scummy' is as follow: you are proposing that I, as scum, threw off my meta in the interest of framing you - this is stretching and amounts to conspiracy theory.

Tell me, were I scum, what interest do I have not to play to my town meta which garnered a town read from you?

Isn't this WIFOM?

Sure, the theory may be a little stretching, but your reaction to it piques my interest.

As far as I believe; wagons are only useful if they have the potential to end in lynches.

So I ask you again, have you never seen wagons where it's obvious that the player is not going to be lynched? I simply stated that explicitly. I explained what wagons are good for in 254. Two of the things I gave don't require the person to be lynched (i.e., 1) Divison of players into on-wagon and off-wagon categories; 2) Prematurely asking for a claim.)

Can you explain your vote on me? If you didn't mean to attack me, then I don't understand why you're voting me if we're having a simple misunderstanding.

Wait, what? I've been putting Artem down as frustrated Town up until now. Reading it again... You seem right. The post before it seemed like it was at terms with Herodotus as well. Artem?

I hate to admit it, but yes, frustration was a contributing factor to the SpyreX's vote. If you're talking about timing, then I first started to get frustrated with him in 189, where he was gloating over an obviously wrong point.

I disagree entirely.

WAGON FISHING ALERT

MAN YOUR STATIONS

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

And aren't you just as stubborn, anyway?

Ok, didn't realize that the answer to these was not obvious:

[sarcasm]

Ok, you caught me. I want you hung up high until your legs stop kicking. Darn, wish my vote was a little more subtle.

Adel voted for you too? How grand!

You what else? Korts has expressed interest in reiterating his points against you. Wish he'd hurry up and voted you.

[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm aside

, you're way too stubborn to be town (especially in this group). You haven't even tried putting any effort into understanding what town motivations I may have. No, it's all scum motivations, somehow.....

You're either a) a dense townie, who doesn't see my point of view, but who nevertheless is pursuing a lead (as somebody said), or b) a scum, who is purposedly closing his ears to my PoV because you need somebody to "sink your teeth in". Currently, I'm leaning towards b).

I'm considering both points of view, which makes me non-stubborn.

Could you precisely define "scumhunting" for me?

Identifying scummy behavior and following it up with explicit, or implicit (but obvious) questions.

"Sure, but given that I have a somewhat scummy read on you, I don't see that as a bad thing. You're at three votes, and you consider wagons to be pro-town, so you should be happy; again your response looks inconsistent with a town alignment. " I do not like how you left out some critical parts of what I said.

Alright, the "so what?" part may have been an oversimplification, but I think I got the spirit of your post right.

[Artem]

I don't quite agree with this, but this raises an interesting question. What is your opinion on Adel?

I'm not sure. I'm still waiting for the "reveal", both in terms of what information he got out of our answers, as well as his reasons for voting SpyreX and Porkens. Although, based on what he said, I can already guess the reasons.

Although it seems like a good scum tactic to stay mysterious and appear busy, I think that such gambit will only last so long before the other players catch onto the fact that very little information has been revealed. As such, I'm having a null/slightly-town read on Adel, but with every passing day that he withholds information, I would be more and more inclined to consider him as scum.

In short, time will tell.

[Artem]

@Vi: How do

you

define scum-hunting?

@Porkens:

Once again; if you know the wagon isn't going to end in a lynch, what's the point? That's like A pointing a gun at B (one that everyone involved knows is not loaded), and people making decisions based on A and B's actions.

A wagon that isn't going to end in a lynch still a) separates the players into those on and the wagon and those off the wagon; and b) sets up a scenario where scum may be inclined to request an early claim;

Besides, even if I explicitly state that I don't want a certain wagon to end in a lynch, doesn't mean others who are sitting on it share the same sentiment.

@Artem: Your vote would be very comfortable on Herod! Come on over ^_^ Porkens' vote for you lacked reasoning, but there's more votes on Herod which makes for a more effective wagon, and he's been worse overall in my opinion.

Tempting, but I think a wagon on Porkens would be more interesting at the moment. Herodotus has been very much on a defensive lately. Porkens, though, hasn't really made an original case on anybody, yet he accused me of not voting or unvoting on my own.

I want a rough stance from everyone on {Spring, Troll, Herod, Korts}.

I've already given my stance on three of those. Troll strikes me as pro-town. I like that he sticks to his guns when challenged about his points/playstyle.

Who would I be buddying up with, and how?

Your perpetual defense of me does feel a little bit like buddying, but I have also seen plenty of town-town fights that got out of hand, so your arguments have merit.

Also, I would like to know (for people that have played with him) if this is the normal Herodotus.

No, but I've played with him once only and in a newbie game at that. We've already covered this.

