Mini 1341 - Game Over!

[jee]

The possibility that mafia waited with confirming to gain more time for pregame discussion makes Mafuyu slightly more likely to be scum then the other players in the game at this point in time.

Vote Mafuyu

I'm down

VOTE: Mafuyu

[jee]

Instead, you claim that your random vote had pro-town purpose (of trying to get discussion going). There are more helpful ways you could have voted (even randomly) than voting based on someone's name, so why would you try to claim pro-town credit for doing something that isn't pro-town at all?

This response just strikes me as something scum would be slightly more likely to say than town.

Vote brundibar

, semi serious vote.

Really? You're going to say random voting is scummy? Do you realize that every game opens that way? If random voting is scummy, then I must be hunting all wrong. And... semi serious? That reasoning seems serious, why is the voted only semi?

@nhammen: I don't have that many games on this website to even answer those questions. Sorry.

[jee]

jee, it seems to me that ICE's argument is slightly differently then you seem to believe.

Also, what's your opinion on bandwagoning in the early game?

I don't believe it is. He said

Just trying to get discussion going. A lot of talking with no voting seems ineffective.

While I agree with this, explain to me how voting for someone based on their name generates discussion. I mean sure, if it was a random vote because of shits 'n giggles, great, that's fine. Lots of players enjoy doing that regardless of alignment and it's just for amusement.

Instead, you claim that your random vote had pro-town purpose (of trying to get discussion going).

There are more helpful ways you could have voted (even randomly) than voting based on someone's name, so why would you try to claim pro-town credit for doing something that isn't pro-town at all?

This response just strikes me as something scum would be slightly more likely to say than town.

Vote brundibar

, semi serious vote.

He's saying brundibar of having pro-town motivations with his answer of 'to get discussion going', yet accusing of doing it wrong because he voted someone and mentioned his name. In the bolded part, ICE even says even a random vote is more useful. I don't see how a vote based on a name in the first few posts is any less random than just saying 'vote: x'. He's contradicting himself.

I'm okay with bandwagoning in early game. Many times a bandwagon is how to get a game out of RVS. And more times than not, you can look at the votes on a bandwagon and help narrow down a scum search. Scum usually can be found riding the wagon.

Not a fan of the defensiveness here. Please link your completed games. You don't have the excuse of "I have too many to count."

I completed one game on this website in 2009, I have a lot more experience playing epicmafia. I'll try finding the game...

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=12714

Summary if I remember correctly: I was doc, I was on the right track and had the scum picked out but the IC (who ended up being scum) of the game said, 'I wouldn't be allowed to play this hard since I'm the IC, and VKR wouldn't let me do that'. Being a new player, I thought that a comment like this would be cleared up from the mod. That never happened and it turned the town away from him. After the game ended with a scum win, the mod apologized for the IC playing dirty, but I still like to count it as a town win.

Really? You're going to say random voting is scummy?

Michael is spot on here, you seem to have no clue why I found what he did scummy. Please review my reasoning for voting him. You'll note that I never once call random voting scummy.

I did reread, and I still mean what I said. Explanation can be seen at beginning of this post.

Why should a newbie not recognize that voting for someone based on their name is useless? Your first vote, while still definitely RVS, showed that there was a factor that made a specific player more likely to be scum than others, despite a severe lack of information. Maybe not everyone has the ability to find something as such this early in the game, WHICH IS FINE, but when someone goes and claims that they made an RVS vote based on someone's name and playing it off to get town cred is just fishy.

@ICE, Voting based on the name is still random voting. Do you honestly believe brundibar was trying to lynch someone strictly based on a name? I hope not. You pick name a from the list, and you give a random reason for the vote. Voting based on name is still random voting.

[jee]

Also, seeing as Mafuyu is still unconfirmed, Michel's original reason for voting him (that I wagoned) holds less validity.

UNVOTE; VOTE: IceNinja

[jee]

Jee you are obviously confused. I did not vote him because he random voted someone based on their name. I voted him because he tried to look pro-town by claiming that his actions got discussion going. Town wants to get discussion going. Scum wants to look pro-town. By claiming he was trying to get discussion going, he's trying to look pro-town.