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that s-lullaby deliberately stalled her post until Wednesday when she had something ready(ish) on Monday. Calling someone out for lurking is simple enough, but you seem to be giving a somewhat detailed schedule of s-lully's lurking...?

For what it's worth, I also had a feeling that SL was going to post soon after getting an answer to her "Could scum communicate prior to game start?". I think this is why I had the thought of her deliberately throwing her meta off when she didn't.

[regarding SL] she posts when someone asks her something.

Told you so.

Bandwagons are good.

And then you accuse me of not voting or unvoting on my own? Tsk, tsk.

[Artem]

What I found curious about your accusations after asking you to define scumhunting is that nowhere did you mention that the observations had to be original, which along with having a vendetta against question marks was one of your primary complaints about Porkens. Talking of whom, I need to take a look at him tonight.

It was a vendetta against the

lack

of question marks, because, as we've seen with Korts, I can't always make out whether I should answer a statement to which the answer is already obvious.

But you have a point, Porkens is scumhunting according to my definition of scumhunting. But I still maintain that all he's doing is parroting other people's reasons from the sidelines. To me, that's scummy, especially when he hypocritically calls me out on not having original votes/unvotes.

I like his tongue-in-a-cheek response to why he's voting me. I just don't think it's pro-town, because I doubt that was the original reason for voting me.

[Artem]

Tajo: what part of 287 do you want me to elaborate on?

[Artem]

Actually, now that you're posting, and Hero

still

hasn't picked up an offensive weapon, I'd swap you two in ordering. So, I'd like to see Porkens, Hero and Korts lynched, in that order.

SpyreX, you (Tajo) and SL are just FOS-worthy at this point.

[Artem]

@Tajo: you asked me about my suspicions. Why? It feels like you dropped the subject.

Open question: Does an argument necessarily lose credibility because someone else said it first?

No, not necessarily.

But...

All of the votes on Adel are due to Adel being mysterious and withholding information (except SpyreX, who I think is voting Adel due to an inconsistent view of Tajo). While each new vote is based on the same reason as the previous one, the reason is legit and so are the votes. However, that makes it all the easier for scum to use the same reason (which still has credibility) to hop on Adel's wagon if Adel is town.

Porkens has been echoing a lot of sentiments that other players have. While each one may be a valid concern and having a second person echo it may be good, repeatedly doing so without generating own original content is a scumtell to me. (or at least a laziness-tell, but why would town be lazy in this game?)

@Adel: I think you should be more in-depth about your reasoning. It's hard to understand what you're thinking from one-liners. It's great that you have everybody's alignments figured out in your head, but you can't expect everybody else to take your reads seriously if you don't provide details.

Somebody mentioned that you like long posts. When I first saw that, I thought that you like to post long posts, which has not been the case so far? Do you only like to read long posts, or was that somebody wrong (I should probably go back and find the quote)? Or what?

Why should townies not be "fabricating" things, if it could lead to useful information?

But more likely it will lead to confusion and the lynching of the said townie.

Hero: Was your post 31 fabricated? If so, for what reason?
Tajo: Why do you think post 31 was fabricated?

@Spring: post

[Artem]

The difference is that you were accusing me of following somebody else with my

votes/unvotes

. I'm accusing you of following others in your

arguments

. What original case have you brought to the table besides pointing out that Tajo was sitting on the fence?

Your recent vote for Adel is no different.

[Artem]

I'm here. Had V/LA over the weekend. Will post later today.

[Artem]

I've been asking Adel to come out with her analysis for at least 10(?) pages.

As well as a handful other players. How is your asking any different?

@Adel:

You said that there was no scum-driven competing wagon to my wagon. Do you think the wagon on you is/was a scum-driven attempt to derail Hero's wagon?

Somebody mentioned that you like long posts. When I first saw that, I thought that you like to post long posts, which has not been the case so far? Do you only like to read long posts, or was that somebody wrong (link)? Or what?

Answer plox.

@Ecto:

You congratulated Adel in the game he cited. Here, you're saying that graphs and charts rarely help you find scum. Why does this raise an inconsistency flag for me?

@Spring:

...will elaborate later

Guess what? It's later.

@Hero:

Ditto SpyreX's question 2) about downplaying the importance of numbers.

2.) I discussed nicknames in order to make your counts more accurate, and pronouns in order to provide more perspective on the effective precision of the counts.

I don't think this answers it well. We don't need 100% accurate counts to get a rough idea of who's talking about whom and how much.

If players A and B are both town, and player A had said player B needs to die, "PLZ K THX", then as scum, I'd try to keep both players A and B alive. As things stand right now, unless you're scum, then we have a problem, which is that you're liable to give the scum the extra vote on me they could use later, particularly in LYLO. Of course, the same could be said for a lot of people, but you're the one I'm most worried about, since PT is much more likely scum than you are.

Day 1 opinions will almost certainly change over the course of the game. Scum who's banking on them is not bright scum.

I unvoted Artem so that he would not be forced to claim prematurely.

I don't claim prematurely, unless I'm a miller / self-watcher or any other role that is inherent to my existence rather than action. In fact, I've spent a lot of energy in a lot of games arguing against Day 1 L-1 claims, because I think they are largely pointless.

Sure, you don't know that unless you've read the games I've been in, but if the sole reason for your unvote is a claim concern, then why have you not pursued any other points that you find suspicious against me? You're saying that over time you changed your mind about how suspicious I am, but you have not pushed a single point against me after your unvote/fos of me. How exactly is that "over time" and not "instantaneous"?

@Elmo:

I do find it interesting, but I'm chewing on it a bit more. I think it might be interesting to find the lowest # of interactions and try and force them in some way.

3.) The Artem-Elmo 3 / Elmo-Artem 39.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to feel about Elmo's continued defense of me, so I've generally been leaving it unanswered.

Unvote

. A lot has happened and I need to reevaluate how I feel about the players.

[Artem]

Interesting. Could you link to any discussion you've made of this (in which you were town?)

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 01#1149801
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 46#1197146
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 42#1325342
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 58#1615558

Artem, you simply haven't done anything that looks scummy to me since I unvoted you. Pushing a point against you for something that isn't scummy because of my earlier ideas would have been confirmation bias.

Well, then you unvoted me because you no longer found me suspicious, not because you didn't want a premature claim. Right?

[Artem]

What do you think?

How much attention has my wagon received relative to other wagon that were at two votes, and had peaked at three votes?

So, I'm going to pull the same trick on you as you did on Porkens.

Can you please post your chart for this game for, oh I don't know, posts 375 onward?

Please do it ASAP.

[Artem]

Adel, the fact that you didn't have a chart that was concurrent with the game is actually a point against you.

I think that a lot of votes on you were because players suspected that you were pretending to be busy running some deep analysis in the background. So when it turns that you don't even have a chart, which according to you is the how you play this game, then I'm more inclined to side with the sentiment that a lot of the mystery was for show.

Of course, now if Hero flips scum, I'd be more inclined to buy into the scum-driven derailing of Hero's wagon, which would buy you townie points.

[Artem]

All aboard for the last bus.

Are you talking in the mirror there buddy?

[Artem]

Huh, I'm not sure how to respond to this. 'No?' is my initial position, since I was talking specifically, and obviously, to y'all.

I don't think it was obvious. You quoted me right before saying "all aboard for the last bus". To me, that was implying that I was busing my scum-buddy.

You also seem pretty confident that Herod is gunna flip scum yet you weren't on his wagon.

I think my stance on Hero was pretty clear without a vote.

[Artem]

@514: Aaah... I see now.

Still, I don't think it makes sense. Why would a wagon start building up on Adel while Hero is under pressure, but not when I was under pressure? People finally had enough of it... all of a sudden? No, I think if Hero flips scum, Adel is town.

[Artem]

sima-posted with[quote="Artem"

I think my stance on Hero was pretty clear without a vote.

have I been defending the wrong guy for the last half of this day?[/quote]

Dude! Post 367.

[Artem]

@Porkens:

505- The post is about things that give Adel scummy points (his lack of a concurrent chart) and things that (can/will) give Adel townie points (Herodotus flipping scum). I don't know if Hero will flip scum. If he does, I think Adel is town but then there's a lingering problem with the lack of the chart. If H. flips town, that doesn't automatically make Adel scum (since there were quite a few people attacking Hero, myself including).

511- is not a serious accusation because I'm not taking your accusation of me bussing Hero seriously.

Besides, what's this confused business? It seems that you're changing your story on the fly. How can you possible confuse "y'all" with "Artem"? "Adel" and "Artem" is understandable, but "y'all"???

[Artem]

@Atrem: what did you hope to gain by making that statement?

Same thing you're hoping to gain with your "we should look at X and Y". I'm explaining possible connections between players that can be looked back at.

[Artem]

If I had a bullet and Hero flips town I'd shoot: Porkens or Ecto
If I had a bullet and Hero flips scum I'd shoot: Korts

[Artem]

What is the Korts / Hero connection?

There isn't one. That's the thing. Hero -> Korts = 4, Korts -> Hero = 14. They've been tiptoeing around each other all game. Hero didn't talk about Korts, while Korts mostly agreed with Hero on points against me back during me/Hero argument.

[Artem]

Dang. 77 pages.

Good game, all. Sorry I blew up there.