Get it now?

So whats your reasoning for the vote on me now?

His actions were with the intent of getting discussion going. That's why people use RVS. Hence why he said he's trying to get discussion going. I don't see how anything he did was a bad thing. He was asked why he random voted, he answered by saying he's trying to get discussion going. By answering the question, he is getting discussion going.

My vote is on you because it was useless on Mafuyu, and you are currently the person on my radar for reasons I have been questioning in this thread thus far.

[jee]

It's not that I can't focus on anything else, its that people don't understand WHY I'm voting for you. It seems like I've clearly explained that

that it wasn't the vote that was scummy, as I've said many times, it was the claiming that the name-based-RVS-voting move he made advances the game forward, instead of admitting it was just an amusing remark that people often like to do to start games off

, but some people still seem to be hung up on this and believe I voted for you simply because you made an RVS vote.

I understand what you are saying, not the vote that's scummy.. got it. I am disagreeing with you that the random name based vote doesn't create discussion (we are discussing it pretty heavily right now are we not?). It is widely believed that the discussion can be created by random voting, doesn't matter why the vote happened, just that it happened. Wagons can be created, awkward defenses can be made, scum can be found. I don't seen anything wrong with what brundibar making a name based vote and saying it will help with discussion.

I feel like it is going to be very easy to just write Michel off as town, as his posting does indeed seem quite pro-town. However, I will keep a close eye on his motivations and look past the well reasoned and thoughtful posting, as he is likely to post in such a way regardless of alignment.

Wait, what? How can you make town alignment judgement calls this early in the game? Michel has only posted a total of four posts. Please do not try to direct/mislead everyone's attention.

I am happy where my vote is.

[jee]

Also,

I feel like it is going to be very easy to just write Michel off as town, as his posting does indeed

seem quite pro-town

. However, I will keep a close eye on his motivations and look past the well reasoned and thoughtful posting, as he is likely to post in such a way regardless of alignment.

Then earlier,

Jee you are obviously confused. I did not vote him because he random voted someone based on their name. I voted him because he tried to look pro-town by claiming that his actions got discussion going. Town wants to get discussion going.

Scum wants to look pro-town

. By claiming he was trying to get discussion going, he's trying to look pro-town.

You're not making any sense here.

[jee]

Got it now. Didn't read 'just'. Looked like you were already 'writing him off as town'. My apologies for the latest post.

[jee]

@pecanpie, regarding jee vote: The vote of jee on Mafuyu does strike me as slightly suspicious. I originally thought it might have been made for the purpose of bandwagoning, but jee's comments on my bandwagoning question didn't mention anything about drawing reactions from either the player being voted or the other players in the game.

What I meant by 'Many times a bandwagon is how to get a game out of RVS' was, the reactions of people create discussion. I apologize for not elaborating at the time I wrote that.

As a serious vote, it also doesn't really fly, because he didn't acknowledge the possibility of Mafuyu's behaviour being caused by inactivity (something he was aware of, as his later switch shows). So basically, he's using my reasoning as an excuse to place a random vote. This seems more concerned with appearances then with scumhunting, and is therefore slightly more likely to come from scum, IMO.

I made the vote an hour after you did. There was no way to tell that Mafuyu was inactive or not at that pointt. Later in the game, I decided my vote was not doing anything sitting on an unconfirmed player, and I switched it.

[jee]

So jee, mind telling me why your vote is on me? You seemed to try to find a reason to have a vote on me after putting your vote on me, but it was obviously a flawed reason.

I retracted the most recent 'pro-town' argument. The original argument still stands. I believe a vote based on a name is just as random as any other vote that early in the game.

People currently of interest to me are jee & nhammen, nhammen for my reasons stated above & jee for being so eager to jump on a wagon with no explanation until prompted. In his favour, the explanation he later provided makes sense & combined with his change of vote he appears unafraid of attention. On the other hand, the fact that he changed so fast (& after the wagon stalled) & switched to another seems a little wagon-happy & that doesn't sit well with me. I'll be back tomorrow with more & hopefully some stronger opinions.

I didn't switch to another wagon. I voted ICE who had 0 votes at the time.

Actually I agree that Michel is the towniest person right now. His arguments have been very well reasoned and are either from a town perspective or a scum who is acting like a very good town player. Also, are you seriously saying that you don't want people to try to determine alignments yet?

As I pointed out in a later post, I read his comment wrong. I read it as him already clearing Michel as town. I agree with trying to determine alignments, at page 2 though, I don't think it is beneficial to be posting them. It seems like it can be planted to mislead.

----------

@SV: I like the way your thoughts are going. What's your opinion on Alduskel pressuring pine for not answering nhammen's question?

What do you like about his thoughts? Looking at SV's post, it contains a whole lot of nothing. The "scumpoints to anyone who answered nhammen's questions" part has already been said. The rest of the post is pretty empty.

[jee]

Hello again Arugula.

[jee]

I believe a vote based on a name is just as random as any other vote that early in the game.

So? No one has talked about how "random" a vote is, only what the intent behind the votes are. And you still haven't explained how anything I've done even comes close to suggesting I'm scum.

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

----

The general consensus is RVS will lead to discussion. I said a vote based on a name is just as random as any other, meaning his vote was a random vote trying to get discussion going; it was exactly what he said his intentions were. I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

[jee]

Also, I am surprised that you're ignoring pine's brundibar vote.

I was waiting for a reason that he promised. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been.

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

I give up. Vote me if you want, but you still really have zero reasons for actually accusing me of scum. Sure you have a "reason" (if still confused) for voting me, but it doesn't even point to me being scum.

I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

So this makes me scum...how?

You are being suppppeeerrrrr defensive for only having one vote on you. You said you give up, but you keep asking me. I've already explained it many times. Its you accusation, I didn't like it, I voted you.

This first vote is a stretch. The second vote is iffy. Why blindly follow someone using flimsy reasoning in the RVS?

Because its RVS

I agree with your reasoning for why ICE's vote is bad. I have even stated similar reasoning before. However, do you believe bad play implies scum?

Not necessarily. I just don't have anywhere else I want my vote at the moment. I also think his extreme defensiveness is a bit odd, especially after multiple people have pointed out what I said.

My initial vote on brundibar, as I'm sure many have guessed by now, was

purely an attempt to accelerate the game

in to useful discussion as quickly as possible (and those of you who know me know that I virtually always try to do this) but now I feel there is some justification in a vote on him.

I somewhat believe this part because of you citing it is a 'semi-serious' vote. But, if your going to make a awkward accusation at someone to accelerate the game, expect to get some attention.

As far as the Pine thing, I have used that tactic before, but it was to get discussion going, not create a reaction test. I am not entirely sure how you can base a reaction from this game, on only one game from long ago. I can see you making an argument no matter what his reaction is. It seems like fishing for something to making an accusation on.

FoS: Pine.
I was going to vote for him, but I'd rather not put him to L-1 this early in day 1.

[jee]

On the other hand... you created a wagon on yourself, and scum like to ride wagons. *noting who's on it*

[jee]

SORRY FOR TRIPLE POST

But also,

UNVOTE; VOTE: quadagismedice

His only accusations on people thus far are pretty weak, or have been said multiple times.

[jee]

FoS: Pine.
I was going to vote for him, but I'd rather not put him to L-1 this early in day 1.

Why did you feel the need to tell us this?
Why don't you want to put him at L-1?
How big is your FoS?
Did you consider voting WhassupDoc before or after you considered voting Pine?

1. The last vote count showed Pine only at 3 votes. I didn't even realize the vote was going to put him at L-1 until I counted.
2. I think we need a little more discussion before we start putting someone to an L-1.
3. 70%. Lol is that how you would judge how big an FoS is?
4. After I posted the FoS on Pine. I was double checking that Pine would have actually gone to L-1, so I was looking at the most recent votes. One was Michel who was not already on Pine, and the other was quidagismedice. I went back to see who quid was voting for, and found he was not voting for anybody. So I iso'd him and saw he hasn't really been posting much of anything. The vote shortly followed.

jee - Null leaning scum - I don't like the reasoning for his first two vote on Mafuyu and ICE respectively, but his recent quag vote seemed genuine. He seemed to be sheeping and then checked himself and decided to make a small case on quag (but he didn't vote him)

I most definitely did vote quid.

@quid, any response to my most recent vote on you? You haven't addressed it yet.

[jee]

@jee: do you believe scum is more likely to be defensive then town is? Why?

Yes, because they are worried about the attention on them from the vote. They want to clear it up before anything further happens. A townie should not be as worried as scum should be. If the townie is playing with pro-town tactics and a pro-town attitude they shouldn't have to worry. They have nothing to hide, and their posts clear them.

UNVOTE quid

He made a large post about his reads. My argument (the only argument I had on him) is no longer valid.

[jee]

Sure.

jee
I was all ready to say that his various votes seem genuine to me but, reading him in ISO, I noticed that his story with regard to ICEninja changed over time in a way that implies disingenuousness. #22 to #38 his line is that ICE is calling an RV based on someone's name scummy, but in #41 he acknowledges & addresses the actual argument, he's not admitting he was mistaken, but fair enough, maybe he doesn't want to admit he's wrong. But then in #69 he returns to his previous stance, which he's already shown he knows is incorrect. That looks scummy to me.

#22 was a misunderstanding. I later figured out what he meant, but I still disagreed with his accusation. I made/kept my vote on ICE still based on the accusation.

In regards to #41 'addressing the actual argument' and 'returning to my previous stance', I would disagree with you.
In #41:

I understand what you are saying, not the vote that's scummy.. got it. I am disagreeing with you that the random name based vote doesn't create discussion (we are discussing it pretty heavily right now are we not?). It is widely believed that the discussion can be created by random voting, doesn't matter why the vote happened, just that it happened. Wagons can be created, awkward defenses can be made, scum can be found.

I don't seen anything wrong with what brundibar making a name based vote and saying it will help with discussion.

And in #69:

The original argument still stands.

I believe a vote based on a name is just as random as any other vote that early in the game.

The original argument is talking about my case against his accusation, not post #22. As you can see, the bold parts are still saying the same things.

Does that clear it up?

[jee]

Sorry, behind... I'll catch up soon.

[jee]

@jee: the reason I asked about defensiveness was that I got a very defensive feeling from your post #53, in particular in how you tried to rewrite your answer to my bandwagon questioning after I explained my reasons for asking. Does that influence your opinion on ICE, or do you believe there is a significant difference between the two?

My response to this would be: tone is hard to tell in text form. I wouldn't explain that post as very defensive, I was just acknowledging what you said about me and tried clearing it up. Does what influence my decision? I would say there is a difference... mine was more of an acknowledgement/explanation... his was repeatedly asking me 'What did I do wrong?' even though I have explained it to him multiple times.

[jee]

busy weekend.. will catch up tonight.

[jee]

Here's my attempt at catching up. I'm typing this as I read 'em, so if I repeat something... my bad.

Jee, it wasn't "what did I do wrong?" it was "what makes you think I'm scum?".

The stuff you pointed out did not suggest me being scum, simply doing something you didn't like.

I never once mentioned the word 'scum' in reference to you. However, as you said, I didn't like it... so I had my vote on you.

In post 151, MichelSableheart wrote:
It seems to me that there is an interesting connection between Arugula and Quidagis. In post #101 by Arugual, he lists his opinions on all players in the game. In this list, his (lack of) opinion on Quidagis stands out to me, because he has managed to form an opinion on all other players who had posted a reasonable amount at that time. Similary, Quidagis opinion on Aragula in his post #124 stand out as surprisingly positive when he is arguing back and forth over most other players.

I noticed a few similarities as well, but there are too many possible explanations for this at this time to make any alignment judgements, in my opinion. Arugula's post seemed to be a replacing in reread post (although there wasn't much that needed rereading). I did briefly consider the possibility that quid could be sort of copying the idea as a way to lay low, but there are to many other explanations at this point to say that with any real probability.

I noticed the same thing before I made my unvote. I tried linking some similarities between their two reads. But most people who posts reads about people are going have the majority of the same statements about people.


170:

I changed my opinion because I knew I'd be harrassed about it if I didn't. Kindly fuck off.

I don't really know how I can put into words how bad that is. If you have an opinion and reasons for it, then it shouldn't matter if people harass you about it. You should give them reasoning not to disagree.

You also care about how you appear rather than who you actually think is scum, so

UNVOTE: AurorusVox
171:
VOTE: Pine

You're not paying attention, are you? I didn't change my opinion about something that mattered, I changed it about whether I'd be answering nhammen's frivolous question about past games.

Again, your desire to take any excuse to jump onto a baseless, easy wagon shines through.

Please lynch this fuck tomorrow.

I'm very confused by the "Again". This is the first time Pine has ever mentioned Arugula in his posts. Maybe I'm just misreading it.
p-edit: This was addressed in post 182 by Pine.

PoPP is definitely where votes should be going right now (though I don't mind a Pine dueling wagon at all).

I don't like people telling me where my votes should be going.

Wait a sec, so concentrating wholly on scumhunting is some kind of scumtell now?

Unbelievable.

You are not concentrating on scumhunting, you are concentrating on telling people off.

Lazy is not anti-Town. Lazy is simply not pro-Town. Stop confusing the concepts.

Seems like the same thing to me.

@PoPP: The original pine wagon seemed town driven to me. If there's scum on one of the pine wagons, it's Arugula joining the current one that seems to me to be the most likely suspect.

I disagree, I don't know how many times I saw the same exact argument against Pine by all different people. It seemed like a very opportunistic wagon to jump on. Just a little paraphrasing off of other people, and then you can ride it out.

Apparently I needn't have bothered, as people wanted all along to take my response out of context. Think about it: If I'd blown it off, I'd be criticized for doing so. I answered the question, and I'm getting criticized for it. Double-fault questions are TRAPs

Seems a lot like your reaction test. As I said before, the reaction test is pretty flimsy, as you can really bend his reaction any way you want.

He claims Tracker.. ah fun.

Especially with the tracker claim, I don't want to see Pine lynched today. Scum will night kill him, which is fine because that means our strong pro-town players will survive to day 2.

Which seems like a great reason to not kill Pine tonight. If scum can knock off a bigger town threat tonight and keep the town in the dark about if Pine is actually telling the truth, that seems like a much better outcome for them.
pedit: This is addressed by Michel's 202

@Brundibar
Hammering when people agree with you isn't scummy, hammering early when more discussion can occur is scummy.

qft.

I've never encountered a double voter before. I really dislike the fact that we have 2 power roles claimed during day 1.

A doublevoter can be either alignment.
pedit: ac notes it in 236

In post 197, ac1983fan wrote:
Things can be scummy in one context but not scummy in another, and things can be potentially scummy.
True. But why post about it at all then? If you're not sure, and don't really have a good opinion about something, then often (not always -- one exception is if you want other players to help you) it is pointless to mention.

I would disagree with this. I think pointing out things is very important, although more scum hunting to back it up is nice. Many times you can just point out something because it seems fishy, and other people can piece it together (although this is your one exception you pointed out). I just feel like this one exception happens a lot more than you make it seem from the post.
@Ald, what makes the statement pointless to mention? Does the lack of opinion deter the need to point it out? Why?

@Brundibar, could you let us in on some of your reads on people? So far the only passionate thing you posted on here was the OMGUS on Pine. All other content just seems like clarifying what other people have said.

ALL CAUGHT UP! WHOOP!

[jee]

I knew you were gonna say that. And yeah, I didn't like your reasoning... It was early in the game, I didn't want my vote on anyone else. I use my vote to draw reactions, its just as handy as any other tool in the scumhunting toolbox.